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."
Tonight, UNSPUN with AnnaZ and Guest Hostess DIOTIMA!
A RadioFR CALL IN ONLY Show!!!!
”RED, WHITE and YOU!”
What does July 4th mean to YOU!
Call in and tell us!
1-866-RADIOFR
Click HERE to LISTEN LIVE while you FReep!
Click HERE for the RadioFR Chat Room!
Miss a show? Click HERE for the RadioFR Archives!
I was able to diet and continue to GAIN weight until I eliminated sugar and other refined carbohydrates. I was exercising, too.
Well then, explain this to me Mr. Smarty Pants:
Why does my metabolism seem to slow down the more I eat? Thats right, I have documented that the more I consume the slower my metabolism becomes and the fatter I get. Explain that one.
Slainte,
CC
Its low-carb, fizzy alcohol water.
I've been on a modified Atkins, low carb diet for a year. My total Cholestral has gone down, and the good stuff has gone up.
Slainte,
CC
Actually, on the Atkins diet, you eventually get to the stage where carbs like rice and beer are perfectly acceptable, in controlled amounts. It is only during the weight loss stages of Atkins that such items are verboten.
No one is making you lick every last crumb on the plate. Look around next time you are at a restaurant. The thin people leave food on the plate. The fatties go back to the all you can eat salad bar three times, lick their plates clean, pick at the leftovers of the other people at the table, and then complain that they can't lose weight because of their genes.
I've never read the Atkins protocol, and don't consider myself qualified to speak on what he and his adherents consider "good" or "bad" carbs.
I prefer to go by the charts:
Caloric makeup (carbs, protein, fat)
Glycemic index searchable database
Glycemic index generalized list
(There is more complete information available, but in doing a quick web search, I haven't been able to find a free on-line source)
Generally speaking, the caloric content of all fruit is composed mainly of carbohydrates.
By combining the information from sources similar to those cited here, I make my choices.
That & regular exercise keeps me in shape.
Yup. Most fat people I know really don't have a clue when diet and nutrition are the issue. A friend of mine , for example, thinks that if the food comes from the salad bar it must be healthy. Some of it is, some of it is not. Unfortunately, the fatties go back again and again for the stuff that is not.
quite true, but HIGHLY MISLEADING HOGWASH
the metabolism setpoint amongst people varies significantly:
obesity is not caused by eating too much, obesity is caused by having eaten too much in the past, in particular, having eaten TOO MANY CARBOHYDRATES. Atkins likens this effect to a rubber band -- if you force too many carbs into your system the metabolism's carb processing machinery (and by implication the insulin system) *breaks*, perhaps for good and you end up obese.
The hunter gatherers ate FAR, FAR fewer carbs than modern folks, but learned how to adapt to eat wheat -- none-the-less lived short and unhealthy lives dying from disease, with the teeth to show it. The hunters were far healthier (even when dying young at the hands of a sabre tooth tiger or whatever).
The key is that if, as a child you eat too much sugar and/or carbs, your body passes the point at which you can safely process carbohydrates -- and you become obese, and from there on losing weight becomes extremely difficult for most people.
Only shallow surface thinkers like you would still fall for the FDA bullcrap that the Archer Daniels Midland inspired food triangle is the gospel and fat people are all lazy.
get a life...
Your over-simplification detracts from the debate. Some calories are easier to rid oourselves than others. Carbohydrate calories are the problem. Protein and fat calories are easier to rid ourselves of.
As so often in medicine (remember ulcers) people mistakenly downplay the effect of microorganisms while focusing on irrelevant behaviors. Check out the search terms "virus" and "fat" on google (most stories concern the AD-36 virus, but there are also other candidates). The problem with most theories in this area, other than ones involving infections, is that people only started getting fatter AFTER 1980, whereas the changes in diet and exercise happenned BEFORE. The snacking TV couch potatoes of the 1970's were NOT getting fatter. Why?
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.