BBC horizon program fat vs sugar

sawfish

Interesting programming was on this evenings horizon show on BBC which looked into why so many people are getting fat.

They concluded that sugar or fat on its own is not so bad, but foods with a high mix of fat and sugar are to blame cause they are very tasty - e.g. ice cream , cake, toast w/butter...

You can probably watch it tomorrow with the BBC iPlayer using tunnelbear or similar.

Ted_YNWA

sawfish wrote: »

Interesting programming was on this evenings horizon show on BBC which looked into why so many people are getting fat.

They concluded that sugar or fat on its own is not so bad, but foods with a high mix of fat and sugar are to blame cause they are very tasty - e.g. ice cream , cake, toast w/butter...

You can probably watch it tomorrow with the BBC iPlayer using tunnelbear or similar.

fcek, meant to watch that, but forgot all about it.

Will catch it on iPlayer.

Cheers for reminder. wouldn't really call that a spoiler for the show anyways

Shelga

I usually like these programmes but turned it off halfway through as it was boring. Not very scientific either.

pinkypinky

Bit disappointing - processed food is bad for us - hardly news! I kept being confused about which twin was on which diet.

ninjabox

Fat = an essential macronutrient
Sources of natural non-processed fat: avocado, olive oil, coconut, pork, poultry, fish, beef etc.

Sugar = a completely processed unnatural substance, more addictive than cocaine, cause of obesity, inflammation and numerous diseases.

amandstu

I think the point was made (how correctly I don't know) that the fat/sugar combination affected the body's assessment of when it had "had enough to eat" whereas the other 2 "unnatural" diets it was being compared to didn't produce this result so much (or at all -I don't remember).

By "unnatural " mean that one of the comparative diets was "sugar free" and the other was "fat free"which I wouldn't think it would be easy to follow without discipline.

amandstu

sawfish wrote: »

You can probably watch it tomorrow with the BBC iPlayer using tunnelbear or similar.

Is it that simple.Can it damage the computer or your relations with your ISP?

ninjabox

A fat free diet would be dangerous, we need fat in our diets to survive.

A sugar free diet would be extremely difficult because we are all addicted to it, but our body doesn't need it. I actually cut out sugar for about a year, it is possible and if you google "quitting sugar" you will see that others have done it too. Unfortunately during a very stressful period in my life I "fell of the wagon". But I can definitely say that you feel like a new person.

Faith

ninjabox wrote: »

A fat free diet would be dangerous, we need fat in our diets to survive.

A sugar free diet would be extremely difficult because we are all addicted to it, but our body doesn't need it. I actually cut out sugar for about a year, it is possible and if you google "quitting sugar" you will see that others have done it too. Unfortunately during a very stressful period in my life I "fell of the wagon". But I can definitely say that you feel like a new person.

Can you tell me more about what you felt the benefits of quitting sugar were, how you improved? I've been off it for about 2.5 weeks and haven't noticed much difference yet.

El_Dangeroso

ninjabox wrote: »

Fat = an essential macronutrient
Sources of natural non-processed fat: avocado, olive oil, coconut, pork, poultry, fish, beef etc.

Sugar = a completely processed unnatural substance, more addictive than cocaine, cause of obesity, inflammation and numerous diseases.

WHHHAAAA??:) Sugar is NOT more addictive than cocaine!

When is the last time you saw a person open up a bag of sugar and dig in with a spoon?

People are not addicted to sugar, people are hard-wired to like tasty things as in unprocessed food this is a sign of nutrition. So the sweetness of tropical fruit comes along with vitamin C, potassium, magnesium etc.

But food engineers have taken this natural preference and exploited it to create a hyper stimulation of that natural reward system and as a result we have a tendency to overeat those types of food.

Having seen actual people stuggle with real addiction I'm very loathe to bandy that word around lightly.

amandstu

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

WHHHAAAA??:) Sugar is NOT more addictive than cocaine!

When is the last time you saw a person open up a bag of sugar and dig in with a spoon?

In the program they made that exact point -that sugar on its own and fat on its own are unpalatable.
It went on to point out that in combination they are "unresistible" in that our body will not tell us when to stop (as I understood their point).

The addictions you are talking about are complicated by the fact that they are also illegal (for example people who are involved in those "addictions" may also be harming themselves in other ways).So it is not a fair comparison.

You never here of people mugging anyone to pay for their sugar /fat lifestyle do you?

Edit: I concede that alcohol is legal and I am very unclear about my attitude towards that whole subject.

ninjabox

Faith wrote: »

Can you tell me more about what you felt the benefits of quitting sugar were, how you improved? I've been off it for about 2.5 weeks and haven't noticed much difference yet.

Hi are your off table sugar or trying to stay completely off sugar in all foods?

If you are trying to cut sugar out of your diet you need to also cut out refined carbohydrates (white flour, white pasta, white rice, crackers etc) because refined carbs immediately turn to sugar in your diet.

You also should treat it like an addiction and go cold turkey, if you find this very hard use a supplement call l-glutamine (you can get it here). When you are craving sugar your body is just looking for a quick source of energy. L-glutamine supplies this energy so cravings go away.

The first few days without sugar are awful, headaches, bad mood etc. Then those harsh symtoms ease off.. once you have reached a month without sugar your cravings will be very little. Benefits are more energy, improved mood, better will power in general, reduced inflammation, reduced risk of multiple illnesses etc.

ninjabox

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

WHHHAAAA??:) Sugar is NOT more addictive than cocaine!

When is the last time you saw a person open up a bag of sugar and dig in with a spoon?

People are not addicted to sugar, people are hard-wired to like tasty things as in unprocessed food this is a sign of nutrition. So the sweetness of tropical fruit comes along with vitamin C, potassium, magnesium etc.

But food engineers have taken this natural preference and exploited it to create a hyper stimulation of that natural reward system and as a result we have a tendency to overeat those types of food.

Having seen actual people stuggle with real addiction I'm very loathe to bandy that word around lightly.

Oh right so the researchers behind the scientific articles published below are using the word addiction lightly. As someone who has an alcoholic in my family I'm insulted that you say I would use the word lightly. Cut sugar out of your diet completely for 21 days and come back to me.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17668074

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235907/

ninjabox

amandstu wrote: »

You never here of people mugging anyone to pay for their sugar /fat lifestyle do you?

No that's right but I did say cocaine, not heroin.

amandstu

ninjabox wrote: »

No that's right but I did say cocaine, not heroin.

I think all these comparisons are a bit silly.It could go on forever.

eqwjewoiujqorj

The guy on the high fat, no sugar diet, came very close to been pre-diabetic.

His body did not respond to insulin, as well it used to.

Hid body's glucose climbed from 5.1 to 5.9, just 0.2 away from been pre-diabetic.

He said "I'm well down the road to diabetes".

They explained this by saying " if you eat too much fat, that can stop your body responding to insulin, and it also can tell your body to produce more glucose".

It's a pity they didn't discuss what would happen if he was on a low fat, no sugar diet.

Might it be dangerous to just give up sugar completely, if one didn't also cut out the fat?



The other guy who was on the high sugar diet, his body's ability to produce insulin actually improved, the opposite of doctors would expect.


Perhaps the answer it to just eat a balanced diet and not simply cut out one thing.


Link to the part where they discuss this: 39m:11s:

http://youtu.be/9D-XL-zkNIY?t=39m11s

El_Dangeroso

ninjabox wrote: »

Oh right so the researchers behind the scientific articles published below are using the word addiction lightly. As someone who has an alcoholic in my family I'm insulted that you say I would use the word lightly. Cut sugar out of your diet completely for 21 days and come back to me.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17668074

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235907/

No need at all to be insulted, you'll find it hard to find a family in Ireland not touched by addiction, so hold off on the indignation a second.

The first study just showed that even when offered cocaine, rats still liked sugar, the second looked at reward pathways and neurochemicals. Lots of things increase those chemicals, exercise for one, yet no one would warn someone off exercise for fear they could get addicted.

I was off sugar for a whole 5 years, I was sugar-phobic. I thought if I ate it my liver would be damaged and I would gain weight rapidly.

Now I realise I was mistaken and I enjoy lots of fruit and some occasional juice in my diet and gasp!, sometimes ice-cream.

I feel people are demonising what is essentially a nutrient like any other. It has it's place in the context of a whole foods diet.

BTW, totally anecdotally, my mood improved so much when I started eating high sugar fruit again, and I got no crashes of blood sugar or anything like that.

ninjabox

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

No need at all to be insulted, you'll find it hard to find a family in Ireland not touched by addiction, so hold off on the indignation a second.

The first study just showed that even when offered cocaine, rats still liked sugar, the second looked at reward pathways and neurochemicals. Lots of things increase those chemicals, exercise for one, yet no one would warn someone off exercise for fear they could get addicted.

I was off sugar for a whole 5 years, I was sugar-phobic. I thought if I ate it my liver would be damaged and I would gain weight rapidly.

Now I realise I was mistaken and I enjoy lots of fruit and some occasional juice in my diet and gasp!, sometimes ice-cream.

I feel people are demonising what is essentially a nutrient like any other. It has it's place in the context of a whole foods diet.

BTW, totally anecdotally, my mood improved so much when I started eating high sugar fruit again, and I got no crashes of blood sugar or anything like that.

Sugar isn't a nutrient.

Alf Veedersane

ninjabox wrote: »

Sugar isn't a nutrient.

Why not?

rubadub

ninjabox wrote: »

Sugar = a completely processed unnatural substance, more addictive than cocaine, cause of obesity, inflammation and numerous diseases.

In this program they cut out all sugar in the diet, so no fruit or veg or milk, nothing.

amandstu wrote: »

You never here of people mugging anyone to pay for their sugar /fat lifestyle do you?.

I bet some muggers have spent some of their stolen on junk food. Loads would buy cigarettes with the money too, nicotine -the most addictive substance known to mankind, more addictive than meth, heroin or crack cocaine. But sure that doesn't make a good headline for the anti-illegal drug propagandists. Mugging to feed a drug habit is a very handy excuse for all muggers (users or not) who come across a gullible judge.

rocky

Sugar improved insulin sensitivity, fat decreased it to the point of diabetes? Sugar DOES NOT cause diabetes? That's a surprise... for some people around here.

ford2600

Everyone is different, one of many reasons the food pyramid low fat for everyone is nonsense.

It may suit so people, I did ok on it for years, never had a weight problem but have felt much better, more energy, incresed muscle mass less body fat with same exercise regime, since I switched to a high fat diet.

By switching to high fat, giving up bread, pasta, rice and sugary foods was trivial.

All my carbohydrate now comes from fruit and veg, I eat significant amounts of cooked and raw veg.

For endurance exercise, very physical work, office work where concentration is required it has been a revelation.

My blood lipid profile has improved also, although I need to get Apo B test done to check ldl particle count

j@utis

rubadub wrote: »

In this program they cut out all sugar in the diet, so no fruit or veg or milk, nothing.

I think I've seen some broccoli on fat diet plate at some point in the program. Also there was a meal consisting of roasted chicken only which I would consider more high protein rather than high fat diet. It's a pity that they haven't produced any numbers on macros, only the average calories eaten.

I thought sprinting part of bicycle test was unfair. I've always thought that high fat diet can be beneficial to endurance athletes but sprinters are different story - these should be eating carbs. If would've been fairer if fat diet guy was given a protein shake instead of pat of butter.

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

I was off sugar for a whole 5 years, I was sugar-phobic. I thought if I ate it my liver would be damaged and I would gain weight rapidly.

Now I realise I was mistaken and I enjoy lots of fruit and some occasional juice in my diet and gasp!, sometimes ice-cream.
...

slap! for that ice-cream. sugar + fat combination is the evil.
When you look at the natural foods that are sweet: they're not fat. natural foods are either sweet or fat with an exception that is... milk! but hey look what milk is actually designed for - babies! and babies have to get fat, I mean, to grow fast, quick. logical isn't it?
forget the addiction bit and imagine your body is clever. at some point it's lacking one or the other vitamin, mineral etc and it knows that those come from sweet source: naturally from well ripen fruit. so your body tells you "eat some sweet stuff" which you understand as "I crave something sweet" and reach for... chocolate bar... your body is happy for a moment until it starts looking for what it needs and obviously there's nothing good in chocolate bar. and to add more confusion there's some fat that shouldn't be there to deal with (you meant to be eating fruit!) you think you've satisfied your desire for sweet stuff for the moment but your body is still lacking for those vital micro-nutrients and the cravings are back. and the story repeats itself.
oh, there are some fruits that are fat but then they're not sweet

amandstu

What did people do for sweetness before sugar was invented? Surely they didn't have honey to "replace" it. It must have been comparatively scarcer.

Fat they always had but was the sugar/fat combination used in cooking and food manufacturing to any extent before sugar became available?

What did they do for cakes and suchlike?

rubadub

j@utis wrote: »

I think I've seen some broccoli on fat diet plate at some point in the program.

I thought there was none, but you are right, he did have some broccoli. you can see them eating at 23.30. The full video is here

About 4.30 in they show a table of foods. The woman says "no fruit, and not allowed very much veggies", and the guy commented he would be craving a bowl of fresh greens". Surprised they let him cheat, though it is more realistic.

patmac

The guy on the high fat-no sugar diet lost 4kg in a month but 1.5kg of that was muscle and was deemed a bad thing. Basically the combination of fats and sugar are the real killer. What would be these foods? They mentioned ice-cream, doughnuts, so I suppose apple tart and cream, what tea with sugar and toast with butter and jam would they come into it as well. Oh and all processed foods were out as well but we knew that anyway.

homemadecider

I watched this yesterday afternoon. It just made me really really want to eat a glazed donut.