The Men Who Made Us Fat

[Defren]

Suggesting I don't eat ANY processed food is hardly helpful, since is very difficult (not to mention expensive) not to.

+1 Swimmer

-1 (sorry Swim).

It's called Paleo. You can do it, and it isn't that expensive. In fact in some ways it is less expensive, processed food isn't cheap compared to the raw ingredient. You're paying for the convenience.

+1 the paleo diet isn't that much more expensive, simply because your body will only take a certain amount of protein, the more expensive part of eating. Fats are relatively cheap, as are veg, nuts and seeds. It's certainly a lot healthier, as you know exactly what you are putting into your body.

The program last night, while not saying anything I hadn't heard before, re-enforced my view, that junk food, highly processed food and take aways are a major cause of obesity. People just don't realise the amount of sugar the industry adds to these foods and just how processed they are.

My opinion is the food industry is to blame, but with million $$ budgets to pay lobbyist, then only self education is going to stop the epidemic, and I don't see too many people wanting to know what they really are eating.

 

[Defren]

Ah I see, its got nothing whatsoever to do with food companies filling low fat products full of carbohydrates and sugar and marketing them as healthy then ?

The fact I've walked an average of 3 - 5km a day for donkey's years and have never particularly eaten fast food as I loathe the companies that push it (and stated that on this forum many times) doesn't enter into it?

Perhaps you'd like to try answering my questions this time Noblehead.

Of course it's part of the problem and the government need to address the issue like they have done with fat and salt content in our foods. Could you please answer me a question then, where did I use the words Stupid Lazy Slothful in my previous posts or where it was directed at you?..........if you can't then I would ask you not to try and twist people's posts out of context in future.

.... but isn't as you state "like they have done with fat " exactly the problem. They have addressed fat by removing it and replacing it with something called "low fat" which really means "more sugar". Don't you agree? Seems blatantly obvious to me and lots of other people.

I can certainly explain my "Stupid Lazy Slothful" statement. It was meant entirely rhetorically without malice as in "to inform, persuade, or motivate particular audiences". It certainly got your attention and now we are happily discussing the pro's and cons of "low fat" which is central to what the TV program was talking about.

Why Low-Fat Diets Don't Work

We have been taught for decades that eating fattening foods will make us fat. Each gram of fat has 9 calories, as compared to proteins and carbohydrates, which have 4 calories per gram, so it only makes sense to eliminate as much fat as you can from your diet to lose weight. You may have made a diligent effort to maintain a long-term, low-fat diet, but have been disappointed in the results. Some pitfalls may have sabotaged your weight loss success.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/36458 ... z1xsWcQ6VB

While this is about a low fat diet, it reiterates all that has been said why people gain weight and become obese on a low calorie diet.

 

[xyzzy]

Some recent stuff about Fructose Addiction i.e. what the program was saying about how putting corn syrup etc. actually makes people eat more food because it interferes with the normal working of the brain and stops "you're full" messages being sent.

First links to three lectures "Fructose Sugar Addiction Dangers - Lecture - Dr Richard Johnson - 1 of 3"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHh6EDrffdc


Second a Washington Post article with an ex Coca Cola executive who comes clean about their tactics. Get em young. Isn't that the same attitude as the tobacco industry?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...ing-campaign/2012/06/07/gJQAKwgKMV_story.html

It is long-standing Coca-Cola policy not to directly market any of its products to children younger than 12. The company has never advertised on weekend cartoon shows, for example, and Putman said he was never given data on consumption rates among children 11 or younger.

Still, he said, “magically, when they would turn 12, we’d (Coke Marketing) suddenly attack them like a bunch of wolves.”

Company research indicated that brand loyalty starts young, and once formed it is hard to break. “I would say 90 percent of all soft drink marketing is targeted at 12- to 24-year-olds. . . . It was how we spent all of our time.”

 

[Dougie22]

Quite an impact for a TV programme (83 posts on here in a day) but I wonder whether it will have any effect in the health care world. One of my big problems is that the whole NHS/Health Care profession, guided by NICE, SIGN, etc is completely wedded to the original (theoretically discreditted) "high fat causes heart disease" theory (now grown into the "high cholesterol causes heart disease" theory). It seems to me that it will take them the rest of my lifetime (and I'm only 58 and reasonably healthy) to change their minds. In the meantime the population will continue to be dosed with statins and a "balanced" diet with quite a high level of carbohydrates will be recommended to people newly diagnosed with T2 diabetes.

 

[borofergie]

Some recent stuff about Fructose Addiction i.e. what the program was saying about how putting corn syrup etc. actually makes people eat more food because it interferes with the normal working of the brain and stops "you're full" messages being sent.

But as phoenix says HFCS is a bit of a red herring, because its use is extremely regulated in the EU.

Lots of the low-carb intelligentsia also think that Lustig is a bit of a nut.

Depends how much time I get over the weekend, but I've done some work correlating diabetes prevalance with the consumption of various types of food, which I'd like to share with you all...

 

[SouthernGeneral6512]

Quite an impact for a TV programme (83 posts on here in a day) but I wonder whether it will have any effect in the health care world. One of my big problems is that the whole NHS/Health Care profession, guided by NICE, SIGN, etc is completely wedded to the original (theoretically discreditted) "high fat causes heart disease" theory (now grown into the "high cholesterol causes heart disease" theory). It seems to me that it will take them the rest of my lifetime (and I'm only 58 and reasonably healthy) to change their minds. In the meantime the population will continue to be dosed with statins and a "balanced" diet with quite a high level of carbohydrates will be recommended to people newly diagnosed with T2 diabetes.

You know it is very hard to get people to change their minds especially when something has been hammered into them for 40 years. In the 4% thread I made the point that I just couldn't eat all that fat and feel I was eating healthily and yet her numbers prove (at least for her) it is healthy

 

[xyzzy]

Some recent stuff about Fructose Addiction i.e. what the program was saying about how putting corn syrup etc. actually makes people eat more food because it interferes with the normal working of the brain and stops "you're full" messages being sent.

But as phoenix says HFCS is a bit of a red herring, because its use is extremely regulated in the EU.

Lots of the low-carb intelligentsia also think that Lustig is a bit of a nut.

Depends how much time I get over the weekend, but I've done some work correlating diabetes prevalance with the consumption of various types of food, which I'd like to share with you all...

Well I did check ...

Ingredients of Kellogs Cornflakes off the Tesco web site.

Maize ,Sugar ,Barley Malt Flavouring ,Salt ,Glucose-Fructose Syrup ,Niacin ,Iron ,Vitamin B6 ,Riboflavin (B2) ,Thiamin (B1) ,Folic Acid ,Vitamin B12

Maybe there isn't as much but it doesn't seem to be banned.

Anyway my main argument is with "low fat" I think the link Defren posted speaks for itself.

Raging Appetite
Fat in the diet has a very distinct purpose. It helps you feel full and satisfied after a meal, and keeps you from getting hungry again after a short time. Anyone who has had an evening out at a sushi restaurant knows this. Fats tend to take longer to digest than carbohydrates or proteins. Those who consume extremely low fat diets may find themselves grazing more often because they are always hungry.

Higher Sugar Content
When you are on a low-fat diet, you may decide to shop for the low-fat alternatives of your favorite foods. In foods like ice cream, cookies and frozen yogurt, the absence of fat requires added sugar to maintain the quality of the flavor. These foods tend to have a higher glycemic index, causing your blood sugar levels to fluctuate widely, which may hamper your efforts to lose weight. Read the nutrition facts labels to see how many grams of sugar your foods contain.

Higher Calorie Content
When you start a low-fat diet plan, count your calories for the first couple of days to make sure you are on the right track. You may be surprised at how many calories you are eating because of your increased appetite, and the astonishing amount of calories finding their way into your mouth from the reduced-fat foods you thought were healthy. Evaluate the calorie content of the lower fat versions next to the regular versions of every food by looking at their nutrition facts labels.

Lack of "Good Fat"
Remember, not all fats are bad. The American Heart Association recommends limiting your total fat intake to 25 to 35 percent of your total calories. Only 7 percent of your total calories should come from saturated fats, which are found in meats and dairy products. Trans fats, also known as partially hydrogenated fat, should be avoided. The other 18 to 28 percent of your total calories should be filled with monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats that are found in fish, nuts and vegetable oils. These fats are necessary for good health.

 

[noblehead]

Ah I see, its got nothing whatsoever to do with food companies filling low fat products full of carbohydrates and sugar and marketing them as healthy then ?

The fact I've walked an average of 3 - 5km a day for donkey's years and have never particularly eaten fast food as I loathe the companies that push it (and stated that on this forum many times) doesn't enter into it?

Perhaps you'd like to try answering my questions this time Noblehead.

Of course it's part of the problem and the government need to address the issue like they have done with fat and salt content in our foods. Could you please answer me a question then, where did I use the words Stupid Lazy Slothful in my previous posts or where it was directed at you?..........if you can't then I would ask you not to try and twist people's posts out of context in future.

.... but isn't as you state "like they have done with fat " exactly the problem. They have addressed fat by removing it and replacing it with something called "low fat" which really means "more sugar". Don't you agree? Seems blatantly obvious to me and lots of other people.

I can certainly explain my "Stupid Lazy Slothful" statement. It was meant entirely rhetorically without malice as in "to inform, persuade, or motivate particular audiences". It certainly got your attention and now we are happily discussing the pro's and cons of "low fat" which is central to what the TV program was talking about.

If that's your way at saying you were in the wrong then I'll accept it just this once, but do try not to twist people's posts from here-on as it can be seen as confrontational and doesn't show you in a good light.

 

[lucylocket61]

Sid Bonkers wrote:

There is one other thing that was mentioned in last nights program that has until now not been discussed and that was 'snacking' or eating between meals, which is something that was never ever done when I was growing up. And nowadays a whole industry has developed to sell us stuff to eat between meals or to sell us things to eat 'on the go', there is now a Greggs or similar on every high street selling nothing but sandwiches, rolls and pastry items, sausage rolls, pies etc etc. Instead of the Cadbury's chocolate bar that I would get as a treat as a lad, today there are a million different chock bars and sweets that are there to tempt the passing consumer.

and i completely agreed. However, I view this deceptive hiding of food facts the way the dangers of smoking was hidden from people in the 50's, 60's and 70's and even encouraged by the medical profession.

Its all about being given false choices.

IF doctors and companies told the public Clearly that the low-fat stuff they are pushing is high in sugar, then the public could make proper choices. I am constantly told to eat Low-fat foods. And it is only in the past 18 months or so that transfats have been removed from food - so its too soon to see the effect of this removal on obesity. And most people are unaware of how much of their obesity and other health problems are affected by transfats.

IF we were told 20 years ago that a Finger of Fudge or whatever was bad for us, we could make informed choices.

If we had proper labelling which tells us the carbs on the front of a packet, instead of the sugars amount, we could make clearer choice.

The point is, we were NOT told initially about these hidden sugars. Even today the labelling is often misleading and often inaccurate. My DH was given some sweets today which contain HFCS (something apparently banned over here?)

Nowadays we know smoking is bad for us, and we make an informed decision. I say we should have the same clear information in order to make similar informed decisions about our foods.

And that is, of course, avoiding any mention of the addictive nature of certain foods, and drinks. I think that they can be as addictive as tobacco. I certainly found giving up chocolate as difficult as giving up smoking.

THEY KNEW of the dangers, and did nothing. And the power of the manufacturers and producers over what should be democratic government is shocking to me.

THis post is not aimed at you Sid, I am agreeing with your informative post, in parts.

 

[lucylocket61]

Defren said:

the paleo diet isn't that much more expensive, simply because your body will only take a certain amount of protein, the more expensive part of eating. Fats are relatively cheap, as are veg, nuts and seeds. It's certainly a lot healthier, as you know exactly what you are putting into your body

Yes, you are right. Both of you.

But the majority of people are being taught that ready meals and take-aways are just as nutritious as making their own. The ready meals are being marketed as Healthy Eating and LOw-Fat, so the buyers dont know that they are being lied to.

So why would busy people, who are constantly told that a bought meal is good for them and will actually help their heart and weight, bother to go to the trouble to cook from scratch except for on special occasions?

Its all about being told the truth so you can make informed choices. Like we have on this forum.

 

[SouthernGeneral6512]

I think people naturally trust the government. Ok if the manufacturer take fat out it's an obvious question to ask what have they replaced it with but I think most folk will just assume it wouldn't be alowed to be sold if harmful and enjoy their sugar fix (probably not knowing or wanting to know why it makes them feel so good)

 

[xyzzy]

If that's your way at saying you were in the wrong then I'll accept it just this once, but do try not to twist people's posts from here-on as it can be seen as confrontational and doesn't show you in a good light.

Well if it helps to get an answer to the question I asked you I'll accept anything you want to accuse me of Noblehead. I'll gently remind you what I asked.

.... but isn't as you state "like they have done with fat " exactly the problem. They have addressed fat by removing it and replacing it with something called "low fat" which really means "more sugar". Don't you agree? Seems blatantly obvious to me and lots of other people.

Would you care to give me your opinion please as I maybe mistaken and correct me if I'm wrong but you do support the "low fat" stance don't you? I'd thought you'd have an interest in defending your viewpoint considering as others have pointed out the balance of the thread is considerably anti low fat at the moment. How do you account for things like the livestrong article on low fat that Defren posted. It seems to state pretty much what I and others and the TV program are also saying. Are we all wrong?

 

[noblehead]

I certainly do follow a healthy diet so your quite correct that I watch the fat in my diet amongst other things, last night we had homemade meatballs with pasta and salad using lean Irish beef mince......does the mince contain sugar as I bought with understanding that it wouldn't? :?

 

[IanD]

The programme, & the Guardian article a few days ago, totally vindicate all I have learned in the last 4 years through contributors to this forum.

Thanks, folk.

I have become something of a LCHF bore, though I try not to be. Still very few (none?) of my friends listen, even though they can see the difference it is made to me.

 

[Paul1976]

The programme, & the Guardian article a few days ago, totally vindicate all I have learned in the last 4 years through contributors to this forum.

Thanks, folk.

I have become something of a LCHF bore, though I try not to be. Still very few (none?) of my friends listen, even though they can see the difference it is made to me.

You're certainly not a bore to us Ian BUT I know what you mean when it comes to friends and EVEN family in my case,when I'm shopping with my wife and I'm taking my time reading the labels on ingredients,I sometimes get.."Let me guess,too many carbs in that eh?" Oh well,can't win 'em all eh? :lol:

 

[lucylocket61]

HIgh Fructose Corn Oil is not banned in the UK

http://wellbeingmagazine.co.uk/article/children-corn

http://www.katearnoldnutrition.co.uk/Common_Sense_Nutrition/tag/diet/

it is called soglucose, maize syrup, and glucose-fructose syrup.

 

[viviennem]

HIgh Fructose Corn Oil is not banned in the UK

http://wellbeingmagazine.co.uk/article/children-corn

http://www.katearnoldnutrition.co.uk/Common_Sense_Nutrition/tag/diet/

it is called soglucose, maize syrup, and glucose-fructose syrup.

Thanks for that, Lucy. Something else to look for on those labels.

Going back to Sid's post about how the 'babyboomers' amongst us were brought up - I didn't get sweets and chocolates, except very rarely, until I was about 3, when they came off rationing. Even then they were rare, because we hadn't much money. My mother cooked everything from scratch - a shop-bought cake was a real treat! As was boiled ham or a tin of salmon for Sunday tea. Almost all our vegetables were grown in the back garden

Ready-made food wasn't really available when we were kids, was it? As things became more available and cheaper in the shops, we ate them, didn't we? And also, maybe, as a bit of rebellion because of the way we'd been brought up? For instance - we never had coffee at home, only tea - now I almost never drink tea!

That parallels 2 other things in my life - I was never allowed to wear black. Once I earned my own money, I've hardly worn anything else! I was never allowed to wear trousers, until I began riding and the stirrups leathers rubbed my legs raw. Once it became permissable for women to wear trousers to the office, I've never worn anything else. Still rebelling, you see! :lol:

A lot of people eat Gregg's greasy pasties and sausage rolls etc, and cakes and cream buns, and chocolate, crisps and fizzy drinks - because they have no idea what's in the food and what the ingredients will do to them. I have met a number of younger people who don't know what protein, carbs and fats are, let alone which food group things come into.

I know one young lady, brought up in a vegetarian-based, organic wholefood family, who thought only bought cake was fattening, not home-made. I wish!

What I would like to see is a completely unbiased syllabus introduced into the curriculum, to give children an understanding of food groups and the effects of various types of food, without twisting it in one direction or another. It would be difficult to do, I admit, but no-one can make a choice if they don't have the information. If they're given the information - then it's their choice, and maybe even their fault.

If the powers-that-be hide the information from us - what choice do we have?

Viv 8)

 

[phoenix]

Xyzzy
You can find out all about what Ancel Keys is supposed to have done, all over the internet, the same story repeated ad infinitum.
This is another take on the same story, from a blogger who gained a reputation for reworking the stats included in the China Study and thus became popular in the Paleo and low carb world)
http://rawfoodsos.com/2011/12/22/the-tr ... -it-wrong/
Did you know he was also one of the first to condemn transfats?
Unlike Yudkin's book, I can't find a copy of his popular book on the internet but there are a couple of the recipes for rabbit from it here: I think stewed rabbit might even be paleo., though maybe not the wine :lol:
Somehow I don't think that Keys would have been in favour of franken foods in any shape or form.

Lucy , I haven't read back so I don't know if you are referring to what I wrote the other day. I'll just put in the same link which explains how much is in food in Europe (and also the difference between glucose fructose and fructose glucose)
I know that some products will contain it but not in anywhere like the amount that it's used in the US . The best thing though is to restrict the amount of packaged things you eat and read the labels.
http://www.eufic.org/page/en/page/FAQ/f ... ose-syrup/
I looked up the first 5 on the list in your link (checking manufacturers sites ) and none of those have any glucose fructose (at least at the moment):sugar is listed high on each list though. The next one contains fructose (but that's not quite the same thing)
And Borofergie won't be happy to realise that the first product I've found from the list to actually contain some is his favourite biscuit.(and that may not be correct as it wasn't from the manufacturers site)

 

[Sid Bonkers]

High Fructose - Corn Oil is not banned in the UK or Europe but it is regulated, besides the UK's sugar interests have always been in cane and beet sugars, it was only used in high concentrates in the USA where its production was aided by the US government imposing a high import tax on imports of other sugar products into the US, as explained in last nights program. In fact last nights program never mentioned its use in the UK I didnt think, unless I missed that bit.

Had a look on Tesco's site and the nutritional info for Corn Flakes and xyzzy is correct it does mention Glucose-Fructose Syrup but oddly enough it doesnt mention it on the nutritional info on the a Corn Flakes box???? Strange that as I was under the impression that all ingredients had to be listed on the box's of all foods sold in the UK. Still the amounts I eat are not going to be a problem anyway and I am far from addicted to Corn Flakes :lol:

Out of interest has anyone tried to buy high fructose corn oil in the UK, because I can find no where that sells it here.

 

[borofergie]

And Borofergie won't be happy to realise that the first product I've found from the list to actually contain some is his favourite biscuit.(and that may not be correct as it wasn't from the manufacturers site)

NNNNOOOOOOOoooooooo!!!!!!!!