The FastDay Forum

Woke up to this this morning. Here's the podcast

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/pro ... 09/5239418





Controversial research by two leading nutritionists which claims sugar has had no role to play in Australia’s obesity crisis is now under investigation by Sydney University. The paper claims that sales of soft drinks have declined by 10 per cent, but now it looks like the nutritionists themselves are walking away from that statistic, as Wendy Carlisle writes.

What role does sugar play in Australia’s obesity crisis?

According to research from two leading nutritionists, the answer is not much at all.

If that’s the case, it means Australia is unique and sugar is not implicated in our ever expanding girths. If the research is true, then sugar and in particular soft drinks are off the hook.

The research comes from one of Australia’s best known nutritionists, Professor Jennie Brand Miller, and her colleague Dr Alan Barclay........


read more on site



Thoughts?

wow, just listened to that podcast. Jennie Brand-Miller has been a hero of mine since I diagnosed myself with type 2 diabetes more than 13 years ago - just such a pity that the line gets blurred between research and corporate interests - this happens in medicine too, unfortunately. She doesn't come out of it looking very good, I'm afraid. And I think that's a pity, because she has done lots of work on glycaemic index of heaps of food, and has generally made a great contribution to the science of carbohydrates.

Goodness, it's such a simple blunder that she has made, but one has to wonder whether she has been blinded by her corporate links to the food industry. And I do think that sugar is not necessarily the poison it's made out to be in some circles - potatoes, white (high amylopectin) rice and white bread are just as bad. A small amount of sugar won't kill you - just like a small amount of oxygen or water or potassium won't kill you!, but I do think she goes a bit far to say that it's part of a healthy diet, that bit I personally won't swallow!

I haven't listened, and probably shan't as I can't face more conflicting information on what I eat!! I am interested though in who funded the research. Did she say?

Well, it was a paper on the so-called "Australian paradox", where JBM stated that although Australian obesity rates were going up, sugar consumption wasn't - turns out the australian bureau of statistics just stopped measuring sugar consumption, because it was too inaccurate and hard to do. Some in the sugar industry have been supporting her glycemic index institute, bit of a conflict of interest there really!

bump

Juliana.Rivers wrote: bump

Juliana glad you bumped this. It's sad the merging of corporate interests with public health needs.
I'm with debs I can't read any more conflicting stuff for a while. Going to pretend MM is guru for now. Ohm MM

Yep, wise move there!! Every time something is published, something else completely contradictory comes out. OH told me today that the Vit D studies have been discredited. Just finished the other half of my salted chocolate caramel tart and decided that I shall avoid most dietary info., and just take what I think I need to get what I think is a healthy diet (caramel tart notwithstanding ).
I think I can decide what a healthy diet for me is, whether I follow it is then my choice but I will be putting good quality food into my gob either way! I do instinctively feel that sugar does have a lot to answer for and I have increased my good fat intake. Time will tell

Debs wrote: Yep, wise move there!! Every time something is published, something else completely contradictory comes out. OH told me today that the Vit D studies have been discredited. Just finished the other half of my salted chocolate caramel tart and decided that I shall avoid most dietary info., and just take what I think I need to get what I think is a healthy diet (caramel tart notwithstanding ).
I think I can decide what a healthy diet for me is, whether I follow it is then my choice but I will be putting good quality food into my gob either way! I do instinctively feel that sugar does have a lot to answer for and I have increased my good fat intake. Time will tell

I totally agree Debs that sugar (simple carbs) causes problems. I think fasting is educating me about food in a new way. I'm kinda more conscious. I'm sure there will be times when i roam off the tracks, that happens. I just hope it doesn't last too long. I went on a low carb diet two years ago. The diabetic surgeon running the group I was attending was furious with the low-fat nonsense and he'd just tell us to eat whatever we wanted and to just not eat carbs for one week. Then the next week we were told to just eat 120 gms of carbs a week. I lost 14 kilos in 6 months. All except 4 kilos came back on two years later. I think the fasting is important to control the hunger hormones and again to reeducate us on how to eat. I'm almost 50 i so hope I've found the miracle cure here. But I know there obstacles.
Now chocolate caramel tart. That's got to be innocent sugar now and then

Now chocolate caramel tart. That's got to be innocent sugar now and then

@Jo05 - precisely

Fat was the bad guy a few years ago. Now it's sugar. There's a bet going on over at MFP that next obesity will be blamed on too much protein

For me, my glucose number went from the pre-diabetic range, back down to the normal range, while continuing to eat sugar. What I did change was my calorie consumption. As I lost weight due to calorie restricting (ADF), my glucose number went down. I didn't eat a lot of sugar on my fasting days, but that correlated with eating less calories on those days. On my regular days I ate sugar and carbs to my hearts desire I still eat a generous amount of sugar-yesterday I had candy, a deep fried hot fudge donut sundae, a homemade peanut butter rice krispie bar and a homemade raisin oatmeal cookie. I fit it all into my non-fasting day calorie amount and moved on.

It irks me that regular soda is frequently used as an example for how bad sugar is. No one talks about how many calories are in that soda though-240 calories in a 20 ounce grab bottle of Coke and 290 calories in a 20 ounce grab bottle of Mountain Dew (these are sold a lot at gas stations and grocery store check outs and people usually drink the whole bottle at one time).

And calories from drinks are ones that many people don't really think of. I have a friend who drinks a lot of milk. She's now trying to lose weight by exercising, and she no longer eats after 8pm (she refuses to count calories though). But, then she mentioned that she still drinks milk after 8pm, usually 2 glasses. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess the problem is not the sugar from the milk (12g per 1 cup serving), but all those calories that are slipping in, that aren't even on her radar as a problem. A one cup serving of 2% milk has 130 calories. Talking to my friend about her milk consumption it worked out to her consuming almost 700 calories a day, just in milk (and she also drinks regular soda too).

Along those lines there's a huge movement, at least here in the states, of drinking energy drinks like Red Bull (which boasts 40 BILLION cans sold on their website). An 8 ounce can has 110 calories. I know several people who chug these things, and yes they're all overweight.

And don't even get me started on the amount of calories from drinks from places like Starbucks and Bigby coffee lol. Sure a 12 ounce Starbucks Double Chocolaty Chip Frappuccino has 38 grams of sugar, but it also has 300 calories

So, is it too much sugar that's causing weight gain or could it be that people are just consuming too many calories, many times not even realizing it?

Ok, rant over

Generally when you cut calories you'll find you cut carbohydrates too. As it is the total grams of carbs (i.e., sugar plus all other sources of carbs) you eat rather than the percentage of calories from carbs that is relevant (due to the way it affects insulin levels), then if you are cutting calories and therefore are cutting your total carb content, it is quite possible that you drop below the threshold where insulin levels are too high to allow fat burning and only result in fat storage. Hence when talking about sugar and carbs as being a problem you have to look at the total amount of carbs being eaten rather than the proportion of carbs to fats.

If you count the carb content of slimming diets, such as weight watchers, you will find that the carbs eaten will be considerably lower compared with the SAD.

Each person has a different 'sensitivity' to carbs depending on their degree or otherwise of insulin resistance, so it is quite possible for some people to have a relatively high carb diet and still lose weight whereas for others a low carb diet is needed.

Looking at our forum members we can see that e.g. FatDog or Miffy49 can only lose weight by keeping carbs low, while myself and Sarajayne are lucky in that we can lose weight even with a higher carb intake.

In summary then, sugar (and carbs) is the demon for some people but not for others. Looking at things from a population perspective, it makes sense to advice cutting sugar in things like sodas etc because, as Sarajayne says, you're just drinking calories without getting any other kind of nutrients.

carorees wrote: Generally when you cut calories you'll find you cut carbohydrates too. As it is the total grams of carbs (i.e., sugar plus all other sources of carbs) you eat rather than the percentage of calories from carbs that is relevant (due to the way it affects insulin levels), then if you are cutting calories and therefore are cutting your total carb content, it is quite possible that you drop below the threshold where insulin levels are too high to allow fat burning and only result in fat storage. Hence when talking about sugar and carbs as being a problem you have to look at the total amount of carbs being eaten rather than the proportion of carbs to fats.

If you count the carb content of slimming diets, such as weight watchers, you will find that the carbs eaten will be considerably lower compared with the SAD.

Each person has a different 'sensitivity' to carbs depending on their degree or otherwise of insulin resistance, so it is quite possible for some people to have a relatively high carb diet and still lose weight whereas for others a low carb diet is needed.

Looking at our forum members we can see that e.g. FatDog or Miffy49 can only lose weight by keeping carbs low, while myself and Sarajayne are lucky in that we can lose weight even with a higher carb intake.

In summary then, sugar (and carbs) is the demon for some people but not for others. Looking at things from a population perspective, it makes sense to advice cutting sugar in things like sodas etc because, as Sarajayne says, you're just drinking calories without getting any other kind of nutrients.

Good point on different people having different levels of sensitivity. It's kind of like my daughter who's sensitive to dairy. She has to approach food a bit differently than others do, because dairy and her stomach do NOT get along This doesn't mean that dairy is bad for everyone, it's just not good for her.

Sarajaynevz wrote: Fat was the bad guy a few years ago. Now it's sugar. There's a bet going on over at MFP that next obesity will be blamed on too much protein

protein already gets a bad rap in some quarters (IGF-1 levels, e.g.)

The science behind sugar and refined carbs being bad is MUCH better than the science behind fat being bad. People should be careful about how they vilify it, though, because they come across as extreme and shrill, and then no one takes them seriously.

I'm sure I read somewhere (I suspect when I was reading around on weight lifting sites) that body shape (apple vs. pear) is a determinant for how much carbs you can handle. Does that ring any bells, @carorees?

The "modification" of their paper was a subject of an ABC news report yesterday - here (hopefully) is a link to it:

http://ab.co/1onHXzY

MaryAnn wrote:

Sarajaynevz wrote: Fat was the bad guy a few years ago. Now it's sugar. There's a bet going on over at MFP that next obesity will be blamed on too much protein

protein already gets a bad rap in some quarters (IGF-1 levels, e.g.)

The science behind sugar and refines carbs being bad is MUCH better than the science behind fat being bad. People should be careful about how they vilify it, though, because they come across as extreme and shrill, and then no one takes them seriously.

I'm sure I read somewhere (I suspect when I was reading around on weight lifting sites) that body shape (apple vs. pear) is a determinant for how much carbs you can handle. Does that ring any bells, @carorees?

I agree about not trying to sound shrill or extreme. I think the thing most diets or doctors don't tell you is that every one is individual. There are complex reasons for each persons situation. Learning flexibility is important in this. We are no longer able to just follow simple rules we have to discover what works for each of us. That's hard to get your head around when you've been fed simple formulas for years on weight loss. Even 5:2 is not simple but it is the best thing I've done so far. At 48 I've got a few ideas in what works. Im feeling supported to keep going thanks to you here I so couldn't do it alone.
Cheers Jo