Options
Are You Addicted to Sugar? Channel 4 20:00 Monday
BlueEyedMrsP
Posts: 12,178 Forum Member
✭✭
Anyone watch this? 
I thought it was pretty good, especially the part where it showed how vested interests can potentially influence scientific studies that determine safe levels of food/additives and how those studies go on to influence public policy and health advice.:)
I didn't really like the way it suggested that people weren't responsible for their own obesity though. Instead of finding blame, it would be better to work toward making changes, part of which involves getting the food industry to be more honest about labeling and giving more serious thought to how much sugar is in our foods.
There are differing opinions on whether sugar is 'addictive' in the same way that drugs or alcohol can be addictive, but some studies have shown that it does stimulate the same part of the brain.
I thought it was pretty good, especially the part where it showed how vested interests can potentially influence scientific studies that determine safe levels of food/additives and how those studies go on to influence public policy and health advice.:)
I didn't really like the way it suggested that people weren't responsible for their own obesity though. Instead of finding blame, it would be better to work toward making changes, part of which involves getting the food industry to be more honest about labeling and giving more serious thought to how much sugar is in our foods.
There are differing opinions on whether sugar is 'addictive' in the same way that drugs or alcohol can be addictive, but some studies have shown that it does stimulate the same part of the brain.
0
Comments
in the beginning when he asks a doctor why people crave sugar she didn't know. This was masked through the whole doc.
Its a known "cave man" response... Sugars are found naturally in fruits and sweet veg etc. These things also have good carbohydrates. The body rewards itself for finding these things and eating them..
This should have been established in the beginning. Any nutritionist worth there money would know sugars are a carbohydrate providing the body with a energy hit. There's also the complex process where too much sugar and refined carbs leads to the body putting on fat.
People are overweight because they eat too much crap and don't do exercise. Didn't like how they were avoiding pinning the blame on the fatty.
I agree with some of your points. I wish it could have been an hour-long program to go more in-depth into the issues you brought up. There is an evolutionary reason why our brains like sweet things, the problem is that there is now an over-abundance of sweet things available. When we were hunters/gatherers, fruits or berries (for example) would have been relatively scarce, whereas now a trip to the local shop/supermarket, one would find it difficult NOT to find an abundance of them, not to mention candy and fizzy drinks.
What I hope this whole movement (if it is one) doesn't lead to is things being pumped full of artificial sweeteners instead of sugar. I don't see that as an improvement, too many studies say that it's not healthy and the ones that do approve its use are often funded by vested interests. In my mind the jury is still out. Stevia is a possible replacement, but again, I don't feel I know enough about it yet.
I think the whole dying art of cooking needs to be reignited and we need to stop automatically reaching for a jar of pasta sauce or buying prepackaged sandwiches, packed with sugar and salt.
It wasn't helped by the pseudo-political nature of the journo's agenda, who wanted a 'Big Bad Guy' and, in doing so, found a way to excuse every obese person for their 'addiction'. Of course, the food manufacturers, supermarkets and brand advertisers are culpable, but they just didn't spend enough time on the low sugar diet information. Mostly, we got the little kids shrieking in horror as their favourite snacks were taken away!
A good start, but too little information actually imparted. BTW, the guy of the 'Sugar Council' thingy - noting that half the committee had declared vested interests seemed to brush over the fact that half had NONE. As someone working in science, in particular the pharmaceutical industry, the idea that they have half with no vested interests is remarkable! People need to realise that this is the standard operating procedure of most governmental bodies, that the people at the top of their non-profit field will inevitably have dealings with the for-profit sector. They can't exist in a vacuum and still be expected to be the experts in their field - no matter what the subject. But it made for a splendidly awkward interview, where the journo looked hard-assed and investigative, so I suppose his job was done!
The nutritionist was a doctor.
My grandparents ate sugary treats all their lives but crucially, they weren't eating ready meals packed with 'hidden' sugars but were making more of their meals from scratch.
Regardless of the fact the same link as heroin could not be provided regarding addiction, the journalist appeared to persist with that assumption.
The nutritionalist claimed belief in sugar causing metabolic mayhem without evidence. Whilst this went unchallenged, they tried to do a hatchet job on the government advisor who said quite the contrary. I'm sat here wanting to know if the nutritionalist might have vested interest himself, yet this wasn't explored.
The simple fact is that alomst anything overconsumed will lead to weight gain, that goes too for complex carbohydrates. The focus, like others here have pointed out, should have been on product labelling and sugar being "hidden" in food. This programme tried to imply sugar is some kind of poison, erroneously so.
I'd rather they tax sugar, sweets and fizzy drinks than tax bedrooms.
I'd sooner they tax the people that can actually afford it.
Are you referring to Dr. Robert Lustig? I thought perhaps the host of the program assumed that many viewers knew about his viewpoints already via youtube. I have seen some of his videos/lectures but I don't think he's that well-known by the general public.
People can't afford sweets, sugar or fizzy drinks?
Much as I'd love to see the rich taxed more, surely a choice between bedrooms and junk food, it is junk food that needs to be taxed?
I quite agree.
My grandparents had a balanced diet ( including cakes and biscuits ) made a lot of their dinners from scratch ( so no ready meals with hidden sugar ) and were more active than the average adult today. My granddad made it to 91 before dying from lung cancer and my nana is still going at 88. Yes, your genes play a role in how long you live but to suggest sugar is as harmful as drugs and booze is ridiculous.
I do think hidden sugars in ready meals and drinks are a problem.
I agree, we don't need to eliminate sugar completely, as an attempt to do this would likely result in things being plugged with artificial garbage instead.
Moderation is, as usual, the key to it, but the problem for many people is that the sugar is in so many things that getting a 'moderate' amount is more difficult and involves some mental gymnastics with regard to labels.
On a related note, did anyone see the segment on the morning show (yesterday?) where they were discussing whether energy drinks should be not allowed to be sold to kids under a certain age, and they shouldn't be advertised for that age group either? I daresay most kids these days aren't active enough to warrant having 'energy' drinks anyway.
When has that ever reduced the actual behaviour?
In fact taxes on such things simply ring-fence the behaviour and guarantee that no future government will seriously act to reduce some "harmful" behaviour. If anything they use such taxes as a cash cow and ramp up the tax.
I'd wager that both of those things are loaded with sugar, but it's fructose rather than sucrose. Naked bars are sweetened with a heck of a lot of dates. Fructose is still bad for blood sugar levels and can be a problem for diabetics because it's hidden in 'healthy' fruit and veg. Yes, it's better to have those than things with lots of added sucrose sugar but the whole issue is quite complicated. No wonder consumers get confused!