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."
chilepepper's post here started out so good but should have stopped after the first few sentences.
No one can know how healthy hunter-gatherers were back in the days of the La Brea tar pits, but today their low life expectancy has very little to do with being eaten by vertibrate predators. As for Atkins, check out Michael Fumento, a real health conservative. To paraphrase, you'll lose weight if you cut out two isles of the supermarket, but it doesn't matter which two. What bugs me about Atkins is not the diet but the know-it-all style of his writings. Of course, it may take one to know one ;-)
It could also be due to bad luck.
curiously enough, the incidence of heart disease in the US tracks almost exactly with the rise in use of margarine and other hydrogenated fats,
these appeared in the early part of the last century ;) and before that folks strictly ate bacon, butter and eggs with abandon and had virtually no heart disease...
I thought that the big corn syrup increase was in the 1960's, after the cut-off of sugar from Cuba, whereas the biggest weight increase was 1985-1995. However, a link to careful statatics on this could cause me to publicly repent. Does anyone have such a link?
Then there would have to be a link somewhere showing careful side by side graphs. Anyone know of one?
What I think is that, in real life, heart-related diseases go up and down more than does margarine consumption. Valve disease is particularly up and down, indicating possible infectious involvement.
You're on the low-fat road to type II diabetes and heart disease. Believe me now or believe me later.
the story is in the bones. Hunter (and hunter-gatherer) skeletons showed remarkably good teeth and strong bones and were relatively tall. a forensic study would show that these folks died from wounds.
Once humans adapted to sumerian and egyptian city life where they lived off bread, their skeletons show terrible teeth, weaker bones, and evidence of various diseases. these folks died from disease
My mistake then. I skimmed his/her post.
Depends on the protein bar. Read the label...some have 28 grams of carbs! Others have between 1 and 3. The low carb variety can be hard to find and sometimes expensive. Wal-Mart and Walgreens now carry them in my area.
FrogDad and I cruise the diabetics food section at Walgreens for a chocolate fix when we want them, too. Even so, read the labels.
AKA The Big Lie, is the sine qua non of group cohesion. It really helps to promulgate the lie if the outlandish nonsense is what the group wants to hear. For example, eating cheese, butter, and meat is better for you than eating beans, vegetables, and whole grains. Of course, this may be true, (especially if you're involved in the sale of dairy products or a meats), but I haven't seen any convincing scientific proof (i.e. long term populations studies) to support the high fat meat based diet over a lower fat plant based diet.
I studied Judo and Kempo before but HKD seems to fit me better. Good luck in your studies and don't quit!
You need to start your own diet with that as the basis! Sugar is good for you!
Good for you. Keep it up. I've heard plenty of stories of type II diabetics who've gone low-carb and have been able to drop their medication.
"Prof Bray said that fructose bypasses the human metabolism’s normal energy burning responses and is more readily converted into fat. In addition the use of fructose and other sugars to sweeten foods meant that fat in the diet was more likely to be stored rather than burned. Fructose gets into cells without triggering an insulin response and can form the backbone for fat molecules more readily."
The above found at this link.
http://www.iotf.org/media/syrup.htm
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.