How did we get it so wrong?

epicuric

Legendary Member
Joined
12 Mar 2016
Local time
6:48 PM
Messages
4,560
Location
Shropshire, UK
As someone quite passionate about sourcing food I found myself totally mind blown this week listening to a radio programme which raised the issue of fat vs. sugar. A bit of research revealed this article in the Guardian which illustrates how official nutritional guidelines over the last 40 years have been based on rather dubious science.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/07/the-sugar-conspiracy-robert-lustig-john-yudkin

It turns conventional thinking on its head. I have ordered some of the publications cited in the article, and am feverishly researching the subject. I would welcome the thoughts of the CookingBites collective on this.
 
A very interesting article. I posted something elsewhere on the forum regarding the 'salt myth'. Its the same kind of thing - the idea that salt raises blood pressure is based on a poor and very limited study carried out in America decades ago and promoted in much the same way as lowering fat and cholesterol has been. There is no concrete evidence, yet doctors still advise you to lower salt intake.
 
BMI flawed
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/255712.php
Even Adolphe Quételet, who invented the BMI formula, warned of its limitations

Agreed. I always thought it was flawed in not taking into account muscle weight but never considered the mathematical aspect. Trying to think way back to biology O-level, there was an analogy about the ratio of weight to volume in elephants of different sizes. But my memory isn't that good.

Still, it doesn't alter the fat vs. sugar argument though as it has been a constant, albeit flawed benchmark throughout.
 
The more I look into this the more fascinating it gets.

If you accept the argument that fat isn't actually bad for you (and the facts do seem very plausible) then it turns the whole healthy eating movement upside down. It would appear that food manufacturers have been taking fat out of food to sell it to us as "healthy", whilst substituting sugar instead. Looking at food labels, there often seems more added sugar in supposed healthy wholemeal breads than in plain white loaves. Skimmed milk (a totally worthless product nutritionally) has more than three times the sugar content of double cream! Apparently, it is the fat in the milk that actually contains most of the vitamins and minerals, so taking it out reduces the nutritional value, so given that there is slightly less sugar in full fat milk than in skimmed milk that makes full fat milk the healthier of the two.

Just checked my fridge and found the following sugar content per 100g: low fat creme fraiche 3.7g, low fat yoghurt 6.5g, double cream 1.6g! Even more scary, I added up the sugar content of what I thought was yesterday's healthy breakfast - a bowl of Special K with semi-skimmed milk and a 150ml glass of freshly squeezed 100% natural apple juice - it came to over 9 teaspoons worth of sugar!! Boy did I tuck into today's breakfast with relish - three rashes of Gloucester Old Spot streaky bacon and 4 Legbar eggs scrambled with a knob of butter. That is the real healthy option breakfast it would seem.

It all starts to make sense when you consider a few basic facts: man has evolved a digestive system over millions of years designed to take what the body needs from whatever food he has hunted/caught/foraged naturally. This would have included a lot of saturated animal fat. Refined sugar has only been around for a few hundred years and the body hasn't yet (and I suspect it won't for a while) evolved a method of processing it in the same way. There doesn't appear to be much evidence to support the common theory that eating saturated fat has any bearing on the actual amount of cholesterol in the blood. The body takes what it needs and disposes of the rest. Until sugar comes along. Not only does sugar accumulate in body fat in its own right, but in increasing insulin levels in the body it would appear to inhibit the ability of the body to dispose of unwanted saturated fat - a double whammy.

Until the 1970's we were happily tucking into saturated fats without a care in the world, and only 6% of the population was deemed overweight. Then along came the healthy eating lobby and started replacing "fatty" foods with carb laden "healthy" alternatives. Forty years on and two thirds of the population is obese or overweight, and Type 2 diabetes has risen by a similar amount. The same is true for the USA. And it's not down to exercise levels either.

It will be very interesting to watch how this plays out in the world of professional nutritionists, not to mention Government eating guidelines. I can't imagine that either will be in a hurry to admit that they have been getting it wrong for the past forty years, let alone take responsibility for causing an obesity epidemic throughout the first world. And what about the multi-billion dollar global food industry, built on false premises of healthy eating? I don't think the tobacco companies have yet admitted that smoking might be bad for you so I wouldn't expect to see the end of "low fat healthy alternatives" any time soon.

On a personal level I don't thing this will much affect the way I eat. I have long felt that if food come in a packet with a long list of ingredients then it probably isn't good for you, so there is seldom much processed food in the house. Fortunately, I don't have a sweet tooth and wouldn't care if I never ate another cake, biscuit or bar of confectionery. As long as my food comes fresh from a butcher/fishmonger/greengrocer, and has not been fiddled with by men in white coats then I shall eat what I like. One thing that will change is that I will no longer feel guilty tucking into a chunk of cheese, or making cream laden sauces (forget the low fat creme fraiche from now on) or feel compelled to cut the delicious outer layer of fat off a lamb chop or piece of steak. And as for that strange thread about giving up drinking wine... what an utterly bizarre notion :)
 
A very interesting article. I posted something elsewhere on the forum regarding the 'salt myth'. Its the same kind of thing - the idea that salt raises blood pressure is based on a poor and very limited study carried out in America decades ago and promoted in much the same way as lowering fat and cholesterol has been. There is no concrete evidence, yet doctors still advise you to lower salt intake.

That will be my next mission - to look out your post and research this topic. I am partial to quite heavy seasoning so removing the guilt associated with salt would be great :)
 
That will be my next mission - to look out your post and research this topic. I am partial to quite heavy seasoning so removing the guilt associated with salt would be great :)
I can't remember which thread it was - and I'm not sure if I quoted the source. But if you google you will probably find it. I'm partial to quite heavy seasoning too! There was one thing that struck me about the article - the reference to breast milk which is high in saturated fat. If you have ever tasted breast milk (I have!) you will know that it is very sweet and I believe its high in sugar... if so, it can't really be used as an example in the argument.

Re the amount of sugar in skimmed milk - I'm not understanding that. This isn't from sugar being added is it? And why the sugar level higher in skimmed milk than in cream?
 
Until the 1970's we were happily tucking into saturated fats without a care in the world, and only 6% of the population was deemed overweight. Then along came the healthy eating lobby and started replacing "fatty" foods with carb laden "healthy" alternatives. Forty years on and two thirds of the population is obese or overweight, and Type 2 diabetes has risen by a similar amount. The same is true for the USA. And it's not down to exercise levels either.
We didn't get it wrong - the professionals did.
 
We didn't get it wrong - the professionals did.
Up to a point - but there is something insane about the sheer amount people eat these days. When I was a kid, pizzas didn't exist. Don't get me wrong here, I love a good pizza - but if I had been confronted then with a pizza way bigger than a dinner plate and amounting to over a 1000 kcals, I'd have thought it simply impossible to eat. Yet my son and his girlfriend will order one each (plus dough balls!!!) and polish off the lot. This isn't anything to do with men in white coats - it just seems that portion sizes have escalated.

Another example: I went to a pub at lunch time recently and my partner ordered 'cheesy chips'. Not the healthiest option, granted (or maybe it was, in the light of @epicuric's post!). The size of the portion was amazing. It arrived in an enamel baking dish (not sure why) and was piled up to about six inches high. There were enough chips to easily feed four! And it only cost £3.00.
 
British Dairy Council(BDC), fought and won in the courts to have the word "milk" removed semi-skimmed and skimmed. Using mainly pure logic, backed up with a bit science.
 
Up to a point - but there is something insane about the sheer amount people eat these days. When I was a kid, pizzas didn't exist. Don't get me wrong here, I love a good pizza - but if I had been confronted then with a pizza way bigger than a dinner plate and amounting to over a 1000 kcals, I'd have thought it simply impossible to eat. Yet my son and his girlfriend will order one each (plus dough balls!!!) and polish off the lot. This isn't anything to do with men in white coats - it just seems that portion sizes have escalated.

Another example: I went to a pub at lunch time recently and my partner ordered 'cheesy chips'. Not the healthiest option, granted (or maybe it was, in the light of @epicuric's post!). The size of the portion was amazing. It arrived in an enamel baking dish (not sure why) and was piled up to about six inches high. There were enough chips to easily feed four! And it only cost £3.00.

to quote from the original article:

Fat takes instruction from insulin, the hormone responsible for regulating blood sugar. Refined carbohydrates break down at speed into glucose in the blood, prompting the pancreas to produce insulin. When insulin levels rise, fat tissue gets a signal to suck energy out of the blood, and to stop releasing it. So when insulin stays high for unnaturally long, a person gains weight, gets hungrier, and feels fatigued. Then we blame them for it. But, as Gary Taubes puts it, obese people are not fat because they are overeating and sedentary – they are overeating and sedentary because they are fat, or getting fatter.

In other words, a high carb diet makes you feel hungrier.
 
I can't remember which thread it was - and I'm not sure if I quoted the source. But if you google you will probably find it. I'm partial to quite heavy seasoning too! There was one thing that struck me about the article - the reference to breast milk which is high in saturated fat. If you have ever tasted breast milk (I have!) you will know that it is very sweet and I believe its high in sugar... if so, it can't really be used as an example in the argument.

Re the amount of sugar in skimmed milk - I'm not understanding that. This isn't from sugar being added is it? And why the sugar level higher in skimmed milk than in cream?

I have not got to the bottom of this yet, but the data comes from a reliable source:

http://www.milk.co.uk/page.aspx?intPageID=197
 
Re the amount of sugar in skimmed milk - I'm not understanding that. This isn't from sugar being added is it? And why the sugar level higher in skimmed milk than in cream?
That's actually very easy.
Lactose is the sugar in milk. It is found mainly in the body of milk and is naturally occurring. No sugar is added to milk. It is what people are intolerant to (not allergic to though - that is the protein in milk - you can't physically be allergic to lactose.). Therefore 1pt of skimmed milk has more sugar in it than 1pint of full cream milk (extra main body of milk in skimmed milk to make up to a pint after removing cream) and obviously has more sugar in it than 1 pint of cream.
 
Back
Top Bottom