Horizon- sugar v fat BBC2
Replies
-
Oops!
Too much cheers a bad thing no doubt!
(Never watched more than a few minutes of it.)0 -
If you get a chance to see this documentry it would be informative at least, it seems that it's not just fat or sugar on its own that puts weight on but a 50/50 combination that processed food manufacturers know about that sets off a craving function in our brain...
If anyone had seen the program it would be great to hear your take on it...
What makes people put on weight? Too many calories.
Unfortunately you can't produce many documentaries, or sell many books on this topic.
You need to have a villain.. be it food manufacturers or food groups themselves. It can't possibly be that we just eat too much.0 -
I've just finished watching it on iPlayer and whilst it was interesting it was hardly ground breaking.
Fad diets are a bad idea but a balanced diet where discretionary calories are kept in check is a good idea.
Carbs are muscle sparing
The combination of fat and sugar (particularly in an equal ratio) makes food highly palatable and over consumption more likely (because it triggers hedonic hunger in the mind and over rides natural hunger cues)
Exercise is a good idea.
Don't eat food...because tasty.
Not particularly just it makes over consumption / over eating more likely.
I know, I was being sarcastic.
I don't do sarcasm dude.
I'm British.
Impossible, your avatar was made in detroit.
As Brits Sarcasm is one of our five a day!0 -
If you get a chance to see this documentry it would be informative at least, it seems that it's not just fat or sugar on its own that puts weight on but a 50/50 combination that processed food manufacturers know about that sets off a craving function in our brain...
If anyone had seen the program it would be great to hear your take on it...
What makes people put on weight? Too many calories.
Unfortunately you can't produce many documentaries, or sell many books on this topic.
You need to have a villain.. be it food manufacturers or food groups themselves. It can't possibly be that we just eat too much.
Yes we eat too much and certainly too much of the wrong things, but unlike our parents and grand parents we don't move as much as a generation we've become lazy.0 -
I'd eat a lot more WHILE cooking, however - got to test it to make sure it's going ok!True. Although you'll burn off a handful of calories making it at least, and it will probably have less unhealthy ingredients like additives, coloring, and preservatives.
Also, why are 'additives' unhealthy. More, what is the difference between an additive and an ingredient?
What's wrong with things that add colour?
Considering the whole question is the 'sugar', what other preservatives do you think are included that would be unhealthy?0 -
Again, paleolithic humans got about half of their calories from carbs. Fruits didn't used to be low carb. Fruits have always been full of sugar, that's why humans ate them. Because they gave them energy, but were only available for part of the year. Again, roots and grasses, along with meat made up the bulk of early human diet.
Your absolutely right a lot of the food we eat now are less than 500 years old indeed fruits back then which were probably very tart and very low in carb and calorific content as were the roots and plants they ate. Whilst they were foragers they were also hunters and probably ate meat and all the fat that comes with it.
The paleolithic diet was actually high carb, about 50% from grasses and roots. And of course, your argument shows a complete lack of understanding of anything. 99.9% of the food humans eat today are less than 500 years old. We haven't adapted to thousands of years of eating grains, but we've adapted to a few hundred years of eating avocados, turkeys, squash, and sweet potatoes? Right.
If the bolded part were actually true, then please explain how human civilization has survived, when the entire history of human civilization is based on grain.I don't think anyone is suggesting eating purely refined sugar.
In some cases the differences between original and 'white' versions can be pretty minimal as far as micro-nutrients goes - such as rice, for example, I believe.
If you're already getting enough micro-nutrients, you don't get benefit from having more.
As my link mentions - you don't get "healthy +1" if you're already healthy and just eat more 'healthy' food.
Agreed, sounds like you're on a sensible diet.
Most people who are over weight (and I suppose to a degree these are the people the documentary was aimed at) are not on a sensible diet and continue to over-eat carbs (both refined sugar and grain based) that at the end of the day will add to their bad health as opposed to improve it.
Consuming grain based carbs have only one function as far as I can see. They are a cheap source of calories - That's it; apart from that (and it's not a very good reason), they have no benefit what-so-ever.
I do like the article you referenced earlier. It's true if your already healthy some bad carbs won't hurt, but if you're already healthy you're starting from a good foundation anyway.
If you're unhealthy those bad carbs are just going to compound your problems.
Wow I didn't know grains were available before the start of the agricultural revolution!!!? So what your saying is our Paleolithic ancestors were actual snacking on weetabix as opposed to eating animals and plants.
So 2.6 million years of evolution based on a high fat low carb ( from plants) compared to only 10,000 years of trying to digest grains, which a lot of people still cannot do.
You will probably agree that most of the time they were probably eating very little and living off the stored fat they had i.e. Fat burners as opposed to sugar burners.
Eating a high carb diets has really only been the norm since we have been able to farm it.
Hmm maybe that's why as humans were are only able to store a small amount of glycogen yet have an abundant supply of natural body fat.
Why do you think that is?
We store larger amounts of fat instead of glycogen because stored fat is a more efficient storage system, and stored fat can be converted into glycogen if needed to maintain essential glycogen levels (this is why someone on a ketogenic diet can still function.)0 -
Bump ..... to read later0
-
Again, paleolithic humans got about half of their calories from carbs. Fruits didn't used to be low carb. Fruits have always been full of sugar, that's why humans ate them. Because they gave them energy, but were only available for part of the year. Again, roots and grasses, along with meat made up the bulk of early human diet.
Your absolutely right a lot of the food we eat now are less than 500 years old indeed fruits back then which were probably very tart and very low in carb and calorific content as were the roots and plants they ate. Whilst they were foragers they were also hunters and probably ate meat and all the fat that comes with it.
The paleolithic diet was actually high carb, about 50% from grasses and roots. And of course, your argument shows a complete lack of understanding of anything. 99.9% of the food humans eat today are less than 500 years old. We haven't adapted to thousands of years of eating grains, but we've adapted to a few hundred years of eating avocados, turkeys, squash, and sweet potatoes? Right.
If the bolded part were actually true, then please explain how human civilization has survived, when the entire history of human civilization is based on grain.I don't think anyone is suggesting eating purely refined sugar.
In some cases the differences between original and 'white' versions can be pretty minimal as far as micro-nutrients goes - such as rice, for example, I believe.
If you're already getting enough micro-nutrients, you don't get benefit from having more.
As my link mentions - you don't get "healthy +1" if you're already healthy and just eat more 'healthy' food.
Agreed, sounds like you're on a sensible diet.
Most people who are over weight (and I suppose to a degree these are the people the documentary was aimed at) are not on a sensible diet and continue to over-eat carbs (both refined sugar and grain based) that at the end of the day will add to their bad health as opposed to improve it.
Consuming grain based carbs have only one function as far as I can see. They are a cheap source of calories - That's it; apart from that (and it's not a very good reason), they have no benefit what-so-ever.
I do like the article you referenced earlier. It's true if your already healthy some bad carbs won't hurt, but if you're already healthy you're starting from a good foundation anyway.
If you're unhealthy those bad carbs are just going to compound your problems.
Wow I didn't know grains were available before the start of the agricultural revolution!!!? So what your saying is our Paleolithic ancestors were actual snacking on weetabix as opposed to eating animals and plants.
So 2.6 million years of evolution based on a high fat low carb ( from plants) compared to only 10,000 years of trying to digest grains, which a lot of people still cannot do.
You will probably agree that most of the time they were probably eating very little and living off the stored fat they had i.e. Fat burners as opposed to sugar burners.
Eating a high carb diets has really only been the norm since we have been able to farm it.
Hmm maybe that's why as humans were are only able to store a small amount of glycogen yet have an abundant supply of natural body fat.
Why do you think that is?
We store larger amounts of fat instead of glycogen because stored fat is a more efficient storage system, and stored fat can be converted into glycogen if needed to maintain essential glycogen levels (this is why someone on a ketogenic diet can still function.)
I think you've got your biology wrong. Stored fat is the preferred fuel source for the body but it's not converted into glycogen first?????? The body does make glycogen naturally through the liver which is why a high fat low carb diet is ideal for our physiology.
As we can only store a small amount of glycogen it means if we want to use it as a primary source of fuel we have to constantly replenish our stores. This is something our ancestors didn't have the luxury of ( they would hVe to be eating like pandas).
The reality is glycogen in the muscles is only really needed for high intensity energy expenditure. So unless you're a marathon runner and training like hell a lot of carbs aren't really that essential nor wanted.0 -
Yes, the liver can make glycogen, from glucose, protein, and stored fat. Glycogenesis is the system that is used to convert glucose to glycogen. Gluconeogenesis is the system that converts fat and protein into glucose, which from there can be converted to glycogen through glycogenesis. And fat is not the "preferred" fuel source. The body doesn't have a preferred fuel source, it's using fat, glucose, and glycogen at the same time every second of every day. There are several body systems that use only glucose for their energy needs, which is why the body has systems in place to both store it (glycogenesis) and make it (gluconeogenesis.)
Again, paleolithic humans got about half of their calories from carbs. Fruits didn't used to be low carb. Fruits have always been full of sugar, that's why humans ate them. Because they gave them energy, but were only available for part of the year. Again, roots and grasses, along with meat made up the bulk of early human diet.
Your absolutely right a lot of the food we eat now are less than 500 years old indeed fruits back then which were probably very tart and very low in carb and calorific content as were the roots and plants they ate. Whilst they were foragers they were also hunters and probably ate meat and all the fat that comes with it.
The paleolithic diet was actually high carb, about 50% from grasses and roots. And of course, your argument shows a complete lack of understanding of anything. 99.9% of the food humans eat today are less than 500 years old. We haven't adapted to thousands of years of eating grains, but we've adapted to a few hundred years of eating avocados, turkeys, squash, and sweet potatoes? Right.
If the bolded part were actually true, then please explain how human civilization has survived, when the entire history of human civilization is based on grain.I don't think anyone is suggesting eating purely refined sugar.
In some cases the differences between original and 'white' versions can be pretty minimal as far as micro-nutrients goes - such as rice, for example, I believe.
If you're already getting enough micro-nutrients, you don't get benefit from having more.
As my link mentions - you don't get "healthy +1" if you're already healthy and just eat more 'healthy' food.
Agreed, sounds like you're on a sensible diet.
Most people who are over weight (and I suppose to a degree these are the people the documentary was aimed at) are not on a sensible diet and continue to over-eat carbs (both refined sugar and grain based) that at the end of the day will add to their bad health as opposed to improve it.
Consuming grain based carbs have only one function as far as I can see. They are a cheap source of calories - That's it; apart from that (and it's not a very good reason), they have no benefit what-so-ever.
I do like the article you referenced earlier. It's true if your already healthy some bad carbs won't hurt, but if you're already healthy you're starting from a good foundation anyway.
If you're unhealthy those bad carbs are just going to compound your problems.
Wow I didn't know grains were available before the start of the agricultural revolution!!!? So what your saying is our Paleolithic ancestors were actual snacking on weetabix as opposed to eating animals and plants.
So 2.6 million years of evolution based on a high fat low carb ( from plants) compared to only 10,000 years of trying to digest grains, which a lot of people still cannot do.
You will probably agree that most of the time they were probably eating very little and living off the stored fat they had i.e. Fat burners as opposed to sugar burners.
Eating a high carb diets has really only been the norm since we have been able to farm it.
Hmm maybe that's why as humans were are only able to store a small amount of glycogen yet have an abundant supply of natural body fat.
Why do you think that is?
We store larger amounts of fat instead of glycogen because stored fat is a more efficient storage system, and stored fat can be converted into glycogen if needed to maintain essential glycogen levels (this is why someone on a ketogenic diet can still function.)
I think you've got your biology wrong. Stored fat is the preferred fuel source for the body but it's not converted into glycogen first?????? The body does make glycogen naturally through the liver which is why a high fat low carb diet is ideal for our physiology.
As we can only store a small amount of glycogen it means if we want to use it as a primary source of fuel we have to constantly replenish our stores. This is something our ancestors didn't have the luxury of ( they would hVe to be eating like pandas).
The reality is glycogen in the muscles is only really needed for high intensity energy expenditure. So unless you're a marathon runner and training like hell a lot of carbs aren't really that essential nor wanted.0 -
You are all also forgetting about the energy expenditure part. Gathering all of those grasses, roots, and fruits, as well as hunting was much more calorie intensive than what we do now. In addition, they had to work for everything - no cars, no washing machines, no pre-made shelters, no instant fire to keep animals away. They didn't sit around the fire all day, every day doing nothing. They went out, hunted, fished, gathered food, built huts, fires, or even migrated. All of this requires a much higher energy output than we see. I mean, I sit in front of a screen for about 12 hours day between computer, TV, phone, etc. My energy output is much, much less than what theirs would have been.
Really you guys are comparing apples to oranges here. We eat entirely different foods that have been cultivated and modified so much that they really aren't the same species anymore. Our society and lives are also much different, than even those from 100 years ago. I really don't think there can be a good comparison made between the two.0 -
You are all also forgetting about the energy expenditure part. Gathering all of those grasses, roots, and fruits, as well as hunting was much more calorie intensive than what we do now. In addition, they had to work for everything - no cars, no washing machines, no pre-made shelters, no instant fire to keep animals away. They didn't sit around the fire all day, every day doing nothing. They went out, hunted, fished, gathered food, built huts, fires, or even migrated. All of this requires a much higher energy output than we see. I mean, I sit in front of a screen for about 12 hours day between computer, TV, phone, etc. My energy output is much, much less than what theirs would have been.
Really you guys are comparing apples to oranges here. We eat entirely different foods that have been cultivated and modified so much that they really aren't the same species anymore. Our society and lives are also much different, than even those from 100 years ago. I really don't think there can be a good comparison made between the two.
Walking, foraging are all low level energy expenditure their genetics and diet would mean all this fuel would come from stored body fat and not their glycogen reserves.
They would only need to call upon them when they required them for really short bursts of high energy activity, such as that final dash to catch their prey or to make that sprint up a tree when they were the prey.
Just like people now how are on high fat low carb diets and have reprogrammed their body to fat burn ( as 98% of our evolution has required us to) and not the 2% where we've been subjecting our bodies to high carb diets.0 -
Yes, the liver can make glycogen, from glucose, protein, and stored fat. Glycogenesis is the system that is used to convert glucose to glycogen. Gluconeogenesis is the system that converts fat and protein into glucose, which from there can be converted to glycogen through glycogenesis. And fat is not the "preferred" fuel source. The body doesn't have a preferred fuel source, it's using fat, glucose, and glycogen at the same time every second of every day. There are several body systems that use only glucose for their energy needs, which is why the body has systems in place to both store it (glycogenesis) and make it (gluconeogenesis.)
Again, paleolithic humans got about half of their calories from carbs. Fruits didn't used to be low carb. Fruits have always been full of sugar, that's why humans ate them. Because they gave them energy, but were only available for part of the year. Again, roots and grasses, along with meat made up the bulk of early human diet.
Your absolutely right a lot of the food we eat now are less than 500 years old indeed fruits back then which were probably very tart and very low in carb and calorific content as were the roots and plants they ate. Whilst they were foragers they were also hunters and probably ate meat and all the fat that comes with it.
The paleolithic diet was actually high carb, about 50% from grasses and roots. And of course, your argument shows a complete lack of understanding of anything. 99.9% of the food humans eat today are less than 500 years old. We haven't adapted to thousands of years of eating grains, but we've adapted to a few hundred years of eating avocados, turkeys, squash, and sweet potatoes? Right.
If the bolded part were actually true, then please explain how human civilization has survived, when the entire history of human civilization is based on grain.I don't think anyone is suggesting eating purely refined sugar.
In some cases the differences between original and 'white' versions can be pretty minimal as far as micro-nutrients goes - such as rice, for example, I believe.
If you're already getting enough micro-nutrients, you don't get benefit from having more.
As my link mentions - you don't get "healthy +1" if you're already healthy and just eat more 'healthy' food.
Agreed, sounds like you're on a sensible diet.
Most people who are over weight (and I suppose to a degree these are the people the documentary was aimed at) are not on a sensible diet and continue to over-eat carbs (both refined sugar and grain based) that at the end of the day will add to their bad health as opposed to improve it.
Consuming grain based carbs have only one function as far as I can see. They are a cheap source of calories - That's it; apart from that (and it's not a very good reason), they have no benefit what-so-ever.
I do like the article you referenced earlier. It's true if your already healthy some bad carbs won't hurt, but if you're already healthy you're starting from a good foundation anyway.
If you're unhealthy those bad carbs are just going to compound your problems.
Wow I didn't know grains were available before the start of the agricultural revolution!!!? So what your saying is our Paleolithic ancestors were actual snacking on weetabix as opposed to eating animals and plants.
So 2.6 million years of evolution based on a high fat low carb ( from plants) compared to only 10,000 years of trying to digest grains, which a lot of people still cannot do.
You will probably agree that most of the time they were probably eating very little and living off the stored fat they had i.e. Fat burners as opposed to sugar burners.
Eating a high carb diets has really only been the norm since we have been able to farm it.
Hmm maybe that's why as humans were are only able to store a small amount of glycogen yet have an abundant supply of natural body fat.
Why do you think that is?
We store larger amounts of fat instead of glycogen because stored fat is a more efficient storage system, and stored fat can be converted into glycogen if needed to maintain essential glycogen levels (this is why someone on a ketogenic diet can still function.)
I think you've got your biology wrong. Stored fat is the preferred fuel source for the body but it's not converted into glycogen first?????? The body does make glycogen naturally through the liver which is why a high fat low carb diet is ideal for our physiology.
As we can only store a small amount of glycogen it means if we want to use it as a primary source of fuel we have to constantly replenish our stores. This is something our ancestors didn't have the luxury of ( they would hVe to be eating like pandas).
The reality is glycogen in the muscles is only really needed for high intensity energy expenditure. So unless you're a marathon runner and training like hell a lot of carbs aren't really that essential nor wanted.
Gluconeogenesis - isn't the body a marvellous thing.
Yes I am aware that the liver can make glucose via this process by using amino acids sourced through either our dietary protein or if were not eating enough from our muscles.
Another reason why we do not need to be consuming vast amounts of Carbs as we have been over the past few thousand years.
Our evolutionary make up has designed our bodies to cope and thrive quite well without them,
And I am sorry to disagree but the body does have a preferred fuel source which is why we can store (in abundance) and access our body fat as fuel (by breaking it down into keytones for energy).
This explains why the body can only store very limited amounts of glucose. A healthy liver can store about 100g and can only produce daily 150g through gluconeogenesis and the muscles can only store between 350-500g. Not a lot of storage for an main or equal to main energy source.
On a high carb diet, when our bodies are programmed to grab the glucose reserves first the brain alone requires about 120g a day to operate normally.
However for over 98% of our evolutionary journey we have thrived on a high fat low carb diet using keytones as our main source of energy with a minimal use of glucose gained through gluconeogenesis. dietary carbs were probably quite insignificant.
On a high fat low carb diet the brain will function optimally on a mixture of glucose (30g), keytones and lactose (when available). And with the body activity working at under 75% the muscles will source entirely keytones to fuel them.
Our bodies are pre-programmed by evolution and as long as our blood sugar levels remain low the body will always draw on the keytones as the preferred energy source.
We are only using glucose as a first energy source now (well most of the population are) because of how we have been told to eat over the years through either bad, out of date or misguided science. Also because of cheap food sources such as grains and sugars.0 -
I found it interesting that in the summing up the person on the high fat regime, meats and cheese and all had lost more weight but most of it was MUSSEL,
The muscle comment was factually incorrect, a BodPod cannot measure muscle mass any more than an alarm clock can. See example printout http://www.getbodymetrics.com/img/Body_Metrics_BOD_POD_Sample_Report.pdf
The high fat guy lost 1.5 kg of fat and 2.5 kg of fat free mass a good deal of which would be the loss of water early in a low carb diet. The high carb guy lost 0.5kg of each. There are plenty of studies of low carb ketogenic diets that show preservation of lean mass.0 -
Loving the physiology argument
Did either of you two watch the doc and hear what surprises the twin GPs experienced? That part of the programme was very illuminating, it threw over some of the 'things we know' and turned them into 'things we assumed'.
That and the Susan Jebb stuff should be essential watching for anyone who wants to talk seriously about food groups and weight loss.0 -
Loving the physiology argument
Did either of you two watch the doc and hear what surprises the twin GPs experienced? That part of the programme was very illuminating, it threw over some of the 'things we know' and turned them into 'things we assumed'.
That and the Susan Jebb stuff should be essential watching for anyone who wants to talk seriously about food groups and weight loss.
What areas did you find illuminating?0 -
I said which bits! The part where 2 GPs actually realise that what they 'know' may not be so.
Did you watch it?0 -
I don't think it particularly presented anything new to a lot on here including me as I HAVE spent a bit of time looking in to it.
A lot of the general populace will just take the first thing they read which kinda fits with their beliefs and work with that - so for the likely target audience, hopefully there was a significant amount to make them stop and think.
I rather suspect the two people involved did already understand what was going on - that's why they were making, it for a start. You'll note they were actually quite careful with their language too, when discussing such things.0 -
I think there's a whole bunch of doctors and health professionals that have little knowledge of proper nutrition and it's affects on our bodies.
I did watch it! Couldn't believe their conclusion though - cheese cake makes you fat!!! OMG
It did have some experimental merit though. I thought it was interesting that the diets had very little effect on their cholesterol levels.0 -
Yes, but how often do you hear them admit it
It was some of the details I liked, like the cholesterol questions. That and the wider airing of the common sense science of Prof Jebb. I have a bugbear about the persistent flogging of cleverness where simplicity and common sense should prevail.
Nowhere more so than the diet industry and all the self proclaimed experts. The worst aspect is people using all sorts of specific terminology with so very little understanding of the science behind it. It seems to fix people in all sorts of weird beliefs that become truisms with little thought.0 -
I think that will always be the case, if a company has a nutritional product to sell they will come up with spurious science to explain why their product is essential.
Easy way to stay health is to eat the way that's best for your body and your level of activity.0 -
More to the point.... cheesecake makes you fat BECAUSE.... it's tasty!I did watch it! Couldn't believe their conclusion though - cheese cake makes you fat!!! OMG
And that means you want to eat more!0 -
A lot of problems with this so called "DOCUMENTARY"
1. I love how many Pro Sugar advocates they had and only 1 Pro Fat advocate and when he did speak on the dangers of sugar he was immediately dismissed. They should have had an expert on each side for each test.
2. bod pods measure body fat and other body bass which includes skeleton, muscle , glycogen stored as energy in muscle which weights about a kg and water weight. they said he lost muscle mass but in reality it was most likely a combination of water, glycogen and maybe a bit of muscle but no where near 2 kg they said he lost.
3. athletic performance on high fat is very possible after 3-4 weeks to get into a keto adapted state. Tour de France riders have been switching to a low carb high fat diet, marathon and ultra marathon runners, tim noakes the inventer of carb loading has switched over as well. Australian cricket team went low carb and the LA lakers to name a few. Way more info waits for you on www.dietdoctor.com a lowcarb highfat website.
If you want to see a documentary that gives you all the hard numbers including starting weight, cholesterol levels, inflammation levels, LDL particle size please watch "CEREAL KILLERS THE MOVIE".0 -
What about previous diet and previous exercise?If you want to see a documentary that gives you all the hard numbers including starting weight, cholesterol levels, inflammation levels, LDL particle size please watch "CEREAL KILLERS THE MOVIE".
Should I expect something called 'CEREAL KILLERS THE MOVIE' to give an unbiased view in regards to the reality of carbs?0 -
What about previous diet and previous exercise?If you want to see a documentary that gives you all the hard numbers including starting weight, cholesterol levels, inflammation levels, LDL particle size please watch "CEREAL KILLERS THE MOVIE".
Should I expect something called 'CEREAL KILLERS THE MOVIE' to give an unbiased view in regards to the reality of carbs?
Carbs are great (hmm sweet potato), but like all good things - moderation.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions