Is life too sweet at times?

The recommendation is to limit the combined daily intake of added sugars and those that are present in the ingredients, so it is not very easy to work out what your sugar intake is.

A teaspoon is, I believe, an accepted measure. 5ml in liquid. In the US it’s 1/48 of a cup, whatever that is! And then we get into level or heaped. Clear as mud!

It is not necessary to go round food shops with calculators. If you are gaining the pounds just stop eating between meal times and cut down on portion sizes. Weigh yourself once a fortnight. If you are still gaining weight start taking more exercise eg brisk walking or biking and ditch the car. One of the most interesting cases I came across as a GP was a grossly obese chap who specialised in eating fish and chips and chip sandwiches. He rapidly lost stones when his partner broke a leg and he had to push her around in a wheel chair for many weeks.

The government needs to legislate to ban processed foods which have excessive sugar or fat. Stopping access to high calorie processed foods is likely help obese people reduce weight and avoid type 2 diabetes and heart disease. This in turn will enable a free at the point of need NHS to continue.

Precisely my point. Tell us in grams so that we can all understand!

But can many people estimate the weight, in grams, of sugar thay might add to their tea, for example? And how many of us will add up all the sugar we eat in a day to see whether we are within “limits”?

A valid point that misses my point. Everybody’s teaspoons are different sizes and shapes, even though there is a regulation size for teaspoons. So instead of having to guess a level, rounded, quarter, half or heaped teaspoon, or a pinch of salt, please give us the weight. The weight is accurate, the teaspoon fraction isn’t.

It’s like driving to the garage that sells fuel by the tankful. A meaningless measurement because everyone’s vehicles have different sized tanks. So it’s regulated to be sold by the litre.

Let’s be precise and stop dumbing down. People aren’t idiots.

Is not up to manufacturer is up to you

The word ‘obesogenic’ had not registered with me, possibly because its meaning is fairly obvious. I have no idea how long it has been in common use but it has been used in over 1000 scientific papers since 1998.

In years gone by we had home-made jam and marmalade that contained even more sugar than modern supermarket offerings and plenty of high-fat food too. Fizzy drinks always contained sugar rather than sweeteners. I am convinced that the growing obesity problem is mainly due to the amount of food we consume rather than what it contains. Eating out has become much more common and some of the portion sizes are huge. We do indeed live in an obesogenic environment.

It’s the same game as used to be played by the cigarette manufacturers (some would say still is being played).

Thank you Wavechange for enlightening me on the academic history of the word “obesogenic”. I thought it was fresh out of the box.

Perhaps its current usage in the public domain represents a shift of meaning. The scientific usage would be paralell to “carcinogenic” [i.e. with a tendency towards the development of a condition – cancer in the case of “carcinogenic” and obesity in the case of “obesogenic”], but I sense that the phrase “obesogenic environment” relates not so much to the agent or substance that has the particular properties as to the culture or circumstances within which it becomes active. Mind you, I used to think the top decks of buses were the epitome of a carcinogenic environment.

I think you are right John. It is not uncommon for the everyday and scientific meaning of words to differ.

I wonder how much the decline in smoking has contributed to obesity. I have never smoked but I understand that one of the reasons for its popularity was to avoid gaining weight.

I agree Erik. We often complain about kids not getting enough exercise but the same applies to many adults.

The problem with cutting down the sugar content of jam is that it can go mouldy, even if kept in the fridge.

Hi Wavechage

I’ve found references to obesogenic even earlier:

1970 July 1, Jimmie Holland; Joseph Masling, Donald Copley, “Mental Illness in Lower Class Normal, Obese and Hyperobese Women”, Psychosomatic Medicine, volume 32, page 351-357: 

Some authors have characterized the so-called obesogenic family and have observed the similarity between this kind of family constellation and that of the schizophrenic patient

Well done Terfar. The database I use does cover this journal but missed this article since I only did a quick topic search. I guess you found this from a search for the meaning of the term.

High fructose corn syrup is not a major component of food in the UK, though it is in the US. The SACN draft report does look at this issue. If you are going to condemn HFCS then you also need to condemn fructose, which is the sugar that naturally occurs in many fruits.

The main thing we need to do is to avoid consuming much food that contains added sugar or is high in natural sugars.

Wavechange, I agree but we also need to bear in mind that table sugar ie sucrose has a molecule consisting of a glucose unit linked to a fructose unit and it is split into these two sugars once in the mouth so in effect table sugar is 50% fructose! I believe the current situation is that there is uncertainty as to which is worse-too much glucose or too much fructose. It is possible that too much of either predisposes to vascular disease and type 2 diabetes. So for those who must have lots of sugar the sensible advice is burn it off with lots of exercise.

Dave – I used to lecture on carbohydrate chemistry and the biochemical reactions that occur in the metabolism of sugars. Most of the food we eat – including sucrose and fructose – can be converted into blood glucose.

What you say about exercise is absolutely right. I’m just back from a two week holiday in which I ate considerably more than I normally do, but I was much more active than I normally am. As with every other active summer holiday I have had in the last 35 years I have not put on any weight. In contrast, I tend to gain weight over Christmas holidays, especially when the weather is poor and not conducive to going out and getting exercise.

Going back to the biochemistry, eating a lot of refined carbohydrate such as starch is not good because it is metabolised rapidly to produce glucose. One of the reasons why vegetables are useful in our diet is because they are broken down more slowly than starch.

The only sensible way to avoid preservatives is not to eat foods containing them – e.g. bacon, sausages and cooked ham. They are there to prevent food becoming unsafe to eat, whereas colours and flavours are only there to make food more palatable. Preservatives used for treatment of meats are linked to increase incidence of bowel cancer, in the same way that smoking increases the likelihood of respiratory diseases.

I believe that the main reason – and the one highlighted in the SACN draft report – is the need to eat more non-digestible carbohydrates, often referred to as fibre. Some of these are broken down by bacteria in the gut and have an impact on gut flora. This is important because modern processed food does not provide adequate non-digestible carbohydrate.

Whatever the reason, there seems to be little doubt that eating plenty of veg is a good idea. Unfortunately some fruit is absolutely loaded with sugars, so it is only good if eaten in moderation.

Maltodextrin is effectively short chains of starch

Dextrose is another name for glucose

Sucrose (table sugar) is a disaccharide consisting of one glucose and one fructose unit

Maltose is a disaccharide consisting of two glucose units

Avoid these if possible and stick to the wholegrains that you have suggested.

It is best if you can train yourself to avoid eating much sweet food, but sweeteners such as stevia will provide sweetness without affecting your blood sugar.

One of the reasons we are late adopters of stevia has been concerns about its safety, thanks to the widespread concerns about other artificial sweeteners. Some of these are valid but I think it is fair to say that the concerns are excessive. The safety of stevia has been extensively investigated and it seems to be the best of the bunch. Unlike sugars, sweeteners provide little energy but in the western world, most of us are overeating anyway.

I cannot relate to the craving for sugar that Beryl has mentioned, though this is well documented. I wonder what happens if sugar is replaced by sweetener.

As I see it, one of the problems with sweeteners is that they do nothing to overcome our passion for sweet food and drink.

A sweet tooth can be controlled – I used to take 4 sugars in a cup of tea, sugar in coffee, and eat sweetened condensed milk (as examples of indulgence). Sugar masks flavour in many cases – so tea and coffee are now sweet-free, as I weaned myself off them.
We have the option of examining many food products we propose buying from shops to see if we like the ingredients – including salt, sugar and fat content. No such option when you eat in restaurants or buy from take-aways. Will we have traffic lights imposed on these menus in future?

mr- I sincerely hope not!

However to an extent this has been anticipated at one high class restaurant in the US where you can choose which menu you read. So for those who are really keen on the amounts of carbs etc you can get the breakdown, and those who see it as nice escapist treat there is the traditional menu.

Taking enjoyment out of life by reminding people continually of things they ought to do is not I think that helpful if you are trying to engender a generally happier population.!!

dt, I hope not too. Life is too short not to be enjoyed.
We certainly need to help people who are quite unable to control their weight by themselves; for others, they are surely aware when they are overindulging and are accepting the consequences. Their choice. The problem is how we deal with overloading the health service because of their lifestyles. But this applies to other groups – those who abuse alcohol, drugs, indulge in dangerous sports, who also use police and rescue resources. Perhaps we should all take out insurance to cover the cost (er, is NI not there for that?); or do we penalise individuals?
Incidentally, I’ve solved the cost of the prison service. Simply charge those with resources the cost of their keep. This is off topic in a big way, but it might free up more resources for the health service to help people with obesity?

I weaned myself off salt in cooking twenty or thirty years ago, though I still use a little on some foods at the table. One of the consequences of cutting down my salt intake has been that bought food, particularly soup, tastes much more salty than I remember.

I hate most sweet drinks, probably because my mother deliberately discouraged me from having sugar in tea or coffee and bought lemonade etc only at Christmas. In contrast, I can happily eat very sweet food such as mango, biscuits and Christmas pudding.

Fast food and pub chains area already providing nutritional information.

I have blood tests and medication checks, and am unable to request a repeat prescription without at least booking an appointment. The blood tests could give a warning of a serious condition and the fact that I’m on medication is probably the reason I have tests at least twice a year. I absolutely agree with the medication check because many people are taking unnecessary medicines, that are at best harmless and just a waste of money and at worst could cause long-term problems. I respect my GP for the regular interrogation to find out if I need my medicines, even asthma treatment I have used for 30 years. I also have an annual asthma check, which I feel is rather unnecessary now that my condition has been well managed for many years, but I understand the practice is paid to perform these checks.

There’s information on blood tests on the NHS website.

So why does Weetabix think we now need versions with chocolate, golden syrup, etc? Maybe they are for people on an obesogenic diet.

I guess it illustrates three points:

1. People are poorly educated in what food is healthy and nourishing.

2. Marketing trumps nutritionists: if Kelloggs (?) have or had any nutritionists on their payroll, they no longer have much influence on products.

3. Marketing is still poorly regulated: adverts often make outrageous statements about food that goes unchallenged.

wavechange, we seem to like novelty foods, “for a change”, not thinking about the cost. This is what the manufacturers trade on to make a huge profit (why buy frosted flakes when you can put your own sugar on cornflakes? Better still, eat porridge!). I like a hot chocolate drink; much cheaper to buy cocoa powder and add an appropriate amount of sugar than buying drinking chocolate. The fault is ours for buying htis stuff.

There are bad carbs and there are good carbs. It’s the bad carbs we should avoid or at least severely limit our intake.

Some are obvious: sugar, sucrose and their seemingly myriad of cousins given wonderful marketing names to confuse the consumer and frequently founded added to processed foods where you wouldn’t dream of finding them. Then there are others such as bread, potatoes, cereals and other highly loaded foods.

But we mustn’t cut out carbs completely: we need them. So stick to whole grain if you must eat bread or cereals, and eat good carbs, namely fruit, veggies, nuts, etc. But avoid fruit drinks: pulping fruit releases the sugar trapped in cell structure so that the body absorbs it immediately. Fruit juice is should be enjoyed in SMALL quantities, if at all. Eat the fruit whole instead and throw away your juicer/smoothy maker.

Just search the Internet for Good Carbs and there’s a whole plethora of information!

Undoubtedly the internet has a plethora of information about carbohydrates and nutrition but some of it is very poor and often there mainly to help sell something. There is some good basic information on the NHS website.

It’s high time that everyone was made aware of just how much sugar there is in fruit juice. Eating whole fruit is a much better way of eating sensible amounts.

A juicer might help those who avoid greens and other vegetables to eat them.

Potatoes do contain a lot of starch, which is rapidly converted to sugar, as David has pointed out. On the other hand they do provide plenty of fibre, which many people lack in their diet. It’s a case of maintaining some sort of balance.

I agree that you do have to be careful what you read on the Internet. There are so many that want your money to join a ‘club’ or sell you their products: anything to part you with your money. But that comprises much of the Internet!

Sweet potato (casava) or yams are a great substitute for potato. You can even make good chips with them. [Wash, cut into wedges, brush with a good vegetable oil and sprinkle any herb or spice you like: roast in the oven.)

Sadly, there are NO good carbs.
Some are less bad than others.
None are essential.

Proteins, fats, vitamins, minerals – all are essential.

Carbohydrates are the one food group that we can live without.
There have been societies where the diet is just protein and fat – for instance the Inuit – and very low carb such as the Masai who lived on meat, blood and milk.
These have flourished – the Masai were noted for their strength, fitness, and unusual height.

This is all counter intuitive – we have been educated to believe that fats are bad, carbohydrates are good.
People are now starting to experiment with Low Cab High Fat eating plans and getting good results.

Everyone is different, of course, but the scientific views about nutrition are slowly changing.

Look up ketogenic diets – some of the information is quite surprising.

We can live without carbohydrates can we? What about the fibre we need to keep our bowels working properly.

Perhaps a nice balanced diet is what is needed.

No one suggests that you can live without carbs. Just eliminate the bad carbs and eat a balanced diet.

Oh yes there are good carbs. Unless you’re suggesting that green veg – like Spinach – is bad? There are many good foods with a high fibre to carb ratio and they are all good eating.

Precisely. But in a less than perfect world, just cut down on the ‘bad’ ones.

At least the government supported the introduction of ‘traffic light’ food labelling, which provides an easy visual indication of food that is high in sugar, salt, fat, saturated fat and energy. It’s a pity that it did not make the system compulsory.

I am suggesting that we CAN live without carbs.
Vegetable fibre is not essential to digestion or bowel health – according to some recent studies.

I point you all again to the Inuit.
Where did they get green vegetables given that they lived in permanent ice and snow?
Researchers have lived with them, on their diet, and been amazed that they could survive and thrive on a diet which is contrary to mainstream dietary thinking.

I’m not saying everyone SHOULD live without any carbs, just pointing out that people CAN live healthily without any carbs.
Which means that carbs are not essential to health.

I agree that we should aim to cut out the starchy and processed sources of carbs and stick to fresh vegetables and a sensible amount of fruit.
I don’t agree with the ‘diet plate’ of 33% carbohydrates.

Good link Lessismore.. I particularly like the .pdf advice.

Hi David

the Inuit Paradox has been baffling science for some time and it is still being researched. The main theory being investigated is that the fat in the wild meats consumed by the Inuits differs in nutrients and composition from farmed animal fat.

This also has a bearing on the supporters of the Paleo diet faddists who eat fat with abandon. Is eating farmed animal fat the equivalent of eating wild animal fat as caught by our early ancestors?

We still have an awful lot to learn about food!

“True word and jest ” come to mind.

Taxing foods to deter purchase may be a way but denying people their liberty to eat and buy badly could be tricky. I still hold with banning advertising foodstuffs, and also putting it as a placement in TV programmes which is the way to get around advertising bans.

Bear in mind that some countries would no doubt be sued by the likes of Pepsi or Coke for intefering with their rights to sell rubbish to the gullible.

It’s difficult to know how best to tackle the problem, but taxing sugar-rich foods could be counterproductive.

At present we have celebrities promoting ‘sports drinks’ which are loaded with sugars. Perhaps we could get the help of celebrities to highlight the problem of too much sugar in the diet. It might not be too hard to convince children that they don’t want to grow up like their parent’s generation – with a lot of obese and overweight people that drank Pepsi and Coke.

Perhaps there is a good case to target drinks and food that contain added sugar, even if this is no different from natural sugar. It’s not needed and if food must be sweetened there are natural sweeteners such as stevia that can be added.

The idea of paying “celebrities” to do anything sticks in my craw. Banning food and drink advertising would be cheap for the government and if all was left were cookery programmes cooking from scratch I would expect more people to try this approach. I would actually consider excluding from the ban adverts which sold the basic materials like milk, egg, cheese, different rices and flours, and fresh vegetables.

Not necessarily that people would cook foods approved of by the keenest of diet regulators but overall I think there could be an improvement.

The rise of cheapish pre-cooked foods surely must be easily graphed against the rise of obesity in the UK , Australia and the US. Perhaps superimposed with the growth of anti-biotic usage!

Please don’t get me wrong DT. I have nothing but contempt for celebrities, but there is no doubt that people do respect what they say and do.

Banning TV ads for tobacco and all the other legislation has not stopped people smoking.

I agree with you (about both the balanced diet and celebrity ads). A celebrity is PAID to read a script: they are unlikely to know as much as we do about the item or service they are advertising. Why on earth do people fall for it hook, line and sinker.

I prefer the chimps advertising tea!

I was rather hoping that celebrities might take on this role out of a sense of public duty. Though celebrities might not be the brightest bulbs I expect that most of them would know that Coca Cola and Pepsi Cola are loaded with sugar and not the best things to be drinking.