Coca-Cola and sugar

I googled 'has sugar consumption fallen in the UK' and most of the links that came up clearly had vested interests.

This is the summary of an article published by the Institute of Economic Affairs
Summary
● The rise in obesity in recent decades is popularly believed to be
the result of increased consumption of calories in general and
sugar in particular.
● Campaigners have called for product reformulation, fat taxes
and other anti-market policies to reduce calorie consumption at
the population level.
● All the evidence indicates that per capita consumption of sugar,
salt, fat and calories has been falling in Britain for decades. Per
capita sugar consumption has fallen by 16 per cent since 1992
and per capita calorie consumption has fallen by 21 per cent
since 1974.
● Since 2002, the average body weight of English adults has
increased by two kilograms. This has coincided with a decline
in calorie consumption of 4.1 per cent and a decline in sugar
consumption of 7.4 per cent.
● The rise in obesity has been primarily caused by a decline in
physical activity at home and in the workplace, not an increase
in sugar, fat or calorie consumption.

Here's a link to the full article, if anyone is interested
www.iea.org.uk/sites/default/files/in-the-media/files/Briefing_The%20Fat%20Lie.pdf

I have no idea if the Institute of Economic Affairs has links to either the Conservative Party or the sugar industry, though it does apparently promote 'free market economics'.

Thanks for the link, jane.

This is on the first page after the title and pic:
"As with all IEA publications, the views expressed are those of the author and not those of the Institute (which has no corporate view), its managing trustees, Academic Advisory Council or senior staff."

So any links of the author rather than the institute might be more telling. Or not, as the case may be.

There is an interesting refutation of Christopher Snowdon's paper for the IEA here. vernerwheelock.com/?p=556
In particular:
"To sum up, in all probability there has been a substantial drop in the consumption of calories and possibly also in fat. However when it comes to sugar, reliable information is hard to obtain but we can be confident that there is absolutely no credible evidence that there has been a decline in the consumption of sugar. In the light of the substantial increase in the amounts of soft drinks sold, coupled with the growth of sugar-containing processed foods, there are strong indications that total sugar consumption has increased steadily in the period up to 2000."

BTW I am not suggesting that in this instance, we are necessarily talking about links to the sugar industry. I think this is far more to do with the libertarian, free-market economics view of the world that would seem to me to fit with the IEA's stance on other issues.

One huge problem with knowing what people eat and in what quantities is that they have to rely on people accurately reporting what they eat. I think there's a report somewhere that says overweight and obese people frequently underestimate how much they eat and underweight overestimate.

Whatever the truth, this is a very inaccurate way of estimating sugar intake. A much better way would be to find out how much sugar is used by the food industry, because this would more accurately reflect what the nation is guzzling imbibing.

I agree anya that studies that involve people recording, or trying to remember, what they ate, are not reliable, as with the recent WHO advice about eating processed meat.
Another flaw is the reference to per capita consumption which is an average figure and would disguise the fact that while sugar consumption might have gone down in some population groups, in others it will be higher.
Also, even if obesity is not directly related to sugar consumption, there are other good reasons for trying to persuade people to reduce their intake.

Under reportimg of sugar intake by obese people

There were several research reports I could have used, but this one is quite succinct.,

Agree about being other good reasons for reducing sugar intake Jane

Try again

last go

The 'last go' link worked

Thanks for the link anya

This is a very long article in today's Guardian, but I think it tells us all we need to know about Mexico, sugar tax and Coca Cola.
Really shocking imo.
www.theguardian.com/news/2015/nov/03/obese-soda-sugar-tax-mexico

Did you see the TV programme (September I think) about Mexico and it's love affair with soda, especially Coca Cola?

The photo of the extremely obese young woman apparently sitting and 'exercising' is patently rediculous. What is that level if 'exercise' supposec to achieve?

No I missed that.
It is almost as if the apologists for sugar think that the more ludicrous the argument the more likely people are to believe it. For example, this quote from the article.
"As Mexico began to grapple with obesity, and soda’s role in it, the industry began to counterattack with the argument it uses everywhere that soda is under siege. “Obesity comes from taking in more calories than you spend,” said Jaime Zabludovsky, chair of the board of ConMexico, the processed food and beverage producers’ group. “If Michael Phelps eats 5,000 calories a day and swims 10km, there is no problem. If you eat 2,000 calories per day but don’t move, you have a problem. The source can be soda, tortillas, chocolate, sandwiches, fritanga, bagels – there is not any product that in itself causes obesity"."
From the board of ConMexico ho-hum.

If they are treating the calories in sugar merely as fuel for burning, then it is not a ludicrous argument at all. A calorie is the amount of fuel needed to do a given amount of work, so if you use all the calories you take in to do strenuous work or exercise, then yes, you will not get fat, he is quite right.

However, the sugar does not make any other contribution to the health of the body, so it would not be a good nutrient alone. You would be thin but unhealthy.

Exactly Elegran. I have just eaten a baked Bramley with two teasps of dem sugar. And some (no added sugar) custard. I am hoping it will give me the energy to see me through the ironing. And then it will be gone.

Can't be bothered to read all these boring links.

I wqonder if many obese, or even fat, people still drink the sugared cola. I think they may have gone over to the 'light' version.

" “If Michael Phelps eats 5,000 calories a day and swims 10km, there is no problem. If you eat 2,000 calories per day but don’t move, you have a problem. The source can be soda, tortillas, chocolate, sandwiches, fritanga, bagels – there is not any product that in itself causes obesity"."

That is what I think too.

But, of course, the great Zoe Harcombe knows best.

I agree Elegran that if you are just talking about fuel for burning then yes, a calorie is just a calorie, but it is not being used in that sense in that quote is it? It is being used to attempt to persuade people to buy and consume sugary food and drink.

Here is an explanation from the American paediatrician, Dr Robert Lustig.

"A calorie is a measurement of energy (a matter of physics), not a value judgment on where that energy goes (a matter of biochemistry). As my book Fat Chance explains, you get sick from inappropriate energy storage (in your liver and muscle), not defective energy balance (bigger love handles). Nonetheless, "a calorie is a calorie" continues to be promulgated by the food industry as their defense against their culpability for the current epidemic of obesity and chronic metabolic disease. (my italics) But it is as dishonest as a three-dollar bill. Here are just four examples that refute this dogma:

Fiber. You eat 160 calories in almonds, but you absorb only 130. The fiber in the almonds delays absorption of calories into the bloodstream, delivering those calories to the bacteria in your intestine, which chew them up. Because a calorie is not a calorie.
Protein. When it comes to food, you have to put energy in to get energy out. You have to put twice as much energy in to metabolize protein as you do carbohydrate; this is called the thermic effect of food. So protein wastes more energy in its processing. Plus protein reduces hunger better than carbohydrate. Because a calorie is not a calorie.
Fat. All fats release nine calories per gram when burned. But omega-3 fats are heart-healthy and will save your life, while trans fats clog your arteries, leading to a heart attack. Because a calorie is not a calorie.
Sugar. This is the "big kahuna" of the "big lie." Sugar is not one chemical. It's two. Glucose is the energy of life. Every cell in every organism on the planet can burn glucose for energy. Glucose is mildly sweet, but not very interesting (think molasses). Fructose is an entirely different animal. Fructose is very sweet, the molecule we seek. Both burn at four calories per gram. If fructose were just like glucose, then sugar or high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) would be just like starch. But fructose is not glucose. Because a calorie is not a calorie."

I don't buy this using the carbs from sugar as energy. All food provides energy and there are better sources than empty calories from sugar.

What in earth makes people think sugar is a good source of energy?

Thanks for a great link Mamie- very interesting.

Jingle- you are of course entitled to your opinion- but if

'Can't be bothered to read all these boring links.'.... then why not perhaps leave this thread for those of us who are interested in the science and research behind the theory that 'one calorie is not a calorie' - rather than repeating your disbelief again, and again. We all know what you think now- no need to repeat. Save time and energy (!) and just leave us to it- thanks.

"You might find this analysis of the SACN report interesting Crun.
www.zoeharcombe.com/2015/07/sacn-report-carbohydrates-health/
You will note in particular the interesting section on conflicts."

Self-appointed pundits on the internet are not the right place to get peer-reviewed scientific advice. This is the Motive Fallacy, not rational argument.

At a trial the defence barrister is paid by the defendant, and the prosecution barrister paid by the state, perhaps the jury shouldn't believe anything either of them say. Or perhaps they should just find in favour of whichever barrister is paid the least on the grounds that he's the least corrupt.

The general idea is that you judge arguments on their merits, and on the evidence, not the motives of the advocate. If you told me that people will die if they don't get enough to eat, and I reply that your just saying that because you want some of my dinner, have I proved that people can survive without food?

Some arguments are true even when there's a motive for making them, but the idea that the SACN are in hock to the sugar industry after they've just recommended a halving of sugar consumption is downright ridiculous.

"A calorie is a measurement of energy (a matter of physics), not a value judgment on where that energy goes (a matter of biochemistry)"

“If Michael Phelps eats 5,000 calories a day and swims 10km, there is no problem. "

Sugar is quickly digested and absorbed and ready for use by athletes who need plenty of energy fast, without storing it for later use (as fat), or expecting it to build up muscle. Other fuels are better for slower use. That is why it is consumed in high energy drinks by those who want a boost when their energy levels are flagging. No sensible person is saying that it a good source of nutrients for the body.