• Welcome to DOSBODS

    Please consider creating a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

Sign in to follow this  
Frank Hovis

Sugar - More or Less R4

Recommended Posts

I have recommended this programme before but thought its analysis of the research on sugar deserved a specific thread.

As background the government has been trumpeting that a greedy fet population is filling itself to the gunwales with sugar and it must stop it.  Sugar means free sugars so packet sugar and that in sweets, cakes,bdrinks and fruit juices. Not that in whole fruit or vegetables such as onions. 

However a proper analysis reveals that consumption of free sugar per adult has been steadily, if slowly, falling since the 1960s (i.e. we are eating healthier) but we are now massively exceeding guidelines for one simple reason: the guideline intake was halved in 2015.

Scientific studies have certainly correlated negative health impacts with excessive sugar consumption in children but similar studies in adults have shown no such link.

So a reasonable conclusion from that for adults is: the average level of sugar consumption is not damaging so don't worry about it.

He then puts these objective conclusions to Louis Levy, Head of Nutrition at Public Health England who attempts to defend their unsupported nanny state lecturing advice with no basis in science with all the suavity and grace of a ten year old who has just been caught red handed for copying their homework.

If you like Alan Partridge when he's caught out then this on the money.

There's also a very interesting but later on which is our nearest planet which I won't pre-empt.

It's the best programme of the week despite its lurking on BBC Radio 4; it's presented by the non-BBC Tim Harford from the FT which helps it to not to contain the usual propaganda. I don't recall its ever mentioning Brexit or Donald Trump for example.

 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0001y9p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still of the opinion that something else has compromised our ability to process sugar or regulate its levels in blood. In the seventies and eighties everyone lived on starchy fast carb shit from Bejams, and if hungry later a nice sugary jam sandwich in white bread, washed down with gallons of orange squash. Fizzy drinks were still pretty prevalent and even delivered to the door. There's some idea diets back then were all good honest wholesome fodder cooked up from scratch by housewives but I'm not sure that's true diets were pretty shit and although nutirionally sub-optimal didn't seem to cause the same issues we have now.

Overall I think reducing sugar consumption is no bad thing - although not if that means replacing them with shit like aspartame. Oddly I've always felt sugary sweets and things are more easily metabolised by kids, rather than adults, but that probably assumes they're running around outside all day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

I have recommended this programme before but thought its analysis of the research on sugar deserved a specific thread.

As background the government has been trumpeting that a greedy fet population is filling itself to the gunwales with sugar and it must stop it.  Sugar means free sugars so packet sugar and that in sweets, cakes,bdrinks and fruit juices. Not that in whole fruit or vegetables such as onions. 

However a proper analysis reveals that consumption of free sugar per adult has been steadily, if slowly, falling since the 1960s (i.e. we are eating healthier) but we are now massively exceeding guidelines for one simple reason: the guideline intake was halved in 2015.

Scientific studies have certainly correlated negative health impacts with excessive sugar consumption in children but similar studies in adults have shown no such link.

So a reasonable conclusion from that for adults is: the average level of sugar consumption is not damaging so don't worry about it.

He then puts these objective conclusions to Louis Levy, Head of Nutrition at Public Health England who attempts to defend their unsupported nanny state lecturing advice with no basis in science with all the suavity and grace of a ten year old who has just been caught red handed for copying their homework.

If you like Alan Partridge when he's caught out then this on the money.

There's also a very interesting but later on which is our nearest planet which I won't pre-empt.

It's the best programme of the week despite its lurking on BBC Radio 4; it's presented by the non-BBC Tim Harford from the FT which helps it to not to contain the usual propaganda. I don't recall its ever mentioning Brexit or Donald Trump for example.

 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0001y9p

ou dont meet many over promoted public sector types  with clipboards, do you?

http://www.associationfornutrition.org/Default.aspx?tabid=267

Louis is a Registered Nutritionist and is the Nutrition Advice Team Manager at Public Health England.

 

"My original interest in nutrition was purely academic as a tool to understand physiological impacts on the body. Unlike many current public health nutritionists I had an odd route to my current role. Moving from my first post doc at Southampton developing models linked to foetal origins of adult disease to using technique developed in my PhD to explore aspects of cardiovascular disease. I then detoured into social science research, training and development in sexual health (in the voluntary and public sectors) and later wider health promotion before reengaging with nutrition when joining the FSA 14 years ago. The rationale for that move was healthy eating interventionism experienced at the local level and a desire to do more and better through fewer interventions. 

 

10 years plus, two different government departments/Agencies, but I’m still here - though it would be for others to judge my impact. Although governments have changed over this time, the work really is remarkably similar. The challenges of delivering pragmatic, evidence based policy  are the same, as are the issues of communicating simple messages that make a difference and combatting the myths and good intentions that run contrary to the evidence. The new challenge in Public Health England is helping those delivering at the local level in the new health and social care system (and beyond) through ensuring support and guidance that really delivers behaviour change and change to the environment making the healthier choice the easy one.  

 

So advice for those just embarking - communicate messages simply and clearly, keep your eye on the evidence, be pragmatic, persevere, don’t forget to evaluate the impact of your interventions and policies and remember that everything you do helps you grow as a specialist but you need to reflect on your work to gain the most benefit."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like most other things - joblessness, smoking, drinking ... obesity is not on a scale.#You get people who are obese.

And you get people who are not.

Theres not that many people in between - fat fuckers v normal fuckers.

The problem lies with a small percentage who spend all their time stuffing theeir faces.

A quick stats check will also show the negative correlation between obesity and having a job in the private sector.

Stop benefits.

Sack public sector obese wimmin.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's probably the running around thing.  If you're going to immediately burn it off, such as spoon down a whole packet of sugar before running a marathon, then you can pretty much eat what you like.

What was interesting from the programme was that by taking an objective look at the evidence there is nothing there to show that high levels of sugar (specifically) caused diabetes, obesity or anything else in adults.

The problem is general over consumption of calories by adults. It was nothing to do with sugar.  Levy was taking the bizarre track of saying that people who ate too much sugar ate too many calories in general so ergo sugar is the problem.  You could put the same argument for protein, fat, carbohydrate.

I don't have much of a sweet tooth so don't have much sugar. The only tangible benefit that I can see is that I don't have tooth decay.

I don't notice the adults I know who have vast amounts more sugar than I do being more unhealthy or fat so my direct observation is that of the studies in the programme: if you're an adult then sugar isn't actually bad for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, spygirl said:

The challenges of delivering pragmatic, evidence based policy  are the same, as are the issues of communicating simple messages that make a difference and combatting the myths and good intentions that run contrary to the evidence. 

Great spot spy!

Clearly Levy has decided that these challenges are now too much for him so has started ignoring the evidence and peddling the myths instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a strange fact for you..

Drinking a litre of ice cold water will consume 37 calories as your body brings it up to body temperature. Being cold really means you burn up energy.

Having doughnuts etc is ok if you then spend time outside where it's cold or even sit in a coldish room. Sitting in a warm car/office/house just doesn't burn the sugar off...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, SNACR said:

I'm still of the opinion that something else has compromised our ability to process sugar or regulate its levels in blood. In the seventies and eighties everyone lived on starchy fast carb shit from Bejams, and if hungry later a nice sugary jam sandwich in white bread, washed down with gallons of orange squash. Fizzy drinks were still pretty prevalent and even delivered to the door. There's some idea diets back then were all good honest wholesome fodder cooked up from scratch by housewives but I'm not sure that's true diets were pretty shit and although nutirionally sub-optimal didn't seem to cause the same issues we have now.

Overall I think reducing sugar consumption is no bad thing - although not if that means replacing them with shit like aspartame. Oddly I've always felt sugary sweets and things are more easily metabolised by kids, rather than adults, but that probably assumes they're running around outside all day.

Yes I was lucky enough to eat pretty well as a kid as my parents had a big garden and ran a shop, but even then I consumed vast amounts of sugar between meals. Ok I was pretty active, but were all those Marathon/Twix bars justified? Don’t think so. I never drank water from memory, always sugary squash/Ribena and sometimes milk, then later sugary tea. 

There’s something else in the food now that’s ruinous for health. Or a combination of things. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Great Guy said:

Here's a strange fact for you..

Drinking a litre of ice cold water will consume 37 calories as your body brings it up to body temperature. Being cold really means you burn up energy.

Having doughnuts etc is ok if you then spend time outside where it's cold or even sit in a coldish room. Sitting in a warm car/office/house just doesn't burn the sugar off...

Wow on the 37 calories!

I love ice cold drinks but don't usually bother to refrigerate drinking water; I will now start doing so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

Wow on the 37 calories!

I love ice cold drinks but don't usually bother to refrigerate drinking water; I will now start doing so.

It's just schoolboy physics...

Seemingly you can burn 400 calories an hour if you start shivering. 

You could be watching telly in a cold room drinking ice cold water and you're burning more energy than being down the gym...

imho, the body was designed to be cold a lot of the time. People nowadays just don't get cold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue is industrial fake food that has had nutritionally beneficial ingredients replaced, largely at the behest of the bungling government because their previous "this food bad" model targeting saturated fat and cholesterol was bollocks.

As an example (picked at random) compare the ingredients in this traditional Cherry Bakewell recipe with the ingredient list on the Mr Kipling version.

https://thehappyfoodie.co.uk/recipes/cherry-bakewell

The butter and eggs disappear, to be replaced by industrial seed oils. 

And those are the modern oils. The margarine that was pushed for years (and was in shit loads of processed food) was chock-a-block full of trans fats that proper fuck up your heart. 

Yum yum.

I knew that trans fats fucked you up in the early 90s because I had the fortune to do a Biology degree and a professor that gave it to us straight. That the official health advice wasn't changed sooner is a scandal, but it's all just brushed under the carpet, and we're supposed to just blindly follow whatever over simplistic nonsense they want to peddle now.

The tossers can jog on.

 

 

Screenshot_20190112-083406.png

Edited by SpectrumFX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, swiss_democracy_for_all said:

Yes I was lucky enough to eat pretty well as a kid as my parents had a big garden and ran a shop, but even then I consumed vast amounts of sugar between meals. Ok I was pretty active, but were all those Marathon/Twix bars justified? Don’t think so. I never drank water from memory, always sugary squash/Ribena and sometimes milk, then later sugary tea. 

There’s something else in the food now that’s ruinous for health. Or a combination of things. 

Drinking water is on my radar a bit. Possibly treatment doesn't cope with modern mass consumption of prescription drugs, contraceptive pills etc. I also think heavy metals from the vast increase in stainless steel in food production or plastics in food packaging but the list is near endless, plastic's been around for quite a while with food could just as easily be growth hormones in dairy productions or a whole list of agri-chemicals.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, swiss_democracy_for_all said:

Yes I was lucky enough to eat pretty well as a kid as my parents had a big garden and ran a shop, but even then I consumed vast amounts of sugar between meals. Ok I was pretty active, but were all those Marathon/Twix bars justified? Don’t think so. I never drank water from memory, always sugary squash/Ribena and sometimes milk, then later sugary tea. 

There’s something else in the food now that’s ruinous for health. Or a combination of things. 

Weve had this thread I think -  cant find it.

I think theres multiple factors.

Bad advice. Too many dumb people with too much money and too land takeaways and too much time on their hands i.e. not working.

Again, split the population into private sector, public sector and not working, and you see huge differences in obesity and diabetes between the groups.

I dont think we are seeing a rise in general obesity, we are seeing a huge rise in working age people who dont work, who then spend their time eating and doing fuckall.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Frank that sugar consumption has fallen off a cliff as we have got fatter ( well not me personally). The diet was very sugar heavy in the 60s and 70s. The sugar jar was a key feature of the kitchen because basically you added it to everything, such as already overly sweet cereals ( though we didn't realise it) beverages etc. Now I wouldn't dream of putting sugar on or in anything including porridge. I just use a reduced level in stuff like cake making and crumbles. That's before we have got to the shrinkflation of stuff like Mars bars.

I don't even believe it's the nature of fat, overall consumption is down and heart attacks have reduced more rapidly than the populations weight has risen.

It's lack of exercise, warm homes, access to cars, access to labour saving devices in the home. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, crashmonitor said:

I agree with Frank that sugar consumption has fallen off a cliff as we have got fatter ( well not me personally). The diet was very sugar heavy in the 60s and 70s. The sugar jar was a key feature of the kitchen because basically you added it to everything, such as already overly sweet cereals ( though we didn't realise it) beverages etc. Now I wouldn't dream of putting sugar on or in anything including porridge. I just use a reduced level in stuff like cake making and crumbles. That's before we have got to the shrinkflation of stuff like Mars bars.

I don't even believe it's the nature of fat, overall consumption is down and heart attacks have reduced more rapidly than the populations weight has risen.

It's lack of exercise, warm homes, access to cars, access to labour saving devices in the home. 

 

 

Crossing with many other threads I also think that it is a problem that will cure itself when we hit a permanent energy crisis in the 2030s when Saudi oil starts to splutter and die.

High energy prices mean expensive food, poorer paid workers can't afford to run cars, heating will be used minimally.

The result of all of that will mean that obesity returns to being the disease of the wealthy.

Like many problems it will cure itself.  When a takeaway meal costs £40 rather than £10 and wages and benefits have barely risen there will be no need to lecture people about eating less as they won't have the choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dipsy said:

HFCS is chemically identical to sucrose(table sugar). 

Not saying sugars good for you though. 

But there is something causing obesity. Maybe different things in different cultures. I've notice some  Americans get obese in a different way to Brits. And it's not genetic as I've seen UK expats go the same heavy thighed narrow(ish) waist/upper body  fat after living in US for a while. 

Probably some hormonal thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Great Guy said:

Here's a strange fact for you..

Drinking a litre of ice cold water will consume 37 calories as your body brings it up to body temperature. Being cold really means you burn up energy.

Having doughnuts etc is ok if you then spend time outside where it's cold or even sit in a coldish room. Sitting in a warm car/office/house just doesn't burn the sugar off...

Drink cold water then go out for a walk.

The extra weight will burn more calories, like doing weights.

18 minutes ago, Poseidon said:

HFCS is chemically identical to sucrose(table sugar). 

Not saying sugars good for you though. 

But there is something causing obesity. Maybe different things in different cultures. I've notice some  Americans get obese in a different way to Brits. And it's not genetic as I've seen UK expats go the same heavy thighed narrow(ish) waist/upper body  fat after living in US for a while. 

Probably some hormonal thing. 

Drinking full fat pop. Driving everywhere in a car. Not walking.

You see the ssme fat retention on the lazy single mums who drive their brats to school everyday.

Walkinh 1h a day gets rid of fat around your thighs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not registered for bbc, so googled a bit. Seems like he might be a sensible bloke.

Quote
  • The first lesson is that when it comes to saving the planet, people focus on what they can see. Type “environmental impact of concrete” into a search engine and you are likely to see a page filled with scholarly analysis pointing out that the impact is very large indeed, because cement production releases vast volumes of carbon dioxide. Type “environmental impact of bottled water” instead and your search results will be packed with campaigning groups seeking to persuade you to change your ways.

    This is understandable: I can’t do much about concrete but I can stop drinking bottled water. But being a logical target for campaigners is not the same as being a logical target for policy action.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Dipsy said:

Correlation is not necessarily causation but it does seem that the obesity trend really kicked off when plain old sugar (sucrose) began to be replaced by things like high fructose corn syrup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, steppensheep said:

Not registered for bbc, so googled a bit. Seems like he might be a sensible bloke.

 

That point about concrete Vs bottled water is excellent.

I see a parallel with the absolute obsession with how private cars are fuelled whilst ignoring that planes, ships, and particularly power stations burn oil and coal at a vastly increasing and unchecked rate.

Don't watch that watch this.

Still, good news about the Rover steering wheel, Lynn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

During and after WW2 the weekly sugar ration was massive.   I think the obesity crisis is multi factorial and cannot just be pinned on sugar.   In the 1970s takeaways were fish and chips and the odd chinky.  Now they are everywhere.  How the hell do people afford Dominos?  £17 for a big pizza ffs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

 

Still, good news about the Rover steering wheel, Lynn.

xD

I liked that part in More or Less, when he gets asked..... If we draw it as a line, would the line be going downwards? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.