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."
And the thin people who have left a portion of salad with blue cheese dressing, asparagus and juicy steak on their plate are on Atkins. They may have tried endlessly to satiate themselves at the salad bar in their fat days, but thank goodness now they know better.
It is my understanding that all the "straight" hard liquor has zero carbs - bourbon, scotch, gin, vodka, rum, etc. Wine is next on the list, with a 4 oz. glass having around 4 grams. Beer is the worst, containing around 13-15 grams per 12-oz. serving.
Since the liquor has been distilled, the alcohol has been separated from any remaining unfermentable sugars. With wine and beer, the unfermentables stay in the final products, thus leaving the carbs in.
So, bottom's up with that glass of Maker's Mark on the rocks!
Please explain how the Eskimos were able to survive (before they adopted a Westernized diet).
Sorry - if you look at the Atkins on-line carb counter, the following contain zero carbs:
Bourbon
Brandy
Gin
Rum
Tequila
Vodka
Whiskey
Calories, yes. Carbs, no.
A few data point does not equal a close relationship between national average weight and national average high fructose corn syrup consumption. Actual detailed data would have shown that weight is going up in both corn syrup countries like the US and in sugar countries like most of Europe.
Also, empirically, here's something else you or anyone could do if you haven't already is check the ingredients on the packages in your pantry or at the supermarket. You will find High Fructose Corn Syrup in products that you would never think it needed to be in.
Yes, but in Europe the same products contain sugar, and diet soda, despite the lack of high fructose corn syrup, doesn't work to keep people thin. One way or another, most of this stuff has been sweetened for 50 years, just as so many of us have been TV watching couch potatoes for the past 50 years, but only in the past 15 is one seeing so many overweight kids.
I probably should not post these kinds of threads any more because I am just too negative on these issues. It seems that for most people, the idea that diet is a key factor in the health of well-fed people is simply immune to contrary evidence. Even those who believe in evolution seem unwilling to admit that people are constructed so as to achieve their three score and ten on a wide varieties of diets. Could it be that humanity is wired, in the brain, to believe that you are what you eat despite all contrary evidence, and I'm simply missing that gene?
This is a good point in that the Eskimos did seem to do well (when not starving) on an quite limited diet 100% meat diet. However, I don't think they ever lived a long as we do. And a vegetarian diet will result in approximately the same life expectancy as an Eskimo diet, everything else roughly equal. What does this tell us about the diet and heath thesis?
TRUTH,TRUTH,TRUTH TRUTH,TRUTH,TRUTH TRUTH,TRUTH,TRUTH TRUTH,TRUTH,TRUTH
Yes, but people obviously did not develop evolutionarily to survive all the additives found in today's diet - because they were not exposed to them until the last couple of generations. If you don't believe in garbage in, garbage out, do you also see no relation between excessive alcohol consumption and ruined livers or tobacco and emphysema and lung cancer. I believe there is pretty detailed research on those issues - especially tobacco.
Or you can just look at a family and see that all 4 grandparents smoked and then all 4 died of lung cancer or emphysema. And while we all have to die of something - why not just old age in our sleep or even a heart attack instead of being tethered to an oxygen tank for the last decade of ones life?
rumor has it that he did "Battlefield Earth" without any makeup...
Agreed. There is no comparison between the high quality of research on the life expectancy effects of tobacco and the low quality of diet and health reseach. The long version of what I think is in the book "The Rise and Fall of Modern Medicine" by James LeFanu of the London Telegraph.
Thursday afternoon I was looking out the window and saw two female small cardinals dipping their beaks and sitting on the ledge, pretty as you please.
They've been back three times now; never saw such a thing.
They've been back three times now; never saw such a thing.
The end days must be upon us.
I skipped over this sentence when I first replied, but, back from fireworks, it now catches my eye. Of course, old age is not a cause of death, but rather a facilitator of other causes. I do think there may be money to be made in a book titled "The Die in Your Sleep Diet." Of course, no one this side of the rightly imprisoned Dr. Kevorkian has a clue how to achieve this widely desired result, but that wouldn't stop someone from writing the book.
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.