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
Comments (1)
Callie said,"The question therefore is… should the food industry include fruit juice as an ‘added sugar’?"
Probably wouldn't do any good. Those who are nutritionally savvy already know better than to drink large amounts of fruit juices. Those who do not understand how concentrated sweets affect their metabolisms will pay little heed to changes in labeling standards.
It's interesting that individuals differ greatly in their responses to sugar. That is to say, some are more vulnerable to over consumption than others. The sugar industry makes use of this fact to justify arguments against allegations that over consumption of sugar is a factor in heart disease and obesity. For example, in a 1997 paper prepared by the Nutrition Programmes Service, Food and Nutrition Division of the FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations) and read at the proceedings of the Fiji/FAO 1997 Asia Sugar Conference, the author argued,
"Interestingly, findings generally show an inverse association between the intake of sugars (total sugars) and obesity and fat intake. Indeed, epidemiological data from a number of countries show that people with higher sugar intakes are less likely to be obese than those with lower sugar intakes." The above statement may be true in the sense that whereas individuals who are metabolically sensitive to sugar will often try to control their weight by reducing sugar intake, those who can tolerate high sugar consumption without gaining weight have no incentive to cut back. Here's some discussion from "Nutrition Against Disease" by Roger J. Williams, PhD, 1971, pp 85-86 regarding the individualized response to sugar intake:
"Sugar seems to have deleterious effects in addition to its being a source of naked calories, in that its consumption appears to be more conducive to atherosclerosis than is starch consumption. 67 At least partial explanation of this finding is to be found in the excellent work emanating from the University of Pennsylvania. 68
Here it was found that fructose is highly distinctive metabolically as compared with glucose. Since starch yields glucose only and sugar yields fructose as well as glucose, it follows that starch and sugar are not nutritionally equivalent. Kuo and his coworkers found that the liver tissue of individuals with high blood fat levels took up fructose five times as rapidly as individuals whose blood-fat levels were lower. Fat tissue from individuals with high blood fat levels also took up fructose seven to eight times more rapidly than the fat tissues of individuals with low blood fat levels. This shows how biochemical individuality comes into the problem and gives us a lead as to how some individuals may be adversely affected by the fructose content of sucrose."
In the above mentioned FAO paper the author also erroneously stated that, "Maintaining stable body weight requires that total energy consumed be balanced against total energy spent. Therefore, excess energy consumption in any form will promote body fat accumulation. When it is realised that dietary fats and oils have over twice the food energy value of sugars, it becomes clear that the major risk factor for obesity is excess dietary fat, not carbohydrates or sugar. Coupled with this unequal energy contribution is the fact that carbohydrate, including sugar, is the preferential energy source for the body. That is, carbohydrates are oxidised first and leave the more easily accumulated fat as the excess energy source."
The author made two major mistakes here. First, by ignoring the fact that caloric absorption efficiency varies from one individual to another, the author assumes that all calories ingested get absorbed into the bloodstream. This is hardly the case. Researchers in Africa have measured fecal caloric excretion rates ranging up to 60 percent. (for more discussion on this, Google "David Brown: calorie excretion" or "David Brown unabsorbed calories."
The other mistake was to suggest that the body prefers to use carbohydrates as an energy source. This is such a blatant lie! The fact is, muscle tissue burns both glucose and fat simultaneously all the time. At rest, muscle tissue burns from 60 to 70 percent fat calories. During endurance exercise, muscles burn up to 80 percent fat. Additionally, the bodies of mammals contain brown fat tissue that burns fat calories to generate heat to maintain body temperature. As an aside, a painter I met told me that he tried a low-fat vegetarian diet for a while and was always cold.
To read the above quoted FAO paper, Google "Pure White and Deadly" and click on "IS SUGAR"
Posted by David Brown | March 28, 2007 1:18 PM
Posted on March 28, 2007 13:18