• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

The Men Who Made Us Fat

It seems to me Mr Bonkers is under the misconception that we are what we eat, and that people are to blame for the amount of Sugars no let me put that another way (Carbohydrates) and food consumed. I totally disagree with your stance on this. How would, could you Justify the misleading advertisements and poor information so freely given out not only by the Food company's but our own Government, as a nation we are told go the Low Fat route so you buy low fat food! its good for you, but no it's loaded with sugar. At what point are people informed of the fact,, what is a good diet do they teach it at School? Well I have 4 Boy's and they would eat sweets to live on, have the Schools educated them in the adverse effects no they haven't nor are they likely too. I agree a little of all is good, where are the TV adds saying do not eat more than this or that, too many cans of coke is bad, or when your watching the England match and the Mars add pops up at the bottom it would say too many will make you Obese, they do it with Alcohol, and Cigarettes are now banned. That is not the case the bad stuff is loaded into foods in every day produce in the supermarkets, where I would say 90% of the population shop, as seen above Kelloggs not being honest about the effect sugar can have, and they are not on there own.

Mr Bonkers you are fond of saying when I was a Lad and we never had this or that, I was once the same young child told the same as you and Im sat here now with Diabetes as you, and my diet was good natural food eggs, milk, butter, meat, fish, vegetables that my Mother grew in the Garden. where and why did it go wrong? And guess what the world now is far removed from our Idyllic Childhoods, and **** is constantly rammed into every single persons head on an hourly basis now.

From the minute you switch on the Radio or TV !! And short of going back in our Caves it will not stop. So for me the answer has to be. Stop the lying manufactures from profiteering and preying on US Joe public, Tell our Governments enough is enough sort it out or guess what you wont be in power next time. and stop telling the nation Obesity is the individuals fault because of lack of control. If we keep that attitude up nothing will ever get resolved.
 
Oh and I believe the next episode of this series is called Supersizing, which is pretty much just gluttony in disguise isnt it and another reason why we became fat as a nation, how many people would order a supersize meal if they were called a 'Glutton Size' meal?
Click to expand...

Interesting take on this term Sid.

How can it be Gluttony of people are not told that the food they are eating has been changed to suppress their natural feelings of fullness and will over-ride their appetite?

Its like giving someone a Debit card without telling you that it acts as a Credit card. Instead of stopping when your account is empty, or telling you your account is empty, it keeps on taking money out an leaving you unknowingly in debt.

General point here:

I have worked with Alcoholics, drug addicts and the like. I dont feel comfortable with the use of negative and judgemental words to describe the behaviour of those who become addicted, for whatever reason, to substances. Including those who are mislead into becoming addicted to foods containing artificial fats, sweeteners and any sugars. It smacks of blaming the victim to me.
 
I love this bit RoyG

Type 1 diabetes is usually diagnosed during childhood. It's believed to be an autoimmune disease and is not preventable. Type 2 diabetes usually occurs in adults, and is generally associated with being overweight or obese.

According to the American Diabetes Association (ADA), consuming too much sugar does not cause diabetes. However, consuming too many calories from any combination of foods and drinks in the diet, if you don't use up enough energy, can lead to becoming overweight or obese.
Click to expand...

So Type 2 is preventable, and caused by being overweight or obese, yet sugar is nothing to do with it.

Brilliantly worded piece of rubbish. I bet the Spin-doctors had to work all week to word that one just right (for them)

And from the website of the ADA:

The key to keeping your blood glucose levels on target is to substitute small portions of sweets and sweeteners for other carb-containing foods in your meals and snacks.
Click to expand...

So thye are making a distinction between sugars and carbs and suggesting that its OK to substitute one for the other :crazy:
 
One thing that doesn't seem to have been mentioned inthis thread yet is the question of how much is too much with sugar. Again (sorry to harp on about this) if the medical establishment doesn't accept a hypothesis (in this case that sugar is especially guilty in obesity) then it will always be difficult to obtain any facts or recommendations from them about the problem.

For some time now, I've been keeping a comprehensive history of my "on target" eating via a website. (my biggest proble is the amount of time I'm off target, but lets put that to one side for now). I can see that when I've been eating well and losing a little weight, I've been getting between 60g and 90g of sugar. When "off target", this figure may well be trebled but I have no records to help here.

So the question is "What's the healthy number supposed to look like?"
 
))Denise(( said:
Quite why I still have a packet of 2009 cornflakes in my kitchen is beyond me (probably that my OH is a hoarder :lol: ). But it is rather concerning that one of my favourite breakfast cereals before diagnosis had glucose-fructose syrup in it.
Click to expand...

Yes as you say perhaps there is a reason Kelloggs no longer seems to put HFCS in most of its products although here's one that still does .... straight of their own UK site.

http://www.kelloggs.co.uk/products/cornflakes/Cereal/corn_flakes_with_a_hint_of_honey.aspx

I wonder if its anything to do with the bad press Kelloggs gets about its advocasy of sugar and such like? It gets in lots of legal trouble time and again about it. It doesn't seem to have that many morals when marketing especially towards vulnerable children.

Are they gluttons to perhaps?

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/04/kellogg.shtm

that a breakfast of Frosted Mini-Wheats cereal is clinically shown to improve children’s attentiveness by nearly 20 percent.
Click to expand...

and then well, would you know it, within a year they had ignored that ruling and did the same thing again with that old childrens favourite Rice Krispies claiming it gave children an increase in immunity from disease!

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2010/06/kellogg.shtm

Leading cereal maker Kellogg Company has agreed to new advertising restrictions to resolve a Federal Trade Commission investigation into questionable immunity-related claims for Rice Krispies cereal.
Click to expand...

Not that they seem to care much about any of their customers. Even the FDA has got involved after inspecting a plant and finding Listeria and loads of flies crawling over the ingredients

http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/WarningLetters/ucm258912.htm

Oh and again that was the second offence ....

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...nd-fda-warning-on-listeria-in-2-years-1-.html

Not that is seems to ever bother them. They once had to recall loads of products because they had contaminated them with poisonous chemicals.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/1901809/fda_says_kelloggs_cereal_problem_now_resolved/

The most recent announcement by the FDA came just days after U.S. lawmakers tried to find more information about the chemical believed to be behind this summer’s recall of 28 million boxes of Corn Pops, Honey Smacks, Fruit Loops and Apple Jacks cereals.
Click to expand...

Anyway that's in America surely the same thing doesn't happen here ?

Well ...

2012 - Told to stop saying that science shows eating sugar is healthy

http://www.asa.org.uk/ASA-action/Ad...nd-Sales-Company-(UK)-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_172001.aspx

2009 - "Nutri-Grain Soft Oaties" told they were lying about health claims

http://www.asa.org.uk/Asa-Action/Ad...-and-Sales-Company-(UK)-Ltd/TF_ADJ_45721.aspx

What a lovely company a really great one that DUK should be seen to be associating with. :lol:
 
Dougie22 said:
For some time now, I've been keeping a comprehensive history of my "on target" eating via a website. (my biggest proble is the amount of time I'm off target, but lets put that to one side for now). I can see that when I've been eating well and losing a little weight, I've been getting between 60g and 90g of sugar. When "off target", this figure may well be trebled but I have no records to help here.

So the question is "What's the healthy number supposed to look like?"
Click to expand...

I think that the healthy number is a maximum of 160g of carbohydrate a day (which is just about the maximum you can use in a 24 hour period, unless you are an athlete). It doesn't matter if it's sugar or anything else. I'll concede that low-GI carbohydrates are marginally better, but you still have to process the glucose sometime.

In fact I'm very nervous of pinning all the blame on sugar. We all know that sugar is bad for you, and frankly it's easy to avoid (there are artificial sweetners that do the same job). What's more indidious is flour, which is more prevelant in our food supply than sugar, harder to spot, and harder to replace.

I think that demonizing sugar is a bad mistake, especially to an audience that think that pasta is the height of healthy eating.
 
borofergie said:
Dougie22 said:
For some time now, I've been keeping a comprehensive history of my "on target" eating via a website. (my biggest proble is the amount of time I'm off target, but lets put that to one side for now). I can see that when I've been eating well and losing a little weight, I've been getting between 60g and 90g of sugar. When "off target", this figure may well be trebled but I have no records to help here.

So the question is "What's the healthy number supposed to look like?"
Click to expand...

I think that the healthy number is a maximum of 160g of carbohydrate a day (which is just about the maximum you can use in a 24 hour period, unless you are an athlete). It doesn't matter if it's sugar or anything else. I'll concede that low-GI carbohydrates are marginally better, but you still have to process the glucose sometime.

In fact I'm very nervous of pinning all the blame on sugar. We all know that sugar is bad for you, and frankly it's easy to avoid (there are artificial sweetners that do the same job). What's more indidious is flour, which is more prevelant in our food supply than sugar, harder to spot, and harder to replace.

As I understand wholegrain bread is the best but they don't sell it in my ocal supermarket. They do sell wholemral which apparently isn't as good

I think that demonizing sugar is a bad mistake, especially to an audience that think that pasta is the height of healthy eating.
Click to expand...
As I understand it wholegrain bread is the best (or perhaps the best of a bad lot) but they don't sell it in my local supermarket so it's either wholemeal or nothing
 
noblehead said:
99.99% of the worlds leading experts
Click to expand...

Could you provide some evidence regarding that statement. You see you seem to say that quite a lot as if it answers any question that is ever put to you on these kinds of issues.

When I question other forum members they usually try and back up claims like that with links to research and studies that I and others find interesting to read and can make judgements from.

I don't think I've ever seen you post one link to any study that backs up your "99.99% experts say" position.

So can you give me some evidence to back up that 99.99% of experts say manufactured and highly processed "low fat" products where the natural fats have been removed and replaced by what appear to be sugars and other carbohydrates is more healthy.

If not I think its only fair that you need to correct what you say and explicitly state that its only your own opinion that you believe 99.99% of experts say such things and as such you can't provide any kind of real evidence to make up such a strong claim.

I and I suspect other forum readers are still unclear over your position as to why over the last 50 years there has been such a dramatic rise in obesity and diabetes. Is it that you think people are eating too much and not getting enough exercise and therefore have caused the problems themselves ?

noblehead said:
our modern sedentary lifestyles
Click to expand...

noblehead said:
we are more comfortably well off we are paying the price for relying on convenience/ fast foods and our reluctance to ditch the motor car and walk.
Click to expand...

I would find clarification of your views on this most enlightening and then I wouldn't accidentally offend you if I misinterpreted what you say.

I see another poster has come straight out and implied its all effectively down to how much food people put in their mouths and glutony and similar things. That's an opinion, one that I disagree with, but an opinion no less. That opinion seems to be the same as the sugar industry spokeswoman and the opinion of company's such as Kelloggs as far as I can see.
 
borofergie said:
In fact I'm very nervous of pinning all the blame on sugar.
Click to expand...

No I agree. Pinning all the blame is not correct but pointing out that the increasing additional sugar and HFCS type products to processed and manufactured foods to make them more appealing and sweet and dramatically increasing calorific content hasn't helped.

Likewise removing natural fats from products and replacing with carbohydrates so that either a) The low fat product is actually more calorific or b) does not suppress appetite so people eat far more etc. c) loads of other reasons - is also not helpful.

This is all just evidence as to why the increase in peoples intakes of highly processed carbohydrates are the cause of the problem in the last 50 years which is a position I thought you accepted?
 
xyzzy said:
I would find clarification of your views on this most enlightening and then I wouldn't accidentally offend you if I misinterpreted what you say.

Yes you do have a strange habit of misinterpretating what certain members say xyzzy, not to worry your best bet is just to have your say and leave it at that......or do you have another agenda?

I see another poster has come straight out and implied its all effectively down to how much food people put in their mouths and glutony and similar things. That's an opinion, one that I disagree with, but an opinion no less. That opinion seems to be the same as the sugar industry spokeswoman and the opinion of company's such as Kelloggs as far as I can see.
Click to expand...

Of course it's an opinion just like everyone else's, in case you've forgotten it is a discussion forum where people contribute their views on all subjects, no one is right and no one is wrong, the 99.99% figure is my own view as everything else I have said thus far in this discussion, as I said until such times where cardiovascular surgeons and staff change their views on healthy eating in hospital wards I will continue with the way I eat, after all I'm doing OK after getting the green light last years after my Coronary Angiogram and my cholesterol results are yet again below the recommended levels.

Out of interest, you know you were saying that your local hospital is training their nurses in low-carb diets, what advice are they giving patients with reference to fats in the diet ? I was telling my DSN about this hospital and she was going to contact them as she had a type 2 patient enquiring about a low-carb diet.
 
xyzzy said:
This is all just evidence as to why the increase in peoples intakes of highly processed carbohydrates are the cause of the problem in the last 50 years which is a position I thought you accepted?
Click to expand...

Among other things, yes.

Let's be absolutely clear, sugar is not the biggest source of carbohydrate in the UK diet (according to the National Diet and Nutrition Survey 2010).
  1. Cereal and cereal products - 42%
  2. Sugar (NMIS) - 18%
  3. Vegetables - 14%
  4. Milk 5-9%

Men in the UK eat (on average) 255g of carbohydrates a day, women 200g.

Like all nutrition surveys, this is probably an gross underestimate of the actual consumption.
 
noblehead said:
their views on all subjects, no one is right and no one is wrong, the 99.99% figure is my own view as everything else I have said thus far in this discussion, as I said until such times where cardiovascular surgeons and staff change their views on healthy eating in hospital wards I will continue with the way I eat, after all I'm doing OK after getting the green light last years after my Coronary Angiogram and my cholesterol results are yet again below the recommended levels.
Click to expand...

I agree that all considered opinions are valid, but it is perfectly possible (and, in fact, entirely likely) that made up statistics are wrong.

Reasoned estimates are fine, but it doesn't help intelligent argument when people throw in made up numbers such as "99.99%". Firstly it's representing a false consensus, and secondly it could easily be misinterpreted by someone less knowledgeable as fact.

Here is a group of leading experts that do not agree with you:
http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD002137/ ... rt-disease

If you want me to provide more, then I can go on all day.

99% of all statistics are made up.
Click to expand...
 
noblehead said:
Out of interest, you know you were saying that your local hospital is training their nurses in low-carb diets, what advice are they giving patients with reference to fats in the diet ? I was telling my DSN about this hospital and she was going to contact them as she had a type 2 patient enquiring about a low-carb diet.
Click to expand...

My information comes indirectly from one of the consultants there and is from a few months ago. At the time they were saying they were going to roll out some low carb dietary info and training. As T2 I don't get to see the consultants and GP's so that is as much as I know.

Actually I was there yesterday having my eye check up as that's where we all get sent in these parts. While I could still see I looked at all the advice that they had laid out on their boards and big TV screen. I was actually quite impressed. There was an emphasis on portion control which as I've always said is valid but within that they were pushing the importance of restricting starchy carbohydrates quite well although the "include some with every meal" was still there. They were heavily pushing restricting sugar far more than many of those PCT leaflets people have posted and gave useful info such as if you eat chocolate eat small amounts of dark chocolate. On fruit they emphasised not eating too much in anyone go and quite correctly they also emphasised fresh foods rather than processed ones. They stated all commercially labelled diabetic foods were rubbish and should not be purchased.

The only thing I could find to really disagree with was when their screen stated that two hour readings up to 12 were ok :shock: However they did state the NICE 4 - 7 fasting levels on the same screen. Maybe it's because they now only concentrate on T1 as with insulin resistant T2's saying 12 would likely mean many will never hit 4 - 7 fasting levels. An average T2's slow down in insulin response could mean that just as they were coming down from 12 on one meal they'd be raising again from the next but as I say that was really the only thing I could strongly disagree with before the eye drops took effect :lol:

I would still find clarification of your views on the increases in the rates of obesity and diabetes most enlightening. Are they the same as Sids?
 
General observation:

As a newcomer to these types of discussions and debates I would welcome a clear indication of what is a made-up statistic and what is an actual statistic please.

i dont know everyone participating well enough to know when people are joking, or being sarcastic or actually quoting real figures.

I do find it very helpful when people link to where they get their information and statistics from so I can get the wider picture and background information on the subject.
 
noblehead said:
or do you have another agenda?
Click to expand...

I'm sure most regular readers of the forum know what my agenda is Noblehead as I have never tried to hide it. It is to promote the acceptance of LCHF diets for T2 sufferers as I believe they work and could benefit a lot more T2 patients if they were widely adopted in this country.

To do that I spend a great deal of time helping new members and posting research and debunking unsubstantiated tosh and rubbish that a minority of forum members post. I especially feel I should debunk those who claim patently mythical things like a low carb, low fat, low protein diet exists or claim or imply that T2's get the disease because they are slothful and lazy people rather than it being changes in dietary patterns caused by the increase in consumption of highly refined carbohydrates.

If you need a refresher course on my agenda try these threads as I say I am very open about what I say and why I say it.

So look here

http://www.diabetes.co.uk/diabetes-forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=28402

or here

http://www.diabetes.co.uk/diabetes-forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=30262

or here

http://www.diabetes.co.uk/diabetes-forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=29512

If you need some others just ask.

Perhaps we should swap links and you could post some that show some of the things you believe in? I'm sure the forum readers would like to see your opinions as you have stated them over the years.
 
Not around much over last few days, and away all next week,so apologies for lack of contributions. However, I would like to pick up on this "99.9% of Worlds leading experts...." bit. I understand that it's a bit of poetic licence to mean that YOU THINK everyone agrees about the dangers of fats. But it does suggest a level of information exists about this which isn't so, and when it comes from someone seen as an expert it can be misleading especially to a newly diagnosed diabetic. Unless of course there is evidence about this 99.9% in which case I apologise
 
Back
Top