Posted on 07/02/2003 4:56:13 PM PDT by SamAdams76
Face it: we’re fat. Yes, we’ve taken low-fat and no-fat pledges, but government statistics and a trip to the beach show we’re just getting fatter. That has occurred even though many of us replaced bacon and eggs with a low-fat breakfast bar, traded in that roast beef luncheon sandwich for a can of Slim Fast and pick out fat-free dinners in the deep freeze.So why are 175 million Americans still classified as either overweight or obese? Some nutritionists argue that maybe we got bad advice, and they are rethinking the public fight against fats in food.
Instead, they are turning attention to an ancient dietary enemy — sugar.
There is absolutely no question that Americans have developed a very sweet tooth.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture reports that over the last 40 years, per capita consumption of sugars has increased an astonishing 32 percent — from 115 pounds of all sorts of sugars per year in 1966 to 152 pounds in 2000.
There is a bitter disagreement over what that data mean.
Some nutritionists say increased sugar consumption is alarming, clearly the cause of the obesity epidemic. Others argue that the modern couch potato lifestyle is responsible for the larding of America.
You don’t always know it, but there is added sugar in the processed foods you are eating today. McDonald’s acknowledges on its Web site that sugar is an ingredient in its french fries, and nutritional studies show a Burger King Whopper contains more than a teaspoon of sugar. Nutritionist Nancy Appleton, author of "Lick the Sugar Habit," calculates 3 1/2 teaspoons of sugar in a cup of Frosted Cheerios and about 10 teaspoons in a 12-ounce can of Coca-Cola. There are 15 calories in each teaspoon.
Products labeled low fat often have the highest levels of sugar. Sugar is a cheap ingredient, and food processors add it to other ingredients to keep the food tasty or to change the texture.
Dieters might be surprised to find there is more sugar in a can of strawberry Slim-Fast diet drink than in a quarter cup of M&M candies, and that low-fat and "healthy choice" breakfast bars with fruit filling have as much sugar as chocolate eclairs. Almost half of each teaspoon of ketchup is sugar, according to Appleton. Food companies label sugar content in grams: Every four grams translates into one teaspoon of sugar.
A 12-ounce Starbucks Grande Caramel Mocha coffee has the equivalent of almost 12 teaspoons of sugar, and if you have a Cinnabon Caramel Pecanbon with it, add another 12 teaspoons, according to the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a non-profit group.
Some scientists contend people have become so preoccupied with preaching about the dangers of fats and the wonders of low-fat diets that they haven’t paid sufficient attention to the amount of sugar dumped into food.
Food without sugar or fat doesn’t have much taste, and "we aren’t horses," noted Robert Keith, a professor of nutrition at Auburn University.
"People have become overzealous about taking out all the fats. There are essential fatty acids we need to have," Keith said. The fats, he said, give substance to food — what scientists call "satiety values" — a sense of fullness after eating that sugars do not provide.
So, he said, "Some fat should be there."
There is no agreement among scientists on how much sugar should be allowed in food.
The World Health Organization says adding sugar to food is making people fat and recommends that people limit sugar consumption to 10 percent of caloric intake each day. A panel of American scientists with the National Academy of Sciences earlier this year said there is no solid data to validate a recommended level, but concludes that daily diets containing more than 25 percent sugar are unhealthy because the sugar interferes with absorbing other nutrients.
Studies estimate that sugars currently account for 16 percent of the average U.S. diet — up from 12 percent 50 years ago — and reaching the World Health Organization recommendation would require many Americans to cut back sharply.
Some nutritionists say this could easily be accomplished by consuming fewer soft drinks, cookies and cakes. They plan to push the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to emphasize the need to cut back on sugars when the agency reviews its nutrition label policy this year.
The sugar industry is fighting any limitation.
David Lineback, director of the Joint Institute of Food Safety and Applied Nutrition at the University of Maryland, said sugar is being blamed for increases in obesity that could just as easily be linked to overeating, portion super-sizing and inactivity. "Sugar is an easy and convenient scapegoat," he said, noting how much the American diet has changed in recent years. "If you ask me as a scientist, there is very little evidence sugar is responsible."
Andrew Briscoe, president of the Sugar Association, says the World Health Organization report is based on flawed science. He said his association will lobby Congress to reduce the $400 million in U.S. contributions to the WHO because of its negative views on sugars.
But the World Health Organization also has strong defenders. Nutritionist Marion Nestle, chairwoman of the Department of Nutrition and Food at New York University, said the 10 percent recommendation is in line with current prevailing scientific and government opinion.
"This has been decided for decades," she said, noting the current food pyramid issued by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, recommends people limit consumption of sugars to 12 teaspoons a day. That translates to 180 calories out of an average 2,200 calories of daily consumption.
Nestle said she would back much lower levels of sugar intake — no more than six teaspoons a day of added sugars — and argues that people get sufficient sugar naturally in fruits and vegetables.
Adam Drewnowski of the University of Washington’s center for public health nutrition, said economics is driving food processors to use more sugar in manufactured food because sugar is so cheap.
"They have rigged the food — sugar is ubiquitous in everything," Drewnowski said. "Sugar and fat are the cheap calories, and we are evolutionarily driven to them."
Drewnowski also urges people to be cautious about the low-fat labels on food and watch out for sugars.
"Slim-Fast, one pound can, has 267 grams, 66 percent sugar. You can’t tell me that sugar in Coke makes you fat, but sugar in Slim-Fast is going to make you slim. There are just a few more nutrients in the Slim-Fast," he said.
Others scientists minimize the role of sugar in the obesity epidemic and contend the problem is that Americans aren’t exercising sufficiently for the amount of food they eat.
"We need to talk about calories," said Alison Kretser, nutritionist with the Grocery Manufacturers of America. "It’s the number of calories as well as an excess of inactivity."
Cathy Nonas, director of obesity and diabetes programs at North General Hospital in Harlem, N.Y., agrees.
"It’s a calorie game. Nobody has ever proven that sugar will make you fat unless you eat too much of it. Fat is still more easily stored," she said. "It’s not as if you feed people sugar, it will make them fatter on its own. Sugar is an empty calorie and those who eat a lot of it tend to eat a lot of fatty stuff. And people are eating bigger portions and eating more times a day than ever — and all that, along with inactivity, contributes to obesity."
The existence of toxic plants and animals undercuts the universal applicability of that theory.
OK, explain please.
Not necessarily. Because HFCS is used in just about every processed food (to sweeten it so they can sell it as "low fat"), many people eat far more sweets than they used to without even realizing it. They are even putting this stuff in such unlikely food items as frozen shrimp, barbeque sauce and crackers. I never would have known myself until I started checking labels.
Even if less HFCS is used than sugar, it still amounts to roughly 10 teaspoons of sugar per 12-oz can of soda. That's still a lot of sugar.
Agree with you on calories in/out. If you are going to lose weight, you have to run a calorie deficit day after day. Even if you have a calorie deficit of 500 calories a day, it will still take you a full week to lose a single pound, because each pound of fat is equivalent to 3500 calories. Given that a 150-pound person burns approx. 100 calories per mile, you need to walk for 35 miles just to lose each pound. (That's assuming they don't pig out afterwards.)
This is why losing weight is not easy. There are no shortcuts. I've been walking 7-10 miles a day since April 1 and I've restricted myself to about a 2,000 calorie per day diet. That's the only way I've been able to lose 44 pounds over that time. That's with running a daily calorie deficit of approx. 1500 calories a day.
It would vary greatly depending upon whether or not the afore mentioned substance originated with you.
That's what I say! I believe for 99% of people it's as simple as you eat too many calories and you don't exercise enough to burn them off!
I don't care what kind of calories they are; fat, sugar, carbos... they're all calories. Although, I do believe in eating a healthy diet with mostly low fat foods and plenty of fruits and vegetables for your own health. You can still clog your arteries whether you're thin or not.
I believe the number one thing to staying healthy and unfat is regular exercise (aerobic activity and weight training)! A decent diet and proper rest don't hurt either.
I eat everything... mostly a balanced diet with tons of carbos, but also sugar, chips, cookies, BEER, etc. I'm in great shape because I've run 40 miles per week and done weight training for the past 30 years. I'm 45, can still run a mile under 4:50 at the present time (Trying to get back to sub 4:40) and can bench press 300 lbs. I weigh 170ish at around 6'. My brothers on the other hand are overweight and in BAD shape physically (IMO)! One is 6' 215-220 and the other is 5' 11" 250-260! They eat less than me, but do 0-1% exercise a day! Same genes and everything!
Lifestyle is 95% of everyone's problems and that's the TRUTH!! You heard it first or second!
And if Mama Cass gave her ham sandwiches to Karen Carpenter, they'd both be making CDs today.
I call them the "You are what you eat crowd".
My favorite example is Cows eat grass and grain and are fat. Wolves eat fat cows and are lean.
Looks like it for the most part, but I can't help throwin' my 2 cents in when topics of fat pop up! Maybe someone will get a revelation and heed my words of wisdom! Get off your tailend and WORK IT!! (Not you... Just a general to statement to everyone!)
I've gone about my weight loss plan in a brutish, heavy-handed way. I walk 7-10 miles a day, every day. I do two walks daily of 3-5 miles, one at 5AM and one around noon. I figure that keeps my metabolism going throughout the day. I also keep my calorie intake to about 2000 a day. At my current weight, I reckon I burn 3072 calories a day with normal activity and burn 170 calories a mile walking. Once I reach my target weight of 185, I'll only be burning 2220 each day (based on the formula that a male burns 12 calories per pound per day in normal day-to-day activity). So the free ride is coming to an end. As I get closer to my goal, I'm going to really have to work hard to get those last pounds off.
Once I get to about 225, I'll probably start a weight lifting program to complement my walking. I just don't want to start too soon (with weightlifting) and get an injury that will impede my progress.
Yep, It is a version of carb counting that works real well. Also called consistant carbs or combining carbs. It works great with most folks! Didya know that the more you exercise the fewer the insulin spikes?
I've given up regular sugar in my daily hot tea and iced tea also no sodas at all. I feel better. Haven't lost much weight but feeling better is ok with me.
Hey, quality of life always comes first!
I do work my tailend, thankyouverymuch ;)
(someone out there is bound to get the joke).
I lived in Europe for a while and while I hated every minute of it and basically would have shot someone at times for, say, an Outback meal or the like, I did notice something living there.
The food is far less processed. When I would come back to the states I would eat some things and be amazed at how little they tasted like actual food and more like some chemical confection. The first few weeks I lived there, it was as though my body was detoxifying. My breath was different, my sweat was different, other bodily functions were different (more info than you need, sorry) Also, I noticed as you are eating less of this processed crap--everyday things such as apples, bannanas, etc. tend to be much more tasty.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.