to think SUGAR not fat causes heart disease and obesity

[Auti]

I've already posted here but think this is subject is very important that needs more traffic and discussion

[AdjustableWench]

A few years ago my mum gave me my grandma's cookbook. I can't use it. Almost every recipe is crammed with sugar and butter. My grandma actually cooked from this cookbook for her family, and no one was overweight, even though they must have been eating more than 3000 calories a day, as far as I can tell. They had a farm and did lots of physical work. They must have walked the equivalent of several miles a day. There was very little sitting around except on Sundays.

I keep hearing people saying that we need to reduce our calories, but when I consider how my grandparents lived, the main difference seems to be that we eat a little bit less and are much much less active. So I'm not worried about sugar or fat in particular - I just don't see where I'd find the time to get as much exercise as my grandma.

[HarveySchlumpfenburger]

My point is the advice to avoid dietary fat, in particular saturated fats, isn't totally erroneous. The science is more complicated than that.

It's not as simple as sugar equals bad, sat fat equals good. Too much of either will increase the risk of obesity and associated complications.

I did read the guardian article. It's exactly the type of reporting I was talking about.

[hackmum]

"Disagree about the media, hack mum."

So what I said was:
"What's clear from that article is that the problem isn't just to do with irresponsible media reporting."

So you think it is just to with irresponsible media reporting? That the scientific and medical community hold no responsibility at all? That 30+ years of advice to avoid dietary fat is entirely to do with the media?

I think if you read the link to the long read I posted, you'll find that's not the case.

[HarveySchlumpfenburger]

Disagree about the media, hack mum. There was a huge fanfare about the study last year that was widely reported as absolving sat fats. There was much less of a fanfare a week later when the authors of that study had to release a 2nd press release saying that wasn't what they said.

There is a huge anti-sugar bias in reporting at the moment because it sells. Any study that paints saturated fats as bad seems to get a lot less airtime.

It seems to me that there's a difference between the article I posted and the one the OP posted immediately above it. I don't think that people reading those stories would get the same impression even though they are reporting the same story.

[SnugglySnerd]

I made an interesting observation about this yesterday. For breakfast DD usually has porridge made with whole milk. She usually gets to lunch time without needing anything else to eat. Yesterday we had run out of oats so she had cornflakes instead. She was starving all day. She requested an apple at 9am then was still hungry so we had toasted muffins. At lunch time she put away 2 helpings of carrot & lentil soup with wholemeal toast and a tangerine then had her usual snack at about 3.30. That normally keeps her going until dinner but she was asking for food again at 4.30.
She doesn't normally keep asking for food like that, I'm sure it was because cornflakes are basically rubbish carbs instead of oats which a nice and filling and slow-release.

[acornsandnuts]

I recently watched a good documentary on Amazon The Sugar Film. He swapped his normal diet which included natural fats, avacado, nuts and fish for food labelled healthy or diet.

He consumed around the same calories as he always had. He put on 15lbs with diet industry food, looked and felt awful and had the beginning of fatty liver disease. All in 6 weeks.

Very interesting watch.

[CalmYaTits]

It's the source they come from that matters.

Fruit and nuts are hardly going to cause heart disease.
Chocolate and burgers however....

[Ego147]

but there is also the ever present issue of quantity of food consumed, we eat far more than we need to eat

Totally agree

[Ego147]

I think people are also unaware of the amount of calories they need to maintain their weight - given the lack of exercise people do.


www.dietplan.co.uk/Tools/BMRChecker

[Laiste]

I want to say something similar to cousin. I went on a low carb (ergo low sugar) diet to loose weight a few years ago. It wasn't madly low sugar. I cut out cakes, sweets, biscuits, potato, pasta, rice and bread. But I still had sugar in my tea and allowed myself baked beans, tomatoes, fruit ect. - the 'forbidden' foods on strict low carb diets.

You could eat as much as you like of everything 'allowed'. However i found that just because you were suddenly allowed to have a fry up in butter for breakfast every day all the fat on any meats, full fat cheese and oil all over your salad if you wanted it it didn't mean you automatically did want it. I didn't feel the urge to eat spoonfulls of lard just because i could! I felt full and satisfied on my normal amount of fat.

The weight fell off me. 3 stone in 6 months.

[emotionsecho]

Ego but there is also the ever present issue of quantity of food consumed, we eat far more than we need to eat.

[badtime]

Ego, I agree, but we could do that (and even emphasise that it is more important and healthier to cut down sugar/simple carbs in particular) without the revisionism.

[Ego147]

I've posted this a few times recently

This is the WHO advice for ADULTS - as children have different needs

For adults

A healthy diet contains:

Fruits, vegetables, legumes (e.g. lentils, beans), nuts and whole grains (e.g. unprocessed maize, millet, oats, wheat, brown rice).

At least 400 g (5 portions) of fruits and vegetables a day (2). Potatoes, sweet potatoes, cassava and other starchy roots are not classified as fruits or vegetables.

Less than 10% of total energy intake from free sugars (2, 5) which is equivalent to 50 g (or around 12 level teaspoons) for a person of healthy body weight consuming approximately 2000 calories per day, but ideally less than 5% of total energy intake for additional health benefits (5).

Most free sugars are added to foods or drinks by the manufacturer, cook or consumer, and can also be found in sugars naturally present in honey, syrups, fruit juices and fruit juice concentrates.


Less than 30% of total energy intake from fats (1, 2, 3). Unsaturated fats (e.g. found in fish, avocado, nuts, sunflower, canola and olive oils) are preferable to saturated fats (e.g. found in fatty meat, butter, palm and coconut oil, cream, cheese, ghee and lard) (3).

Industrial trans fats (found in processed food, fast food, snack food, fried food, frozen pizza, pies, cookies, margarines and spreads) are not part of a healthy diet.

Less than 5 g of salt (equivalent to approximately 1 teaspoon) per day (6) and use iodized salt.

[Ego147]

The main thrust was always to cut down calories, and in practice this meant cutting down sugar at least as much as fat

And carbs.

The whole debate now is what is a 'balanced diet' - how much carbs, fat, protein etc should we eat and in what 'ratio'

Then it gets more complex with the type of fats and carbs as they have a different effect on the body.

But people need a relatively easy to understand message.

[badtime]

I don't know why people misremember this, but no-one ever thought sugar was okay (despite what the sugar sellers might have said). That's why Diet Coke etc have been around for decades.

The main thrust was always to cut down calories, and in practice this meant cutting down sugar at least as much as fat.

[hackmum]

The emerging evidence seems to support the OP. This Guardian long read is a good account of the story so far, including the manipulation of the evidence by the "fat causes heart disease" lobby:

www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/07/the-sugar-conspiracy-robert-lustig-john-yudkin

What's clear from that article is that the problem isn't just to do with irresponsible media reporting. The medical profession, along with public health bodies and charities, for years promoted the erroneous idea that dietary fat caused heart disease - with disastrous consequences.

[Ego147]

I also eat a lot less carbs, which also turn into sugar in the body

Well, that's a whole debate about glycemic load and insulin response - as ultimately it's how fats, carbs are digested, absorbed and metabolised into various biochemicals in the body by the whole endocrine system.

And that's complicated.

[emotionsecho]

Neither sugar or fat of themselves cause obesity, eating far too much of either is the cause.

[CousinCharlotte]

I had to cut out sugar when I was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes and I lost 3 stone in 8 weeks, despite still eating cheese, nuts and other fats.
I also eat a lot less carbs, which also turn into sugar in the body.

[HarveySchlumpfenburger]

If you read the Daily Mail everything causes cancer. Except for the stuff that prevents it.

cspinet.org/news/both-saturated-fat-and-sugar-promote-heart-disease-despite-industry-lobbying-20160912

This seems good. Why can't we write stuff like this in the UK media?

The NHS 'Behind the Headlines' site is good, but you do actually have to go looking for stuff to get an accurate view these days. And most people don't they just see the headline.

[Auti]

New report highlights battle by the industry to counter sugar’s negative health effects, and the cushy relationship between food companies and researchers

From the above the sugar industry manipulated (including paying scientists off) to down play the harmful effects of sugar and pin the blame on saturated fat.
That has to criminal?

Livia thanks I came across the article above when looking to improve my own situation. :)

[Ego147]

we would be better off campaigning for more responsible media reporting of science and health stories

Aaah - but that would mean complex headlines, stories which analyse the facts and proper analysis.

Rather than bacon causes cancer

[Ego147]

Demonising sugar in the same way that we demonised fat for years isn't going to help anyone

We need fat in our diet - but we don't need sugar.

We don't need a lot of fat - but fat is an essential nutrient. Sugar isn't.

[HarveySchlumpfenburger]

The satiety thing is true, but reducing the saturated fat content and swapping it for monounsaturated fats will still be healthier.

Perhaps rather than campaigning against any specific nutrient, we would be better off campaigning for more responsible media reporting of science and health stories. That would have avoided this whole issue.

[MaximumVolume]

I agree. It's true that eating too much fat (or anything) will make you fat, but we have natural mechanisms which mean that we feel fuller when eating food with fats and protein in, which just aren't there when eating carbs and sugar. So you are relying on those kids of food to literally fill you up rather than satiate your natural need for nutrients.

I'm doing WeightWatchers, currently averaging at 1.5kg loss per week. I eat butter (sparingly, mainly because I don't eat much bread) and often end up with full-fat milk in my tea as I have small kids in the house, so we always have blue milk in.

I've been feeling really great eating my varied healthy diet without any sugary stuff, but had a biscuit at a relative's house the other day and felt raging hunger for the rest of the day.

For me, it's definitely all about keeping my blood-sugar levels relatively stable and eating sugary stuff doesn't help at all.

I read somewhere that in the UK we have never, since records began, bought so little sugar (in sugar form) and yet we consume more sugar than ever because so much is hidden in everyday foods.

Portions are bigger, but as I said, when you cut out fats (and protein is generally more expensive) you end up needing large portions to feel full.