Cally's working title

Dug asks whether or not polyunsaturated fats are good for you. He quotes a site he has been working on, and in particular, the page about fats from the same site.

Well…

About polyunsaturates. I wonder if the bad stuff is actually about hydrogenation, which is the process used to increase shelf-life on polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs)—it creates trans fatty acids which are bad. Also, when some polyunsaturated fats are heated to a high heat, the chemical structure changes and they act like saturated fats, which is also bad. But, n-3 fatty acids are PUFAs (in fatty fish such as mackerel, sardines, tuna, cod, etc.) and in some circles, they are thought to be the new wonder nutrient, and wide ranging. Involving blood pressure, cardiac function, cardiac electrophysiology, anti-platelet and anti-inflammatory—all of which are good. I’m convinced I must say.

It might be the trans fat issue that some have been worried about.

Legislation has recently come about in the U.S.—trans fats now must be recorded on all some food labels. However, yes, there is a loophole. Evidentally restaurants don’t need to display same which means FAST FOOD restaurants such as you know who, can pretend the new law doesn’t exist!

Having said all that, caution still needs to be heeded with the consumption with n-3s, because although n-3s are good, they are still fats and if too much of them are consumed there’s the whole obesity argument to contend with.

So that’s that really.

For some time now, saturated fats have taken over as the big bad nutrient we should all avoid—and we should I hasten to add. However, the last few years have seen new research on the deadliest white substance of them all … sugar!

The issue here is not so much natural sugars within the food, but added sugars—these are also called free sugars. A World Health Organization Expert Consultation on nutrition recommends that free sugars should be limited in the diet to less than 10% of overall energy intake. As you can well imagine, the sugar industry particularly in the U.S., is doing its utmost to discredit the WHO’s findings and ensure we continue to consume over and above the recommended 10%.

You may find arguments put forward stating less sugar is now being added to the diet than ever before. For the sugar farmers, this may or may not be the case. We’d need to look at the balance sheets for evidence. However previously, sugar was understood to mean the pure, white and deadly substance mentioned above—sugar processed from beet or cane. Now of course, it may also mean high fructose corn syrup, dextrose, glucose and a dozen other different names.

The smartest trick up the food industry’s sleeve however is the addition of fruit juices, usually in the form of apple juice, which you’ll often see on labels of ‘healthy’ foods. This would appear to be a healthy option after all, fruit juice is good for you! The label may also read ‘no added sugar’. Alas, a little known fact is that when juice is extracted from fruit, the sugar in it becomes free (added) sugar. The only difference being a few extra vitamins and minerals. To the body, the free sugar from the juice will behave in the same way as eating sugar in a biscuit or chocolate bar. There will be a quick peak in sugar levels, providing instant energy, followed by a sudden drop, triggering hunger, maybe headaches, irritability, tiredness… and all those other symptoms associated with the highs and lows of blood sugar.

The question therefore is… should the food industry include fruit juice as an ‘added sugar’?

http://www.lymeregisfoods.com/nosugar.htm
http://kidshealth.org/parent/nutrition_fit/nutrition/sugar.html