Coca-Cola and sugar

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.

crun I find it relatively easy to count calories but much harder when cooking from scratch. I think this is why my own eating is a bit disfunctional: I just eat foods where I can easily count calories. These foods are not always the most healthy-a McD, for example, has its calorie content displayed and the homemade soup plus bread doesn't. It's almost impossible to estimate calories in home cooking, for me.

I existed for years-perhaps 20- on about 1000calories a day. I haven't got the willpower now. I was thin, but not that thin! I think I may have buggered up my metabolism...

”Sorry Crun, I don't quite follow what you are saying there. I put on weight slowly and over several years during the menopause without changing my diet or exercise regime. It was only when I went on a low-carb diet that the weight came off, easily and consistently over a year.”

As I said above, your own experience is not relevant to my argument because you’re exercising, and I’m referring to people who do no exercise.

”Trouble is, we, the consumer, have very little idea as to how to separate the added stuff out from the naturally-occurring stuff.” Read the labels.

” So what does the Government mean when it lectures us on "cutting out sugar?".” SACN report on carbohydrates and health.

”Does it mean cutting out added sugar?” YES!
”Cutting out tomato soup and beans, which have added sugar? ” YES!
”Cutting out fruit, which has fructose? ” NO!
”Cutting out milk, containing lactose? ” NO!
”Cutting out bread and spuds, containing carbs that turn to sugar? ” NO!
”What exactly does the Govt want us to do? Does anyone know? ” YES!
”Does the Govt itself know? ” YES!

” the information doesn't make sense or conflicts with some other message. And sugar is just the latest culprit in a long line of "bad" foods. First there was saturated fat, then salt, now sugar.” These are not conflicting messages, you can reduce added sugar and fat and salt.

”Fruit, another unprocessed food branded as a "goodie" is now no longer so great in the eyes of many due to its high sugar content” Not in the eyes of the SACN.

”Even nuts have come under scrutiny due to their being high in fat.” You can easily eat lots of nuts without getting too much fat.

” I don't think Crunchy Nut Cornflakes for breakfast will harm a child.” They contain seven times the recommended amount of sugar, but as Ben Goldacre said : “There’s no such thing as an unhealthy meal, only an unhealthy diet.

” Re sugar and healthy eating, she said what I have been saying all along, that schools are telling kids that too much sugar is bad for them right through from year one. They all know perfectly well.” And yet you’re still advocating education as a solution to the problem?

” Taken to the absurd it would suggest that you could get all 2000 calories a day from fizzy drinks and as long as you exercised them off sgain it would be fine.” Reductio ad absurdum, eating a truckload of fresh fruit and veg would also be fine.

” According to this publication, it didn't matter really what you ate as long as you didn't exceed 1000 calories per day.” Sudden death associated with very low calorie weight reduction regimens.

” if the total number of calories taken in exceeds the total number of calories used, the net result will be that the excess is stored as fat and weight gain.” If the total number of calories taken in exceeds the total number of calories used, the body is forced to make a decision: does it store the excess as fat, or excrete it. I’ve never seen any information about how the body makes that decision.

The basics of healthy living aren’t much in dispute, and don’t change much:

Eat plenty of variety
Cut down on added salt fat and sugar.
Eat plenty of fruit and veg.
Get plenty of exercise.

The problem is that people are always looking for easy answers, and there’s always a quack waiting in the wings with another simple answer at a price, and if they can sell it with a conspiracy theory all the better.

There’s no need to cook everything from scratch in order to eat healthily. My diet already meets the new reduced sugar recommendations simply by not buying all the things most people don’t want to give up: cakes, chocolate, fizzy drink etc. There’s also more to a healthy diet than what you eat and who cooks it: quantity is also a factor. If you’re overweight your ‘healthy’ diet isn’t healthy at all.

Yes I think if you look at what has changed over the last thirty years, it would be a) the availability processed food and drink with hidden sugar and b) constant grazing. I think because I am only in the UK for about eight weeks a year now, that I really notice all the fast food outlets and the people constantly eating when out and about. We used to get told off for being greedy, didn't we? Now I hear lots of "oh go on you deserve it", "I need cake", "treat yourself" etc.
France isn't that that far behind in the obesity stakes, but it is still rare to see people eating between meals and in most cafés round here you couldn't get a cake if you wanted one.

So it is the constant topping-up that does the damage. I agree with that.

Should have been ...as I want and leave out the carbs.
I think the point about burning carbs first and leaving fat is that if people are constantly topping up on sugary drinks and sugary fatty snacks then they won't burn off the fat. If there are no carbs to burn off first then the fat goes. This is obviously a gross oversimplification of complex processes.

Why would he not have breakfast Bags? Low-carbing normally involves a good breakfast; eggs, bacon, full-fat yoghurt etc.
I honestly can't say whether I am eating fewer calories than two years ago because I just eat as much protein, fat and above-the-ground vegetables and leave out the carbs.

I'm not defending anyone wilma and I didn't say you had said anything about lies. I was using a figure of speech.

There are different types of carbohydrates too - the sugar ones which are broken down at once and provide instant energy for exertion and the slow-release ones that fuel you more slowly and for longer. The sugary type get all the publicity at the moment.

But I do think you do have to be very wary of a paper where the scientists have a link with he food industry. Or drug industry of course. But they have to declare the interests now by law I believe.

DH went on a low carb diet (though I do wonder about his intake of free cake at work when he's starving in the afternoon because he's had no breakfast, provided by fellow workers ), but he can't have been eating fewer calories than he had been eating (or rather, than he needs) because he hasn't lost weight.

Sorry for my slow typing. My last post is in reply to jane

I suspect, mamie, that by going on your low carb diet you are eating fewer calories than you did even though you are not counting them. Since high protein and high fat foods are more filling, and take longer to digest, you may not realise that you are actually eating less because you don't feel hungry so often.

I didn't say anything about lies??? I said I would not take it at face value, that's all. Why are you so defensive about this??? What have I said that makes you think I am suspicious of what you have said?

If you search for articles by the writer off that website (which is perfectly respectable to my mind), you will see he's written quite a lot of articles on children of school age. One I was not impressed by that purporting to be showing a link between sports activities and taking a shower afterwards. It doesn't and the comments are more reasonable than the article.

Yes, calories from carbs are easier to convert to sugar so they get used first. Proteins and fats take longer, but they will be burned if there is nothing else to burn. Even stored fat will be broken down and used up if you are taking in fewer calories (you don't have to count them to do this; I've never counted calories either) than your body needs to function without losing weight. People who don't get enough, or only just enough calories do not get fat regardless of which foods they are eating.

However as I am sure I have already said, my objection to the use of "calories in calories out" as a measure is that it allows the food industry to suggest that it is perfectly ok to consume their artificial, sugary products as long as you exercise the calories off afterwards.

Calorie counting without ever counting or thinking about calories? Er-ok.
Should have added that the diet also includes cheese, butter and full-fat everything.

And I don't have any links with the Conversation either.
I found out about it because another Gransnetters posted some links to it.

wilma no I haven't.
But I think the Conversation is a wide-ranging publication that aims to be honest in the ideas it presents and is scrupulous in declaring interests, and the articles are well-referenced.
Interests don't always have to be conflicting. Just because an organisation is providing some of the funding for a researcher or department, doesn't mean that the findings of a paper are a tissue of lies.

No beans on top jing?

Oh! And there as me thinking it was all scientifically verified. It does sound like calorie counting under a different name. But I will shortly be having my jacket spud. With cheese.

I have read quite a few reports from the scientific community talking about calories being used in different ways, but I agree it is not widely accepted yet.
Yes to low-carb but filling up on vegetables, limited fruit, eggs, meat, fish and good fats (olive oil mostly).

Thanks jane I was thinking too literally and searching using all three words! Have you heard of the organisation or the writer before?

gettingonabit I do indeed remember that magazine and all the little supplementary magazines on specific diets. I followed one of its diets for years. It's a shame because I thought it was the best diet magazine out there and often ahead of its time.

Research now shows more clearly the relationship between the effect of what we eat and our insulin production., which then has a knock-on effect on things like cholesterol and helps explain why slim people can have high cholesterol and diabetes.

mamie I agree with you about "different sorts of calories" but I don't believe the research has had the endorsement of the scientific world just yet.

I think you are, in fact, counting calories by default. High-carb foods are relatively calorie-dense and it's easy to overload on them. If you are limiting carbs you are probably eating a lower-calorie diet as I'm guessing you are filling up on protein, fruit and veg rather Tha bread, cakes ,pasta and rice.

I'd definitely agree that you can't outrun a bad diet. Generally, people think that a couple of press-ups will work off a muffin. It won't. You need to be doing a lot of exercise for it to have an effect on weight. Great for fitness, but not for weight loss unless combined with a healthy diet.

"if you eat carbs and fat, the body will use the carbs and leave the fat. If you don't eat the carbs it will just burn the fat." It won't leave the fat forever - when it need the calories it stored from the fat, it will use them.