Coca-Cola and sugar

last go

Try again

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

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.

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.

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.

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."

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

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."

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'.

I never listen to him myself. His appearance and his accent and his manner annoyed me the one time I did. Just to be clear

Agreed, mamie. Guess I've just got the wrong impression of JO because I saw so many comments (elsewhere) saying they wished he'd shut up.

I also don't think it's a simple sugar issue though, just as heart disease wasn't and isn't a simple fat issue, in spite of all the hype.

This is from one of the comments under the article, which appears on the Conservative Home site.
"I wasn't aware that the report that advocated the sugar tax was conducted by amateurs. It was in fact nothing to do with Jamie Oliver at all, it was commissioned by Public Health England and was endorsed by the chief medical officer".
I have no idea where the figure on sugar consumption comes from, but it seems clear to me that the article has been written by Conservatives supporting David Cameron's veto of the sugar tax.
They are, of course, entitled to do that.
The rest of us are entitled to agree or disagree.

’Spect the hospital consultant, and his fellow writer of the article, an NHS dietician, know, for instance, a bit more about nutritional epidemiology than Jamie Oliver does.

The writer of the article where I read that is an NHS hospital consultant so he may know a thing or two. I also read, elsewhere, about the problems with insulin that no-calorie sweeteners cause.

There has been a long -running campaign to vilify non-sucrose sweaters. And the stats I saw, if you take into consideration hidden sugars, do not bear of the assertion that sugar consumption has fallen. But if you mean less people take sugar in tea and coffee........

I think we need to look at every assertion that sugar is not the villain very carefully, there are powerful commercial interests working behind statements such as that.

heritageihc.com/blog/aspartame-and-weight-gain/

Part of the link reads:
the epidemiologic data suggest the opposite is true, and that artificial sweeteners such as aspartame tend to lead to weight gain. One reason for aspartame’s potential to cause weight gain is because phenylalanine and aspartic acid – the two amino acids that make up 90 percent of aspartame — are known to rapidly stimulate the release of insulin and leptin; two hormones that are intricately involved with satiety and fat storage. Insulin and leptin are also the primary hormones that regulate your metabolism.
So although you’re not ingesting calories in the form of sugar, aspartame can still raise your insulin and leptin levels.
Elevated insulin and leptin levels, in turn, are two of the driving forces behind obesity, diabetes, and a number of our current chronic disease epidemics.

Just seen this interesting statement: "The fact that obesity levels have continued to march inexorably upwards – despite sugar consumption falling over two decades – is ignored".

Sugar consumption falling? That seems counter to the impression many have that sugar consumption is going up because of so-called hidden sugars.

Puzzled.

I don't really care to be honest.
This is the bit from Zoe Harcombe's blog that interests me.

"Conflicts:
The conflicts of interest among panel members long preceded this report. Channel 4 ran a programme on the 20th January 2014 highlighting the food industry funding received by “the chief scientist looking at the sugar question” – Professor Ian MacDonald of Nottingham University. Channel 4 Dispatches discovered that since 2012 he had resumed working for two food and drink giants: sitting on two advisory boards for Coca Cola and one for Mars. As the programme released noted: “He also receives funding from Unilever which is the world’s largest ice-cream manufacturer.”

Hannah Sutter did a fuller expose of other committee members here. Notice Jordan cereal – they’ll love the fibre love-in. Mars and Coca-Cola will be really happy that sugar has largely been exonerated and Sainsbury’s will be happy that 80% of the current aisles have been given a health tick.

You’ll have to search hard for the declared conflicts. I asked Public Health England and was directed to the annual report. Check out Annex 5.

The SACN report has a preface by Dr Ann Prentice, Chair of the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition. Here are her declared interests. I’ve highlighted a few:

Action Medical Research; Aarhus University Hospital; Aquapharm; Arch Timber Protection; Boden Institute for Obesity; British Dietetic Assoc; BUPA Treasury; Cambridge University Hospitals; Christie NHS Foundation Trust; Coca Cola; Cranfield University; Danish Brewers’ Association; Diabetes UK; Electro Sci. Industries; European Molecular Biology Laboratory; HS Pharma; Institute of Brewing and Distilling; Ikon Informatics; Iron Therapeutics Switzerland AG; Kellogg Company; King’s College Hospital LLR-G5 Limited; National Safety Assoc; National Centre for Social Research; Nestle; Playerthree; Shield Holding AG; Thermo Fisher Scientific; Weight Watchers Int; World Cancer Research Fund; The Rank Prize Funds; Thrombosis Research Institute; UCL Consultants; Universitat Rovira; Weight Watchers; York Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust; pSiMedica."

Pity she wrote all those diet books before she started working on a PhD. Which sh seems to be working for at the moment. Talk about cart before the horse.

Yes I saw that too. I think the 2011 date of Ben Goldacre's comments is relevant. She seems to have a lot more support from the scientific and medical community now judging by the comments on her analyses.
I haven't read her diet books, so I can't comment on those.

Are you disputing her analysis of the paper, Jingl? Do you not find the conflict of interest section somewhat alarming? Would you draw different conclusions from your analysis of the SACN paper?

This:

Zoe Harcombe sells diet books. This week in the Daily Mail she was explaining that fruit and veg are actually no good for you. There’s a fascinating conversation to be had about the evidence base on the relationship between diet and health: would you start with Zoe’s work?

We all rely on heuristics, or shortcuts. Trusting an authority is one. Zoe boasts in the Mail that she is “studying for a PhD in nutrition” but she admitted to me, tediously, inevitably, that she’s not registered for a PhD anywhere (although she is thinking about doing one in the future).

Does it matter? We read a precis of research as a shortcut, but once you lose trust, to double check whether someone has fairly represented an entire field, you’d have to read that field’s entire canon, and after many years of work, whatever your other conclusions were, the strongest would be that any timesaving benefit from reading a precis has plainly been annihilated. Given that this is the case, I know it’s harsh, and you may disagree, but in a busy world, I’m not sure I see the point of a Zoe Harcombe.

Ben Goldacre, The Guardian, Saturday 29 January 2011

Oh no! Not bloody Zoe Harcombe again. Is she really qualified? Has she put out any scientific papers out to prove the point on which she sells her books?