Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Should junk food be taxed?
Replies
-
svetskisampion wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »The term hidden in this sense relates to an item one would consider a healthy option. The sugar in this is thus, hidden.
The term "hidden", in any sense, relates to something that is concealed or deliberately difficult to detect. Just because people assume that something is "healthy" and therefore won't have added sugar does not make anything "hidden", particularly when it is right there on the label.
Even when a product does not have a label, it doesn't make added sugar "hidden". It's an ingredient. Any cook worth their salt (or sugar) knows that sugar is added to a vast amount of dishes, and has been for a very long time, even savoury dishes. Doesn't make it hidden.
Jesus Christ, it's the terminology used in the UK - so yes, where I'm from, it's hidden sugar.
No its not. I'm from the uk and hidden sugar as a phrase isn't a thing (or where I am it isnt)
I guess you don't watch much TV or read the news then...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/z8849j6
It's just a buzzword. It's not legitimate vernacular. It's basically a clickbait phrase
Oh, even though the NHS uses the exact phrase too?
A quick Google of NHS and hidden sugar didn't bring up a single nhs.uk site using that phrase. Added sugar, yes. Hidden sugar, no.
Search for NHS sugar exposed leaflet.
That was produced by one areas dental dept....not the nhs as a whole.
I've seen a lot about added sugars on the nhs general site.
Fair enough, I accept the source isn't top notch. I'm happy to accept it may just be a buzzword, but it still reiterates that the term is used in the UK.
The term is used is Australia too, but not in any legitimate or reputable way. It's just buzzword fear mongering "ohhh big sugar is hiding sugar in your food to make you fat!"
I admit that I may have been wrong towards the actual legitimate use of the term "hidden sugars" in an actual healthcare system or studis etc, but in an obesity epidemic where sugar seems to be an increasing additive to the foods we eat, whether they be healthy or non healthy options, there does lie some credibility that actually, it could be an underlying issue of health concern. For what it's worth, I do understand the arguments put forward in this topic regarding obesity being a cause of overeating, but I also would like to add that the overeating occurs possibly because of the consumption of such "empty calories". For instance, not everybody logs their daily meals, and what they may seem is an innocent meal or healthy option in say, a pre packaged processed meal, may not provide an individual with a fulfilling meal yet is laced with calories and sugars that far exceeds the benefit it gives in terms of "feeling full". This to occur as a standard twice daily (on the basis that breakfast won't contain a processed "quick meal") can lead to overeating in calories, yet not feeling like overeating as the meal hasn't provided you with sufficient "fullness" to a degree. That is the angle I believe is trying to be portrayed when "hidden sugars" are discussed. Again, upon reflection of my previous statements and input from others, it may not be the actual sugar within the foodstuff that causes the health issues, but rather that because the foods are laden with such empty calories they lead to overeating and excess consumption of sugars.
I do appreciate you clarifying and acknowledging you may have been focusing on the wrong terminology. I do still disagree with what I think you are now proposing. You're now talking about ready meals, that you believe people choose because they are healthy, but because they are not satiating, the people eating them tend to overeat later and consume over their calories thus putting them in a surplus and leading to weight gain and obesity, is that right? I still don't understand what that has to do with sugar consumption?
For what it's worth, I eat frozen meals for lunch at work a few times a week. They tend to be about 300-400 cals and i add some extra chicken or frozen veggies for protein and bulk, takes it up to the 500 cal level usually. That's perfectly satiating and doesn't send me running for a cookie or a piece of cake later, which, if I were still hungry, I wouldn't choose something like that, I would probably get some nuts or hummus or a Greek yogurt. I also often eat a prepackaged breakfast sandwich or a breakfast bowl with egg whites, turkey sausage, potatoes and cheese. It's about 250 cals and with my coffee and creamer, takes me to 350 for the morning which is fine till lunch.
I'm just trying to understand what you feel is so nefarious about these foods that is leading people to blindly over eat, under the premise that they made one healthy choice so now it's a free for all? If that's the case, and that's what you're saying, I'm not sure why you're blaming food and food manufacturers when this comes down to personal accountability and making sensible choices.
I would suggest reading a study by Johnson et al about the role of sugar in the epidemic of obesity and diabetes to see my angle regarding sugar consumption and because of its availability in our foodstuff leads to health issues.
With regards to ready made meals, I wasn't pointing out that people will necessarily see them as THE healthy option, but certainly healthier than eating a whole pack of chocolate and because of its ease to useany people do consume such without eating within their guidelines. Because you may find and meal satisfying, the next 100 people who consume so perhaps wont.
And regarding your last point, the blame is placed on manufacturers from my point as 1) the way foodstuffs are advertised plays a big role on consumption 2) see the rise of fast food consumption globally, which has definitely had an impact on the obesity epidemic 3) not everyone is in the position to make a meal from scratch, or fully understands what it is they eat, but rather purchase blind based on appearance etc again, this comes to marketing and manufacturer behaviour 4) the arguments correlate to how consumer behavior and addictions are created because of manufacturer behaviour - recently there has been a big push in the cigarette industry to charecterise the health impact of smoking, yet think how previously advertising and marketing of these products were portrayed. Now think of that but within the food industry. How are everyday foodstuffs marketed to consumers, irrespective of how healthy they may be deemed on a scale of 1-10. You are more likely to find the foodstuffs that are tipping towards the 10 on the scale in terms of "unhealthy" be marketed in a glamorous way preconditioning consumer behaviour, very much like how smoking was portrayed all those decades ago.
I would suggest that if you have a study you post it.2 -
stanmann571 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »The term hidden in this sense relates to an item one would consider a healthy option. The sugar in this is thus, hidden.
The term "hidden", in any sense, relates to something that is concealed or deliberately difficult to detect. Just because people assume that something is "healthy" and therefore won't have added sugar does not make anything "hidden", particularly when it is right there on the label.
Even when a product does not have a label, it doesn't make added sugar "hidden". It's an ingredient. Any cook worth their salt (or sugar) knows that sugar is added to a vast amount of dishes, and has been for a very long time, even savoury dishes. Doesn't make it hidden.
Jesus Christ, it's the terminology used in the UK - so yes, where I'm from, it's hidden sugar.
No its not. I'm from the uk and hidden sugar as a phrase isn't a thing (or where I am it isnt)
I guess you don't watch much TV or read the news then...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/z8849j6
It's just a buzzword. It's not legitimate vernacular. It's basically a clickbait phrase
Oh, even though the NHS uses the exact phrase too?
A quick Google of NHS and hidden sugar didn't bring up a single nhs.uk site using that phrase. Added sugar, yes. Hidden sugar, no.
Search for NHS sugar exposed leaflet.
That was produced by one areas dental dept....not the nhs as a whole.
I've seen a lot about added sugars on the nhs general site.
Fair enough, I accept the source isn't top notch. I'm happy to accept it may just be a buzzword, but it still reiterates that the term is used in the UK.
The term is used is Australia too, but not in any legitimate or reputable way. It's just buzzword fear mongering "ohhh big sugar is hiding sugar in your food to make you fat!"
I admit that I may have been wrong towards the actual legitimate use of the term "hidden sugars" in an actual healthcare system or studis etc, but in an obesity epidemic where sugar seems to be an increasing additive to the foods we eat, whether they be healthy or non healthy options, there does lie some credibility that actually, it could be an underlying issue of health concern. For what it's worth, I do understand the arguments put forward in this topic regarding obesity being a cause of overeating, but I also would like to add that the overeating occurs possibly because of the consumption of such "empty calories". For instance, not everybody logs their daily meals, and what they may seem is an innocent meal or healthy option in say, a pre packaged processed meal, may not provide an individual with a fulfilling meal yet is laced with calories and sugars that far exceeds the benefit it gives in terms of "feeling full". This to occur as a standard twice daily (on the basis that breakfast won't contain a processed "quick meal") can lead to overeating in calories, yet not feeling like overeating as the meal hasn't provided you with sufficient "fullness" to a degree. That is the angle I believe is trying to be portrayed when "hidden sugars" are discussed. Again, upon reflection of my previous statements and input from others, it may not be the actual sugar within the foodstuff that causes the health issues, but rather that because the foods are laden with such empty calories they lead to overeating and excess consumption of sugars.
I do appreciate you clarifying and acknowledging you may have been focusing on the wrong terminology. I do still disagree with what I think you are now proposing. You're now talking about ready meals, that you believe people choose because they are healthy, but because they are not satiating, the people eating them tend to overeat later and consume over their calories thus putting them in a surplus and leading to weight gain and obesity, is that right? I still don't understand what that has to do with sugar consumption?
For what it's worth, I eat frozen meals for lunch at work a few times a week. They tend to be about 300-400 cals and i add some extra chicken or frozen veggies for protein and bulk, takes it up to the 500 cal level usually. That's perfectly satiating and doesn't send me running for a cookie or a piece of cake later, which, if I were still hungry, I wouldn't choose something like that, I would probably get some nuts or hummus or a Greek yogurt. I also often eat a prepackaged breakfast sandwich or a breakfast bowl with egg whites, turkey sausage, potatoes and cheese. It's about 250 cals and with my coffee and creamer, takes me to 350 for the morning which is fine till lunch.
I'm just trying to understand what you feel is so nefarious about these foods that is leading people to blindly over eat, under the premise that they made one healthy choice so now it's a free for all? If that's the case, and that's what you're saying, I'm not sure why you're blaming food and food manufacturers when this comes down to personal accountability and making sensible choices.
I would suggest reading a study by Johnson et al about the role of sugar in the epidemic of obesity and diabetes to see my angle regarding sugar consumption and because of its availability in our foodstuff leads to health issues.
With regards to ready made meals, I wasn't pointing out that people will necessarily see them as THE healthy option, but certainly healthier than eating a whole pack of chocolate and because of its ease to useany people do consume such without eating within their guidelines. Because you may find and meal satisfying, the next 100 people who consume so perhaps wont.
And regarding your last point, the blame is placed on manufacturers from my point as 1) the way foodstuffs are advertised plays a big role on consumption 2) see the rise of fast food consumption globally, which has definitely had an impact on the obesity epidemic 3) not everyone is in the position to make a meal from scratch, or fully understands what it is they eat, but rather purchase blind based on appearance etc again, this comes to marketing and manufacturer behaviour 4) the arguments correlate to how consumer behavior and addictions are created because of manufacturer behaviour - recently there has been a big push in the cigarette industry to charecterise the health impact of smoking, yet think how previously advertising and marketing of these products were portrayed. Now think of that but within the food industry. How are everyday foodstuffs marketed to consumers, irrespective of how healthy they may be deemed on a scale of 1-10. You are more likely to find the foodstuffs that are tipping towards the 10 on the scale in terms of "unhealthy" be marketed in a glamorous way preconditioning consumer behaviour, very much like how smoking was portrayed all those decades ago.
I would suggest that if you have a study you post it.
It's relatively easy to Google the name and title, because I can't quite attach a pdf study.3 -
This content has been removed.
-
svetskisampion wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »The term hidden in this sense relates to an item one would consider a healthy option. The sugar in this is thus, hidden.
The term "hidden", in any sense, relates to something that is concealed or deliberately difficult to detect. Just because people assume that something is "healthy" and therefore won't have added sugar does not make anything "hidden", particularly when it is right there on the label.
Even when a product does not have a label, it doesn't make added sugar "hidden". It's an ingredient. Any cook worth their salt (or sugar) knows that sugar is added to a vast amount of dishes, and has been for a very long time, even savoury dishes. Doesn't make it hidden.
Jesus Christ, it's the terminology used in the UK - so yes, where I'm from, it's hidden sugar.
No its not. I'm from the uk and hidden sugar as a phrase isn't a thing (or where I am it isnt)
I guess you don't watch much TV or read the news then...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/z8849j6
It's just a buzzword. It's not legitimate vernacular. It's basically a clickbait phrase
Oh, even though the NHS uses the exact phrase too?
A quick Google of NHS and hidden sugar didn't bring up a single nhs.uk site using that phrase. Added sugar, yes. Hidden sugar, no.
Search for NHS sugar exposed leaflet.
That was produced by one areas dental dept....not the nhs as a whole.
I've seen a lot about added sugars on the nhs general site.
Fair enough, I accept the source isn't top notch. I'm happy to accept it may just be a buzzword, but it still reiterates that the term is used in the UK.
The term is used is Australia too, but not in any legitimate or reputable way. It's just buzzword fear mongering "ohhh big sugar is hiding sugar in your food to make you fat!"
I admit that I may have been wrong towards the actual legitimate use of the term "hidden sugars" in an actual healthcare system or studis etc, but in an obesity epidemic where sugar seems to be an increasing additive to the foods we eat, whether they be healthy or non healthy options, there does lie some credibility that actually, it could be an underlying issue of health concern. For what it's worth, I do understand the arguments put forward in this topic regarding obesity being a cause of overeating, but I also would like to add that the overeating occurs possibly because of the consumption of such "empty calories". For instance, not everybody logs their daily meals, and what they may seem is an innocent meal or healthy option in say, a pre packaged processed meal, may not provide an individual with a fulfilling meal yet is laced with calories and sugars that far exceeds the benefit it gives in terms of "feeling full". This to occur as a standard twice daily (on the basis that breakfast won't contain a processed "quick meal") can lead to overeating in calories, yet not feeling like overeating as the meal hasn't provided you with sufficient "fullness" to a degree. That is the angle I believe is trying to be portrayed when "hidden sugars" are discussed. Again, upon reflection of my previous statements and input from others, it may not be the actual sugar within the foodstuff that causes the health issues, but rather that because the foods are laden with such empty calories they lead to overeating and excess consumption of sugars.
I do appreciate you clarifying and acknowledging you may have been focusing on the wrong terminology. I do still disagree with what I think you are now proposing. You're now talking about ready meals, that you believe people choose because they are healthy, but because they are not satiating, the people eating them tend to overeat later and consume over their calories thus putting them in a surplus and leading to weight gain and obesity, is that right? I still don't understand what that has to do with sugar consumption?
For what it's worth, I eat frozen meals for lunch at work a few times a week. They tend to be about 300-400 cals and i add some extra chicken or frozen veggies for protein and bulk, takes it up to the 500 cal level usually. That's perfectly satiating and doesn't send me running for a cookie or a piece of cake later, which, if I were still hungry, I wouldn't choose something like that, I would probably get some nuts or hummus or a Greek yogurt. I also often eat a prepackaged breakfast sandwich or a breakfast bowl with egg whites, turkey sausage, potatoes and cheese. It's about 250 cals and with my coffee and creamer, takes me to 350 for the morning which is fine till lunch.
I'm just trying to understand what you feel is so nefarious about these foods that is leading people to blindly over eat, under the premise that they made one healthy choice so now it's a free for all? If that's the case, and that's what you're saying, I'm not sure why you're blaming food and food manufacturers when this comes down to personal accountability and making sensible choices.
I would suggest reading a study by Johnson et al about the role of sugar in the epidemic of obesity and diabetes to see my angle regarding sugar consumption and because of its availability in our foodstuff leads to health issues.
With regards to ready made meals, I wasn't pointing out that people will necessarily see them as THE healthy option, but certainly healthier than eating a whole pack of chocolate and because of its ease to useany people do consume such without eating within their guidelines. Because you may find and meal satisfying, the next 100 people who consume so perhaps wont.
And regarding your last point, the blame is placed on manufacturers from my point as 1) the way foodstuffs are advertised plays a big role on consumption 2) see the rise of fast food consumption globally, which has definitely had an impact on the obesity epidemic 3) not everyone is in the position to make a meal from scratch, or fully understands what it is they eat, but rather purchase blind based on appearance etc again, this comes to marketing and manufacturer behaviour 4) the arguments correlate to how consumer behavior and addictions are created because of manufacturer behaviour - recently there has been a big push in the cigarette industry to charecterise the health impact of smoking, yet think how previously advertising and marketing of these products were portrayed. Now think of that but within the food industry. How are everyday foodstuffs marketed to consumers, irrespective of how healthy they may be deemed on a scale of 1-10. You are more likely to find the foodstuffs that are tipping towards the 10 on the scale in terms of "unhealthy" be marketed in a glamorous way preconditioning consumer behaviour, very much like how smoking was portrayed all those decades ago.
I would suggest that if you have a study you post it.
It's relatively easy to Google the name and title, because I can't quite attach a pdf study.
It's relatively easy to post a link.0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »The term hidden in this sense relates to an item one would consider a healthy option. The sugar in this is thus, hidden.
The term "hidden", in any sense, relates to something that is concealed or deliberately difficult to detect. Just because people assume that something is "healthy" and therefore won't have added sugar does not make anything "hidden", particularly when it is right there on the label.
Even when a product does not have a label, it doesn't make added sugar "hidden". It's an ingredient. Any cook worth their salt (or sugar) knows that sugar is added to a vast amount of dishes, and has been for a very long time, even savoury dishes. Doesn't make it hidden.
Jesus Christ, it's the terminology used in the UK - so yes, where I'm from, it's hidden sugar.
No its not. I'm from the uk and hidden sugar as a phrase isn't a thing (or where I am it isnt)
I guess you don't watch much TV or read the news then...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/z8849j6
It's just a buzzword. It's not legitimate vernacular. It's basically a clickbait phrase
Oh, even though the NHS uses the exact phrase too?
A quick Google of NHS and hidden sugar didn't bring up a single nhs.uk site using that phrase. Added sugar, yes. Hidden sugar, no.
Search for NHS sugar exposed leaflet.
That was produced by one areas dental dept....not the nhs as a whole.
I've seen a lot about added sugars on the nhs general site.
Fair enough, I accept the source isn't top notch. I'm happy to accept it may just be a buzzword, but it still reiterates that the term is used in the UK.
The term is used is Australia too, but not in any legitimate or reputable way. It's just buzzword fear mongering "ohhh big sugar is hiding sugar in your food to make you fat!"
I admit that I may have been wrong towards the actual legitimate use of the term "hidden sugars" in an actual healthcare system or studis etc, but in an obesity epidemic where sugar seems to be an increasing additive to the foods we eat, whether they be healthy or non healthy options, there does lie some credibility that actually, it could be an underlying issue of health concern. For what it's worth, I do understand the arguments put forward in this topic regarding obesity being a cause of overeating, but I also would like to add that the overeating occurs possibly because of the consumption of such "empty calories". For instance, not everybody logs their daily meals, and what they may seem is an innocent meal or healthy option in say, a pre packaged processed meal, may not provide an individual with a fulfilling meal yet is laced with calories and sugars that far exceeds the benefit it gives in terms of "feeling full". This to occur as a standard twice daily (on the basis that breakfast won't contain a processed "quick meal") can lead to overeating in calories, yet not feeling like overeating as the meal hasn't provided you with sufficient "fullness" to a degree. That is the angle I believe is trying to be portrayed when "hidden sugars" are discussed. Again, upon reflection of my previous statements and input from others, it may not be the actual sugar within the foodstuff that causes the health issues, but rather that because the foods are laden with such empty calories they lead to overeating and excess consumption of sugars.
I do appreciate you clarifying and acknowledging you may have been focusing on the wrong terminology. I do still disagree with what I think you are now proposing. You're now talking about ready meals, that you believe people choose because they are healthy, but because they are not satiating, the people eating them tend to overeat later and consume over their calories thus putting them in a surplus and leading to weight gain and obesity, is that right? I still don't understand what that has to do with sugar consumption?
For what it's worth, I eat frozen meals for lunch at work a few times a week. They tend to be about 300-400 cals and i add some extra chicken or frozen veggies for protein and bulk, takes it up to the 500 cal level usually. That's perfectly satiating and doesn't send me running for a cookie or a piece of cake later, which, if I were still hungry, I wouldn't choose something like that, I would probably get some nuts or hummus or a Greek yogurt. I also often eat a prepackaged breakfast sandwich or a breakfast bowl with egg whites, turkey sausage, potatoes and cheese. It's about 250 cals and with my coffee and creamer, takes me to 350 for the morning which is fine till lunch.
I'm just trying to understand what you feel is so nefarious about these foods that is leading people to blindly over eat, under the premise that they made one healthy choice so now it's a free for all? If that's the case, and that's what you're saying, I'm not sure why you're blaming food and food manufacturers when this comes down to personal accountability and making sensible choices.
I would suggest reading a study by Johnson et al about the role of sugar in the epidemic of obesity and diabetes to see my angle regarding sugar consumption and because of its availability in our foodstuff leads to health issues.
With regards to ready made meals, I wasn't pointing out that people will necessarily see them as THE healthy option, but certainly healthier than eating a whole pack of chocolate and because of its ease to useany people do consume such without eating within their guidelines. Because you may find and meal satisfying, the next 100 people who consume so perhaps wont.
And regarding your last point, the blame is placed on manufacturers from my point as 1) the way foodstuffs are advertised plays a big role on consumption 2) see the rise of fast food consumption globally, which has definitely had an impact on the obesity epidemic 3) not everyone is in the position to make a meal from scratch, or fully understands what it is they eat, but rather purchase blind based on appearance etc again, this comes to marketing and manufacturer behaviour 4) the arguments correlate to how consumer behavior and addictions are created because of manufacturer behaviour - recently there has been a big push in the cigarette industry to charecterise the health impact of smoking, yet think how previously advertising and marketing of these products were portrayed. Now think of that but within the food industry. How are everyday foodstuffs marketed to consumers, irrespective of how healthy they may be deemed on a scale of 1-10. You are more likely to find the foodstuffs that are tipping towards the 10 on the scale in terms of "unhealthy" be marketed in a glamorous way preconditioning consumer behaviour, very much like how smoking was portrayed all those decades ago.
I would suggest that if you have a study you post it.
It's relatively easy to Google the name and title, because I can't quite attach a pdf study.
It's relatively easy to post a link.
http://m.ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/4/899.full
I think that should work otherwise I can't quite link a straight downloaded PDF0 -
svetskisampion wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »The term hidden in this sense relates to an item one would consider a healthy option. The sugar in this is thus, hidden.
The term "hidden", in any sense, relates to something that is concealed or deliberately difficult to detect. Just because people assume that something is "healthy" and therefore won't have added sugar does not make anything "hidden", particularly when it is right there on the label.
Even when a product does not have a label, it doesn't make added sugar "hidden". It's an ingredient. Any cook worth their salt (or sugar) knows that sugar is added to a vast amount of dishes, and has been for a very long time, even savoury dishes. Doesn't make it hidden.
Jesus Christ, it's the terminology used in the UK - so yes, where I'm from, it's hidden sugar.
No its not. I'm from the uk and hidden sugar as a phrase isn't a thing (or where I am it isnt)
I guess you don't watch much TV or read the news then...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/z8849j6
It's just a buzzword. It's not legitimate vernacular. It's basically a clickbait phrase
Oh, even though the NHS uses the exact phrase too?
A quick Google of NHS and hidden sugar didn't bring up a single nhs.uk site using that phrase. Added sugar, yes. Hidden sugar, no.
Search for NHS sugar exposed leaflet.
That was produced by one areas dental dept....not the nhs as a whole.
I've seen a lot about added sugars on the nhs general site.
Fair enough, I accept the source isn't top notch. I'm happy to accept it may just be a buzzword, but it still reiterates that the term is used in the UK.
The term is used is Australia too, but not in any legitimate or reputable way. It's just buzzword fear mongering "ohhh big sugar is hiding sugar in your food to make you fat!"
I admit that I may have been wrong towards the actual legitimate use of the term "hidden sugars" in an actual healthcare system or studis etc, but in an obesity epidemic where sugar seems to be an increasing additive to the foods we eat, whether they be healthy or non healthy options, there does lie some credibility that actually, it could be an underlying issue of health concern. For what it's worth, I do understand the arguments put forward in this topic regarding obesity being a cause of overeating, but I also would like to add that the overeating occurs possibly because of the consumption of such "empty calories". For instance, not everybody logs their daily meals, and what they may seem is an innocent meal or healthy option in say, a pre packaged processed meal, may not provide an individual with a fulfilling meal yet is laced with calories and sugars that far exceeds the benefit it gives in terms of "feeling full". This to occur as a standard twice daily (on the basis that breakfast won't contain a processed "quick meal") can lead to overeating in calories, yet not feeling like overeating as the meal hasn't provided you with sufficient "fullness" to a degree. That is the angle I believe is trying to be portrayed when "hidden sugars" are discussed. Again, upon reflection of my previous statements and input from others, it may not be the actual sugar within the foodstuff that causes the health issues, but rather that because the foods are laden with such empty calories they lead to overeating and excess consumption of sugars.
I do appreciate you clarifying and acknowledging you may have been focusing on the wrong terminology. I do still disagree with what I think you are now proposing. You're now talking about ready meals, that you believe people choose because they are healthy, but because they are not satiating, the people eating them tend to overeat later and consume over their calories thus putting them in a surplus and leading to weight gain and obesity, is that right? I still don't understand what that has to do with sugar consumption?
For what it's worth, I eat frozen meals for lunch at work a few times a week. They tend to be about 300-400 cals and i add some extra chicken or frozen veggies for protein and bulk, takes it up to the 500 cal level usually. That's perfectly satiating and doesn't send me running for a cookie or a piece of cake later, which, if I were still hungry, I wouldn't choose something like that, I would probably get some nuts or hummus or a Greek yogurt. I also often eat a prepackaged breakfast sandwich or a breakfast bowl with egg whites, turkey sausage, potatoes and cheese. It's about 250 cals and with my coffee and creamer, takes me to 350 for the morning which is fine till lunch.
I'm just trying to understand what you feel is so nefarious about these foods that is leading people to blindly over eat, under the premise that they made one healthy choice so now it's a free for all? If that's the case, and that's what you're saying, I'm not sure why you're blaming food and food manufacturers when this comes down to personal accountability and making sensible choices.
I would suggest reading a study by Johnson et al about the role of sugar in the epidemic of obesity and diabetes to see my angle regarding sugar consumption and because of its availability in our foodstuff leads to health issues.
With regards to ready made meals, I wasn't pointing out that people will necessarily see them as THE healthy option, but certainly healthier than eating a whole pack of chocolate and because of its ease to useany people do consume such without eating within their guidelines. Because you may find and meal satisfying, the next 100 people who consume so perhaps wont.
And regarding your last point, the blame is placed on manufacturers from my point as 1) the way foodstuffs are advertised plays a big role on consumption 2) see the rise of fast food consumption globally, which has definitely had an impact on the obesity epidemic 3) not everyone is in the position to make a meal from scratch, or fully understands what it is they eat, but rather purchase blind based on appearance etc again, this comes to marketing and manufacturer behaviour 4) the arguments correlate to how consumer behavior and addictions are created because of manufacturer behaviour - recently there has been a big push in the cigarette industry to charecterise the health impact of smoking, yet think how previously advertising and marketing of these products were portrayed. Now think of that but within the food industry. How are everyday foodstuffs marketed to consumers, irrespective of how healthy they may be deemed on a scale of 1-10. You are more likely to find the foodstuffs that are tipping towards the 10 on the scale in terms of "unhealthy" be marketed in a glamorous way preconditioning consumer behaviour, very much like how smoking was portrayed all those decades ago.
I would suggest that if you have a study you post it.
It's relatively easy to Google the name and title, because I can't quite attach a pdf study.
You said "a study by Johnson et al." You do know that Johnson is the second most common surname in the US?3 -
However, I am guessing that this study is the one referred to: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/4/899.full.
If so, beats me why it could not be posted. [Ah, I guess we were cross posting]
From the abstract: "Currently, we are experiencing an epidemic of cardiorenal disease characterized by increasing rates of obesity, hypertension, the metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes, and kidney disease. Whereas excessive caloric intake and physical inactivity are likely important factors driving the obesity epidemic, it is important to consider additional mechanisms. We revisit an old hypothesis that sugar, particularly excessive fructose intake, has a critical role in the epidemic of cardiorenal disease...."
Before I go into this, curious if you are now backing off the claim that it's "hidden sugars" or ready meals (which we have no evidence to suggest are a significant contributor of sugar intake)?0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »However, I am guessing that this study is the one referred to: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/4/899.full.
If so, beats me why it could not be posted.
From the abstract: "Currently, we are experiencing an epidemic of cardiorenal disease characterized by increasing rates of obesity, hypertension, the metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes, and kidney disease. Whereas excessive caloric intake and physical inactivity are likely important factors driving the obesity epidemic, it is important to consider additional mechanisms. We revisit an old hypothesis that sugar, particularly excessive fructose intake, has a critical role in the epidemic of cardiorenal disease...."
Before I go into this, curious if you are now backing off the claim that it's "hidden sugars" or ready meals (which we have no evidence to suggest are a significant contributor of sugar intake)?
My stance has not changed from my original argument about sugars - the whole point of a debate topic, is to debate. Hidden sugars would be what goes in a ready meal, as per my definition of the term hidden sugars aforementioned.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
svetskisampion wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »The term hidden in this sense relates to an item one would consider a healthy option. The sugar in this is thus, hidden.
The term "hidden", in any sense, relates to something that is concealed or deliberately difficult to detect. Just because people assume that something is "healthy" and therefore won't have added sugar does not make anything "hidden", particularly when it is right there on the label.
Even when a product does not have a label, it doesn't make added sugar "hidden". It's an ingredient. Any cook worth their salt (or sugar) knows that sugar is added to a vast amount of dishes, and has been for a very long time, even savoury dishes. Doesn't make it hidden.
Jesus Christ, it's the terminology used in the UK - so yes, where I'm from, it's hidden sugar.
No its not. I'm from the uk and hidden sugar as a phrase isn't a thing (or where I am it isnt)
I guess you don't watch much TV or read the news then...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/z8849j6
It's just a buzzword. It's not legitimate vernacular. It's basically a clickbait phrase
Oh, even though the NHS uses the exact phrase too?
A quick Google of NHS and hidden sugar didn't bring up a single nhs.uk site using that phrase. Added sugar, yes. Hidden sugar, no.
Search for NHS sugar exposed leaflet.
That was produced by one areas dental dept....not the nhs as a whole.
I've seen a lot about added sugars on the nhs general site.
Fair enough, I accept the source isn't top notch. I'm happy to accept it may just be a buzzword, but it still reiterates that the term is used in the UK.
The term is used is Australia too, but not in any legitimate or reputable way. It's just buzzword fear mongering "ohhh big sugar is hiding sugar in your food to make you fat!"
I admit that I may have been wrong towards the actual legitimate use of the term "hidden sugars" in an actual healthcare system or studis etc, but in an obesity epidemic where sugar seems to be an increasing additive to the foods we eat, whether they be healthy or non healthy options, there does lie some credibility that actually, it could be an underlying issue of health concern. For what it's worth, I do understand the arguments put forward in this topic regarding obesity being a cause of overeating, but I also would like to add that the overeating occurs possibly because of the consumption of such "empty calories". For instance, not everybody logs their daily meals, and what they may seem is an innocent meal or healthy option in say, a pre packaged processed meal, may not provide an individual with a fulfilling meal yet is laced with calories and sugars that far exceeds the benefit it gives in terms of "feeling full". This to occur as a standard twice daily (on the basis that breakfast won't contain a processed "quick meal") can lead to overeating in calories, yet not feeling like overeating as the meal hasn't provided you with sufficient "fullness" to a degree. That is the angle I believe is trying to be portrayed when "hidden sugars" are discussed. Again, upon reflection of my previous statements and input from others, it may not be the actual sugar within the foodstuff that causes the health issues, but rather that because the foods are laden with such empty calories they lead to overeating and excess consumption of sugars.
I do appreciate you clarifying and acknowledging you may have been focusing on the wrong terminology. I do still disagree with what I think you are now proposing. You're now talking about ready meals, that you believe people choose because they are healthy, but because they are not satiating, the people eating them tend to overeat later and consume over their calories thus putting them in a surplus and leading to weight gain and obesity, is that right? I still don't understand what that has to do with sugar consumption?
For what it's worth, I eat frozen meals for lunch at work a few times a week. They tend to be about 300-400 cals and i add some extra chicken or frozen veggies for protein and bulk, takes it up to the 500 cal level usually. That's perfectly satiating and doesn't send me running for a cookie or a piece of cake later, which, if I were still hungry, I wouldn't choose something like that, I would probably get some nuts or hummus or a Greek yogurt. I also often eat a prepackaged breakfast sandwich or a breakfast bowl with egg whites, turkey sausage, potatoes and cheese. It's about 250 cals and with my coffee and creamer, takes me to 350 for the morning which is fine till lunch.
I'm just trying to understand what you feel is so nefarious about these foods that is leading people to blindly over eat, under the premise that they made one healthy choice so now it's a free for all? If that's the case, and that's what you're saying, I'm not sure why you're blaming food and food manufacturers when this comes down to personal accountability and making sensible choices.
I would suggest reading a study by Johnson et al about the role of sugar in the epidemic of obesity and diabetes to see my angle regarding sugar consumption and because of its availability in our foodstuff leads to health issues.
With regards to ready made meals, I wasn't pointing out that people will necessarily see them as THE healthy option, but certainly healthier than eating a whole pack of chocolate and because of its ease to useany people do consume such without eating within their guidelines. Because you may find and meal satisfying, the next 100 people who consume so perhaps wont.
And regarding your last point, the blame is placed on manufacturers from my point as 1) the way foodstuffs are advertised plays a big role on consumption 2) see the rise of fast food consumption globally, which has definitely had an impact on the obesity epidemic 3) not everyone is in the position to make a meal from scratch, or fully understands what it is they eat, but rather purchase blind based on appearance etc again, this comes to marketing and manufacturer behaviour 4) the arguments correlate to how consumer behavior and addictions are created because of manufacturer behaviour - recently there has been a big push in the cigarette industry to charecterise the health impact of smoking, yet think how previously advertising and marketing of these products were portrayed. Now think of that but within the food industry. How are everyday foodstuffs marketed to consumers, irrespective of how healthy they may be deemed on a scale of 1-10. You are more likely to find the foodstuffs that are tipping towards the 10 on the scale in terms of "unhealthy" be marketed in a glamorous way preconditioning consumer behaviour, very much like how smoking was portrayed all those decades ago.
I would suggest that if you have a study you post it.
It's relatively easy to Google the name and title, because I can't quite attach a pdf study.
It's relatively easy to post a link.
http://m.ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/4/899.full
I think that should work otherwise I can't quite link a straight downloaded PDF
The interesting thing to note about that study is that is does not draw the conclusion that sugar is the problem - it is using the information that is presented to form the working hypothesis that sugar (fructose) is a problem that future studies may prove to be correct.0 -
svetskisampion wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »The term hidden in this sense relates to an item one would consider a healthy option. The sugar in this is thus, hidden.
The term "hidden", in any sense, relates to something that is concealed or deliberately difficult to detect. Just because people assume that something is "healthy" and therefore won't have added sugar does not make anything "hidden", particularly when it is right there on the label.
Even when a product does not have a label, it doesn't make added sugar "hidden". It's an ingredient. Any cook worth their salt (or sugar) knows that sugar is added to a vast amount of dishes, and has been for a very long time, even savoury dishes. Doesn't make it hidden.
Jesus Christ, it's the terminology used in the UK - so yes, where I'm from, it's hidden sugar.
No its not. I'm from the uk and hidden sugar as a phrase isn't a thing (or where I am it isnt)
I guess you don't watch much TV or read the news then...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/z8849j6
It's just a buzzword. It's not legitimate vernacular. It's basically a clickbait phrase
Oh, even though the NHS uses the exact phrase too?
A quick Google of NHS and hidden sugar didn't bring up a single nhs.uk site using that phrase. Added sugar, yes. Hidden sugar, no.
Search for NHS sugar exposed leaflet.
That was produced by one areas dental dept....not the nhs as a whole.
I've seen a lot about added sugars on the nhs general site.
Fair enough, I accept the source isn't top notch. I'm happy to accept it may just be a buzzword, but it still reiterates that the term is used in the UK.
The term is used is Australia too, but not in any legitimate or reputable way. It's just buzzword fear mongering "ohhh big sugar is hiding sugar in your food to make you fat!"
I admit that I may have been wrong towards the actual legitimate use of the term "hidden sugars" in an actual healthcare system or studis etc, but in an obesity epidemic where sugar seems to be an increasing additive to the foods we eat, whether they be healthy or non healthy options, there does lie some credibility that actually, it could be an underlying issue of health concern. For what it's worth, I do understand the arguments put forward in this topic regarding obesity being a cause of overeating, but I also would like to add that the overeating occurs possibly because of the consumption of such "empty calories". For instance, not everybody logs their daily meals, and what they may seem is an innocent meal or healthy option in say, a pre packaged processed meal, may not provide an individual with a fulfilling meal yet is laced with calories and sugars that far exceeds the benefit it gives in terms of "feeling full". This to occur as a standard twice daily (on the basis that breakfast won't contain a processed "quick meal") can lead to overeating in calories, yet not feeling like overeating as the meal hasn't provided you with sufficient "fullness" to a degree. That is the angle I believe is trying to be portrayed when "hidden sugars" are discussed. Again, upon reflection of my previous statements and input from others, it may not be the actual sugar within the foodstuff that causes the health issues, but rather that because the foods are laden with such empty calories they lead to overeating and excess consumption of sugars.
I do appreciate you clarifying and acknowledging you may have been focusing on the wrong terminology. I do still disagree with what I think you are now proposing. You're now talking about ready meals, that you believe people choose because they are healthy, but because they are not satiating, the people eating them tend to overeat later and consume over their calories thus putting them in a surplus and leading to weight gain and obesity, is that right? I still don't understand what that has to do with sugar consumption?
For what it's worth, I eat frozen meals for lunch at work a few times a week. They tend to be about 300-400 cals and i add some extra chicken or frozen veggies for protein and bulk, takes it up to the 500 cal level usually. That's perfectly satiating and doesn't send me running for a cookie or a piece of cake later, which, if I were still hungry, I wouldn't choose something like that, I would probably get some nuts or hummus or a Greek yogurt. I also often eat a prepackaged breakfast sandwich or a breakfast bowl with egg whites, turkey sausage, potatoes and cheese. It's about 250 cals and with my coffee and creamer, takes me to 350 for the morning which is fine till lunch.
I'm just trying to understand what you feel is so nefarious about these foods that is leading people to blindly over eat, under the premise that they made one healthy choice so now it's a free for all? If that's the case, and that's what you're saying, I'm not sure why you're blaming food and food manufacturers when this comes down to personal accountability and making sensible choices.
I would suggest reading a study by Johnson et al about the role of sugar in the epidemic of obesity and diabetes to see my angle regarding sugar consumption and because of its availability in our foodstuff leads to health issues.
With regards to ready made meals, I wasn't pointing out that people will necessarily see them as THE healthy option, but certainly healthier than eating a whole pack of chocolate and because of its ease to useany people do consume such without eating within their guidelines. Because you may find and meal satisfying, the next 100 people who consume so perhaps wont.
And regarding your last point, the blame is placed on manufacturers from my point as 1) the way foodstuffs are advertised plays a big role on consumption 2) see the rise of fast food consumption globally, which has definitely had an impact on the obesity epidemic 3) not everyone is in the position to make a meal from scratch, or fully understands what it is they eat, but rather purchase blind based on appearance etc again, this comes to marketing and manufacturer behaviour 4) the arguments correlate to how consumer behavior and addictions are created because of manufacturer behaviour - recently there has been a big push in the cigarette industry to charecterise the health impact of smoking, yet think how previously advertising and marketing of these products were portrayed. Now think of that but within the food industry. How are everyday foodstuffs marketed to consumers, irrespective of how healthy they may be deemed on a scale of 1-10. You are more likely to find the foodstuffs that are tipping towards the 10 on the scale in terms of "unhealthy" be marketed in a glamorous way preconditioning consumer behaviour, very much like how smoking was portrayed all those decades ago.
I would suggest that if you have a study you post it.
It's relatively easy to Google the name and title, because I can't quite attach a pdf study.
It's relatively easy to post a link.
http://m.ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/4/899.full
I think that should work otherwise I can't quite link a straight downloaded PDF
The interesting thing to note about that study is that is does not draw the conclusion that sugar is the problem - it is using the information that is presented to form the working hypothesis that sugar (fructose) is a problem that future studies may prove to be correct.
Indeed, but it provides an insight into my line of argument above as to the satisfaction and feeling of fullness high sugar foods may not provide, as well as the additional empty calories they produce.0 -
So going on about the study: "we propose that sugars containing fructose may play a major role in the development of hypertension, obesity, and the metabolic syndrome and in the subsequent development of kidney disease" -- this strikes me as problematic, as OBESITY itself may play a key role in the various health issues (probably does). So the two questions are: (1) does sugar play a role in obesity beyond its calories; and (2) does sugar play a role in these other diseases unrelated to obesity?
The article goes on to say:
"Whereas today the intake of foods containing table sugar (sucrose) occurs with almost every meal, the introduction of sugar into the diet is relatively recent. Before the introduction of sugar, the primary sweetener had been honey, but because it was relatively rare and not mass produced, the majority of people (especially the poorer classes) had no sweeteners at all in their normal diet."
I will note 2 things. First, I find the idea that food with TABLE SUGAR is consumed at almost every meal bizarre and would want better evidence of that. I managed to get fat with that being entirely untrue (I did not use table sugar or products containing added sugar at most meals, and when I did it would have been a small amount, except on rare occasions). I did consume too much sugar at times, but in snack/dessert form. Second, we did consume sugar, just not table sugar, as we consumed fruit and dairy, especially. So the issue is, presumably, dose.
(I'll also note that sugar consumption has actually been on the decline since this article/review was done.)
The first part seems really focused on the correlation, but clearly that's really problematic as there are obvious other correlations that could be causative, so impossible to conclude that sugar is.
It then goes into rodent studies, but acknowledges there are problems with these, since the doses discussed are not realistic. I'd further note that from what I've read, rodents and humans are not the same with respect to sugar metabolism.
The article then goes on to speculate about HOW excess fructose could play a role in the various diseases mention, especially kidney disease and hypertension. It does not seem to provide evidence that this is actually what happens.
To cut to the chase, however, I will see where we are actually disagreeing here, as I admit I'm confuse as to the point you are trying to make:
I believe that a poor diet is a risk factor/tends to lead to poorer health (along with many other things) and that a good diet tends to lead to better health (all else equal) or at least helps with some risks, although with many others it is irrelevant.
I think that some added sugar (and a variety of foods naturally high in sugar, like dairy and fruit and arguably vegetables, depending on how we are defining this) is compatible with a good diet, but that excessive added sugar is not (that's what excessive means -- too much).
I think that a diet high in added sugar is one thing (not the only thing) that tends to lead to overconsumption of calories.
I think focusing on just sugar is wrong and odd, given especially that in many cases high sugar goes along with other sources of calories (like high fat) and that many other foods that are commonly overeaten lack sugar.
Where do we disagree?0 -
svetskisampion wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »However, I am guessing that this study is the one referred to: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/4/899.full.
If so, beats me why it could not be posted.
From the abstract: "Currently, we are experiencing an epidemic of cardiorenal disease characterized by increasing rates of obesity, hypertension, the metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes, and kidney disease. Whereas excessive caloric intake and physical inactivity are likely important factors driving the obesity epidemic, it is important to consider additional mechanisms. We revisit an old hypothesis that sugar, particularly excessive fructose intake, has a critical role in the epidemic of cardiorenal disease...."
Before I go into this, curious if you are now backing off the claim that it's "hidden sugars" or ready meals (which we have no evidence to suggest are a significant contributor of sugar intake)?
My stance has not changed from my original argument about sugars - the whole point of a debate topic, is to debate. Hidden sugars would be what goes in a ready meal, as per my definition of the term hidden sugars aforementioned.
Again, sugars in savory foods (ALL savory foods) account for about 5% of total added sugars consumed in the UK.
Given that, what's the evidence that: (1) ready meals are relevant to the obesity problem in the UK and other countries; and (2) that ready meals are a significant source of sugar.0 -
svetskisampion wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »The term hidden in this sense relates to an item one would consider a healthy option. The sugar in this is thus, hidden.
The term "hidden", in any sense, relates to something that is concealed or deliberately difficult to detect. Just because people assume that something is "healthy" and therefore won't have added sugar does not make anything "hidden", particularly when it is right there on the label.
Even when a product does not have a label, it doesn't make added sugar "hidden". It's an ingredient. Any cook worth their salt (or sugar) knows that sugar is added to a vast amount of dishes, and has been for a very long time, even savoury dishes. Doesn't make it hidden.
Jesus Christ, it's the terminology used in the UK - so yes, where I'm from, it's hidden sugar.
No its not. I'm from the uk and hidden sugar as a phrase isn't a thing (or where I am it isnt)
I guess you don't watch much TV or read the news then...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/z8849j6
It's just a buzzword. It's not legitimate vernacular. It's basically a clickbait phrase
Oh, even though the NHS uses the exact phrase too?
A quick Google of NHS and hidden sugar didn't bring up a single nhs.uk site using that phrase. Added sugar, yes. Hidden sugar, no.
Search for NHS sugar exposed leaflet.
That was produced by one areas dental dept....not the nhs as a whole.
I've seen a lot about added sugars on the nhs general site.
Fair enough, I accept the source isn't top notch. I'm happy to accept it may just be a buzzword, but it still reiterates that the term is used in the UK.
The term is used is Australia too, but not in any legitimate or reputable way. It's just buzzword fear mongering "ohhh big sugar is hiding sugar in your food to make you fat!"
I admit that I may have been wrong towards the actual legitimate use of the term "hidden sugars" in an actual healthcare system or studis etc, but in an obesity epidemic where sugar seems to be an increasing additive to the foods we eat, whether they be healthy or non healthy options, there does lie some credibility that actually, it could be an underlying issue of health concern. For what it's worth, I do understand the arguments put forward in this topic regarding obesity being a cause of overeating, but I also would like to add that the overeating occurs possibly because of the consumption of such "empty calories". For instance, not everybody logs their daily meals, and what they may seem is an innocent meal or healthy option in say, a pre packaged processed meal, may not provide an individual with a fulfilling meal yet is laced with calories and sugars that far exceeds the benefit it gives in terms of "feeling full". This to occur as a standard twice daily (on the basis that breakfast won't contain a processed "quick meal") can lead to overeating in calories, yet not feeling like overeating as the meal hasn't provided you with sufficient "fullness" to a degree. That is the angle I believe is trying to be portrayed when "hidden sugars" are discussed. Again, upon reflection of my previous statements and input from others, it may not be the actual sugar within the foodstuff that causes the health issues, but rather that because the foods are laden with such empty calories they lead to overeating and excess consumption of sugars.
I do appreciate you clarifying and acknowledging you may have been focusing on the wrong terminology. I do still disagree with what I think you are now proposing. You're now talking about ready meals, that you believe people choose because they are healthy, but because they are not satiating, the people eating them tend to overeat later and consume over their calories thus putting them in a surplus and leading to weight gain and obesity, is that right? I still don't understand what that has to do with sugar consumption?
For what it's worth, I eat frozen meals for lunch at work a few times a week. They tend to be about 300-400 cals and i add some extra chicken or frozen veggies for protein and bulk, takes it up to the 500 cal level usually. That's perfectly satiating and doesn't send me running for a cookie or a piece of cake later, which, if I were still hungry, I wouldn't choose something like that, I would probably get some nuts or hummus or a Greek yogurt. I also often eat a prepackaged breakfast sandwich or a breakfast bowl with egg whites, turkey sausage, potatoes and cheese. It's about 250 cals and with my coffee and creamer, takes me to 350 for the morning which is fine till lunch.
I'm just trying to understand what you feel is so nefarious about these foods that is leading people to blindly over eat, under the premise that they made one healthy choice so now it's a free for all? If that's the case, and that's what you're saying, I'm not sure why you're blaming food and food manufacturers when this comes down to personal accountability and making sensible choices.
I would suggest reading a study by Johnson et al about the role of sugar in the epidemic of obesity and diabetes to see my angle regarding sugar consumption and because of its availability in our foodstuff leads to health issues.
With regards to ready made meals, I wasn't pointing out that people will necessarily see them as THE healthy option, but certainly healthier than eating a whole pack of chocolate and because of its ease to useany people do consume such without eating within their guidelines. Because you may find and meal satisfying, the next 100 people who consume so perhaps wont.
And regarding your last point, the blame is placed on manufacturers from my point as 1) the way foodstuffs are advertised plays a big role on consumption 2) see the rise of fast food consumption globally, which has definitely had an impact on the obesity epidemic 3) not everyone is in the position to make a meal from scratch, or fully understands what it is they eat, but rather purchase blind based on appearance etc again, this comes to marketing and manufacturer behaviour 4) the arguments correlate to how consumer behavior and addictions are created because of manufacturer behaviour - recently there has been a big push in the cigarette industry to charecterise the health impact of smoking, yet think how previously advertising and marketing of these products were portrayed. Now think of that but within the food industry. How are everyday foodstuffs marketed to consumers, irrespective of how healthy they may be deemed on a scale of 1-10. You are more likely to find the foodstuffs that are tipping towards the 10 on the scale in terms of "unhealthy" be marketed in a glamorous way preconditioning consumer behaviour, very much like how smoking was portrayed all those decades ago.
I would suggest that if you have a study you post it.
It's relatively easy to Google the name and title, because I can't quite attach a pdf study.
It's relatively easy to post a link.
http://m.ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/4/899.full
I think that should work otherwise I can't quite link a straight downloaded PDF
The interesting thing to note about that study is that is does not draw the conclusion that sugar is the problem - it is using the information that is presented to form the working hypothesis that sugar (fructose) is a problem that future studies may prove to be correct.
Indeed, but it provides an insight into my line of argument above as to the satisfaction and feeling of fullness high sugar foods may not provide, as well as the additional empty calories they produce.
No, it really doesn't. Did you actually read it?0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »However, I am guessing that this study is the one referred to: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/4/899.full.
If so, beats me why it could not be posted.
From the abstract: "Currently, we are experiencing an epidemic of cardiorenal disease characterized by increasing rates of obesity, hypertension, the metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes, and kidney disease. Whereas excessive caloric intake and physical inactivity are likely important factors driving the obesity epidemic, it is important to consider additional mechanisms. We revisit an old hypothesis that sugar, particularly excessive fructose intake, has a critical role in the epidemic of cardiorenal disease...."
Before I go into this, curious if you are now backing off the claim that it's "hidden sugars" or ready meals (which we have no evidence to suggest are a significant contributor of sugar intake)?
My stance has not changed from my original argument about sugars - the whole point of a debate topic, is to debate. Hidden sugars would be what goes in a ready meal, as per my definition of the term hidden sugars aforementioned.
Again, sugars in savory foods (ALL savory foods) account for about 5% of total added sugars consumed in the UK.
Given that, what's the evidence that: (1) ready meals are relevant to the obesity problem in the UK and other countries; and (2) that ready meals are a significant source of sugar.
Excerpts from a BBC article;
But one area of concern is ready meals when people tend to eat an entire portion.
"Many other ready meals have far lower levels, but why do we have so much sugar in some "main courses"?
"Often we take sugar into our bodies but don't recognise it as sugar, mistaking it for more savoury tastes," says Barry Smith, founder of the University of London's Centre for the Study of the Senses.
Sugar acts as a balance to the bitterness or sourness of other flavours, such as salt or spices, which means the sweetness isn't tasted but still gives the body the effects of a "sugar rush", just as foods such as chocolate do. So some savoury foods are having the same effect on the body as sweet ones, and causing similar cravings, but with a different taste.
"The brain's saying 'Give me more like that'," says Smith. "It's getting lots of sugar without you actually knowing, so is less able than when eating sweets to say 'I've had enough. Stop now.' It's morally dubious that so much sugar is in things that people don't know or recognise from their tasting. We don't allow ourselves the freedom to choose. It's slightly surreptitious."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/magazine-36071678
This, tying into my idea of not feeling full from a meal and thus overeating based on sugar being within the meal providing empty calories. I would suggest based on this, such eating habits (in this case ready meals) are a factor on the obesity epidemic.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »The term hidden in this sense relates to an item one would consider a healthy option. The sugar in this is thus, hidden.
The term "hidden", in any sense, relates to something that is concealed or deliberately difficult to detect. Just because people assume that something is "healthy" and therefore won't have added sugar does not make anything "hidden", particularly when it is right there on the label.
Even when a product does not have a label, it doesn't make added sugar "hidden". It's an ingredient. Any cook worth their salt (or sugar) knows that sugar is added to a vast amount of dishes, and has been for a very long time, even savoury dishes. Doesn't make it hidden.
Jesus Christ, it's the terminology used in the UK - so yes, where I'm from, it's hidden sugar.
No its not. I'm from the uk and hidden sugar as a phrase isn't a thing (or where I am it isnt)
I guess you don't watch much TV or read the news then...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/z8849j6
It's just a buzzword. It's not legitimate vernacular. It's basically a clickbait phrase
Oh, even though the NHS uses the exact phrase too?
A quick Google of NHS and hidden sugar didn't bring up a single nhs.uk site using that phrase. Added sugar, yes. Hidden sugar, no.
Search for NHS sugar exposed leaflet.
That was produced by one areas dental dept....not the nhs as a whole.
I've seen a lot about added sugars on the nhs general site.
Fair enough, I accept the source isn't top notch. I'm happy to accept it may just be a buzzword, but it still reiterates that the term is used in the UK.
The term is used is Australia too, but not in any legitimate or reputable way. It's just buzzword fear mongering "ohhh big sugar is hiding sugar in your food to make you fat!"
I admit that I may have been wrong towards the actual legitimate use of the term "hidden sugars" in an actual healthcare system or studis etc, but in an obesity epidemic where sugar seems to be an increasing additive to the foods we eat, whether they be healthy or non healthy options, there does lie some credibility that actually, it could be an underlying issue of health concern. For what it's worth, I do understand the arguments put forward in this topic regarding obesity being a cause of overeating, but I also would like to add that the overeating occurs possibly because of the consumption of such "empty calories". For instance, not everybody logs their daily meals, and what they may seem is an innocent meal or healthy option in say, a pre packaged processed meal, may not provide an individual with a fulfilling meal yet is laced with calories and sugars that far exceeds the benefit it gives in terms of "feeling full". This to occur as a standard twice daily (on the basis that breakfast won't contain a processed "quick meal") can lead to overeating in calories, yet not feeling like overeating as the meal hasn't provided you with sufficient "fullness" to a degree. That is the angle I believe is trying to be portrayed when "hidden sugars" are discussed. Again, upon reflection of my previous statements and input from others, it may not be the actual sugar within the foodstuff that causes the health issues, but rather that because the foods are laden with such empty calories they lead to overeating and excess consumption of sugars.
I do appreciate you clarifying and acknowledging you may have been focusing on the wrong terminology. I do still disagree with what I think you are now proposing. You're now talking about ready meals, that you believe people choose because they are healthy, but because they are not satiating, the people eating them tend to overeat later and consume over their calories thus putting them in a surplus and leading to weight gain and obesity, is that right? I still don't understand what that has to do with sugar consumption?
For what it's worth, I eat frozen meals for lunch at work a few times a week. They tend to be about 300-400 cals and i add some extra chicken or frozen veggies for protein and bulk, takes it up to the 500 cal level usually. That's perfectly satiating and doesn't send me running for a cookie or a piece of cake later, which, if I were still hungry, I wouldn't choose something like that, I would probably get some nuts or hummus or a Greek yogurt. I also often eat a prepackaged breakfast sandwich or a breakfast bowl with egg whites, turkey sausage, potatoes and cheese. It's about 250 cals and with my coffee and creamer, takes me to 350 for the morning which is fine till lunch.
I'm just trying to understand what you feel is so nefarious about these foods that is leading people to blindly over eat, under the premise that they made one healthy choice so now it's a free for all? If that's the case, and that's what you're saying, I'm not sure why you're blaming food and food manufacturers when this comes down to personal accountability and making sensible choices.
I would suggest reading a study by Johnson et al about the role of sugar in the epidemic of obesity and diabetes to see my angle regarding sugar consumption and because of its availability in our foodstuff leads to health issues.
With regards to ready made meals, I wasn't pointing out that people will necessarily see them as THE healthy option, but certainly healthier than eating a whole pack of chocolate and because of its ease to useany people do consume such without eating within their guidelines. Because you may find and meal satisfying, the next 100 people who consume so perhaps wont.
And regarding your last point, the blame is placed on manufacturers from my point as 1) the way foodstuffs are advertised plays a big role on consumption 2) see the rise of fast food consumption globally, which has definitely had an impact on the obesity epidemic 3) not everyone is in the position to make a meal from scratch, or fully understands what it is they eat, but rather purchase blind based on appearance etc again, this comes to marketing and manufacturer behaviour 4) the arguments correlate to how consumer behavior and addictions are created because of manufacturer behaviour - recently there has been a big push in the cigarette industry to charecterise the health impact of smoking, yet think how previously advertising and marketing of these products were portrayed. Now think of that but within the food industry. How are everyday foodstuffs marketed to consumers, irrespective of how healthy they may be deemed on a scale of 1-10. You are more likely to find the foodstuffs that are tipping towards the 10 on the scale in terms of "unhealthy" be marketed in a glamorous way preconditioning consumer behaviour, very much like how smoking was portrayed all those decades ago.
I would suggest that if you have a study you post it.
It's relatively easy to Google the name and title, because I can't quite attach a pdf study.
It's relatively easy to post a link.
http://m.ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/4/899.full
I think that should work otherwise I can't quite link a straight downloaded PDF
The interesting thing to note about that study is that is does not draw the conclusion that sugar is the problem - it is using the information that is presented to form the working hypothesis that sugar (fructose) is a problem that future studies may prove to be correct.
Indeed, but it provides an insight into my line of argument above as to the satisfaction and feeling of fullness high sugar foods may not provide, as well as the additional empty calories they produce.
No, it really doesn't. Did you actually read it?
No I purely cited it because I liked the author's name. FFS.1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »So going on about the study: "we propose that sugars containing fructose may play a major role in the development of hypertension, obesity, and the metabolic syndrome and in the subsequent development of kidney disease" -- this strikes me as problematic, as OBESITY itself may play a key role in the various health issues (probably does). So the two questions are: (1) does sugar play a role in obesity beyond its calories; and (2) does sugar play a role in these other diseases unrelated to obesity?
The article goes on to say:
"Whereas today the intake of foods containing table sugar (sucrose) occurs with almost every meal, the introduction of sugar into the diet is relatively recent. Before the introduction of sugar, the primary sweetener had been honey, but because it was relatively rare and not mass produced, the majority of people (especially the poorer classes) had no sweeteners at all in their normal diet."
I will note 2 things. First, I find the idea that food with TABLE SUGAR is consumed at almost every meal bizarre and would want better evidence of that. I managed to get fat with that being entirely untrue (I did not use table sugar or products containing added sugar at most meals, and when I did it would have been a small amount, except on rare occasions). I did consume too much sugar at times, but in snack/dessert form. Second, we did consume sugar, just not table sugar, as we consumed fruit and dairy, especially. So the issue is, presumably, dose.
(I'll also note that sugar consumption has actually been on the decline since this article/review was done.)
The first part seems really focused on the correlation, but clearly that's really problematic as there are obvious other correlations that could be causative, so impossible to conclude that sugar is.
It then goes into rodent studies, but acknowledges there are problems with these, since the doses discussed are not realistic. I'd further note that from what I've read, rodents and humans are not the same with respect to sugar metabolism.
The article then goes on to speculate about HOW excess fructose could play a role in the various diseases mention, especially kidney disease and hypertension. It does not seem to provide evidence that this is actually what happens.
To cut to the chase, however, I will see where we are actually disagreeing here, as I admit I'm confuse as to the point you are trying to make:
I believe that a poor diet is a risk factor/tends to lead to poorer health (along with many other things) and that a good diet tends to lead to better health (all else equal) or at least helps with some risks, although with many others it is irrelevant.
I think that some added sugar (and a variety of foods naturally high in sugar, like dairy and fruit and arguably vegetables, depending on how we are defining this) is compatible with a good diet, but that excessive added sugar is not (that's what excessive means -- too much).
I think that a diet high in added sugar is one thing (not the only thing) that tends to lead to overconsumption of calories.
I think focusing on just sugar is wrong and odd, given especially that in many cases high sugar goes along with other sources of calories (like high fat) and that many other foods that are commonly overeaten lack sugar.
Where do we disagree?
My dad was obese with metabolic syndrome and was stage III kidney failure when he passed away at 62 from a massive heart attack. I was very much following that same path until I got my crap together and decided to do something for my health.
Sugar in any form was not an issue for my dad...he had like zero sweet tooth...I was much the same save for I did have an issue with soda for a brief while, but I was already obese before I took on that habit...it just made things worse.
We both could eat Lbs of cheese at a time and both had an affinity for cured Italian meats...leave out a platter and and between the two of us, that thing would be gone in about 5 minutes. Be also loved fatty meats...fatty roasts, ribeye steaks, bratwurst, Italian sausages, greasy burgers, french fries, and we could both kill a bag of potato chips.
Very little of what we consumed had sugar...added or otherwise. We were both more into savory things and high fat content...our obesity and health issues had zip to do with sugar...we just had really crappy and unbalanced diets consisting of a lot of fat and very little in the way of veg or fruit...we both also liked to just sit around a lot and not do much.
I have no doubt that excessive sugar contributes to the obesity epidemic...but so does excessive anything else, so I think it's rather silly to just zero in on sugar.3 -
svetskisampion wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »The term hidden in this sense relates to an item one would consider a healthy option. The sugar in this is thus, hidden.
The term "hidden", in any sense, relates to something that is concealed or deliberately difficult to detect. Just because people assume that something is "healthy" and therefore won't have added sugar does not make anything "hidden", particularly when it is right there on the label.
Even when a product does not have a label, it doesn't make added sugar "hidden". It's an ingredient. Any cook worth their salt (or sugar) knows that sugar is added to a vast amount of dishes, and has been for a very long time, even savoury dishes. Doesn't make it hidden.
Jesus Christ, it's the terminology used in the UK - so yes, where I'm from, it's hidden sugar.
No its not. I'm from the uk and hidden sugar as a phrase isn't a thing (or where I am it isnt)
I guess you don't watch much TV or read the news then...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/z8849j6
It's just a buzzword. It's not legitimate vernacular. It's basically a clickbait phrase
Oh, even though the NHS uses the exact phrase too?
A quick Google of NHS and hidden sugar didn't bring up a single nhs.uk site using that phrase. Added sugar, yes. Hidden sugar, no.
Search for NHS sugar exposed leaflet.
That was produced by one areas dental dept....not the nhs as a whole.
I've seen a lot about added sugars on the nhs general site.
Fair enough, I accept the source isn't top notch. I'm happy to accept it may just be a buzzword, but it still reiterates that the term is used in the UK.
The term is used is Australia too, but not in any legitimate or reputable way. It's just buzzword fear mongering "ohhh big sugar is hiding sugar in your food to make you fat!"
I admit that I may have been wrong towards the actual legitimate use of the term "hidden sugars" in an actual healthcare system or studis etc, but in an obesity epidemic where sugar seems to be an increasing additive to the foods we eat, whether they be healthy or non healthy options, there does lie some credibility that actually, it could be an underlying issue of health concern. For what it's worth, I do understand the arguments put forward in this topic regarding obesity being a cause of overeating, but I also would like to add that the overeating occurs possibly because of the consumption of such "empty calories". For instance, not everybody logs their daily meals, and what they may seem is an innocent meal or healthy option in say, a pre packaged processed meal, may not provide an individual with a fulfilling meal yet is laced with calories and sugars that far exceeds the benefit it gives in terms of "feeling full". This to occur as a standard twice daily (on the basis that breakfast won't contain a processed "quick meal") can lead to overeating in calories, yet not feeling like overeating as the meal hasn't provided you with sufficient "fullness" to a degree. That is the angle I believe is trying to be portrayed when "hidden sugars" are discussed. Again, upon reflection of my previous statements and input from others, it may not be the actual sugar within the foodstuff that causes the health issues, but rather that because the foods are laden with such empty calories they lead to overeating and excess consumption of sugars.
I do appreciate you clarifying and acknowledging you may have been focusing on the wrong terminology. I do still disagree with what I think you are now proposing. You're now talking about ready meals, that you believe people choose because they are healthy, but because they are not satiating, the people eating them tend to overeat later and consume over their calories thus putting them in a surplus and leading to weight gain and obesity, is that right? I still don't understand what that has to do with sugar consumption?
For what it's worth, I eat frozen meals for lunch at work a few times a week. They tend to be about 300-400 cals and i add some extra chicken or frozen veggies for protein and bulk, takes it up to the 500 cal level usually. That's perfectly satiating and doesn't send me running for a cookie or a piece of cake later, which, if I were still hungry, I wouldn't choose something like that, I would probably get some nuts or hummus or a Greek yogurt. I also often eat a prepackaged breakfast sandwich or a breakfast bowl with egg whites, turkey sausage, potatoes and cheese. It's about 250 cals and with my coffee and creamer, takes me to 350 for the morning which is fine till lunch.
I'm just trying to understand what you feel is so nefarious about these foods that is leading people to blindly over eat, under the premise that they made one healthy choice so now it's a free for all? If that's the case, and that's what you're saying, I'm not sure why you're blaming food and food manufacturers when this comes down to personal accountability and making sensible choices.
I would suggest reading a study by Johnson et al about the role of sugar in the epidemic of obesity and diabetes to see my angle regarding sugar consumption and because of its availability in our foodstuff leads to health issues.
With regards to ready made meals, I wasn't pointing out that people will necessarily see them as THE healthy option, but certainly healthier than eating a whole pack of chocolate and because of its ease to useany people do consume such without eating within their guidelines. Because you may find and meal satisfying, the next 100 people who consume so perhaps wont.
And regarding your last point, the blame is placed on manufacturers from my point as 1) the way foodstuffs are advertised plays a big role on consumption 2) see the rise of fast food consumption globally, which has definitely had an impact on the obesity epidemic 3) not everyone is in the position to make a meal from scratch, or fully understands what it is they eat, but rather purchase blind based on appearance etc again, this comes to marketing and manufacturer behaviour 4) the arguments correlate to how consumer behavior and addictions are created because of manufacturer behaviour - recently there has been a big push in the cigarette industry to charecterise the health impact of smoking, yet think how previously advertising and marketing of these products were portrayed. Now think of that but within the food industry. How are everyday foodstuffs marketed to consumers, irrespective of how healthy they may be deemed on a scale of 1-10. You are more likely to find the foodstuffs that are tipping towards the 10 on the scale in terms of "unhealthy" be marketed in a glamorous way preconditioning consumer behaviour, very much like how smoking was portrayed all those decades ago.
I see others have already started dissecting the study...
You are advising me not to make assumptions about what other people find satisfying from a food consumption standpoint, but you seem to be suggesting that people are either eating entire packs of chocolate, or they are eating ready meals because they think that's a better choice and then when they aren't satisfied, they over eat? Do you believe there are some people who, when hungry, reach for a pack of chocolates instead of eating a meal? And that when they are trying to make healthier choices they choose a ready meal and find that not filling, so then they over eat? Do you have direct experience with this, or is it simply a strawman example?
Manufacturers respond to consumer trends and customer insights, and that's what marketing plays to as well. There are vast numbers of marketing campaigns here focusing on buzzwords or trends like "clean", "pure", "natural", "high protein", "simple" - but regardless of whether or not an individual is compelled to purchase by these campaigns or not - it still comes down to personal accountability and individual choice. The information is there on the label - the calories, the sugar content, the ingredients, etc. Whether someone chooses to cook everything from scratch, using only whole foods, or if they choose to rely on convenience foods and even fast food on occasion - it still comes down to total calorie consumption which would contribute to obesity - and that's possible to achieve no matter what foods you choose.2 -
svetskisampion wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »However, I am guessing that this study is the one referred to: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/4/899.full.
If so, beats me why it could not be posted.
From the abstract: "Currently, we are experiencing an epidemic of cardiorenal disease characterized by increasing rates of obesity, hypertension, the metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes, and kidney disease. Whereas excessive caloric intake and physical inactivity are likely important factors driving the obesity epidemic, it is important to consider additional mechanisms. We revisit an old hypothesis that sugar, particularly excessive fructose intake, has a critical role in the epidemic of cardiorenal disease...."
Before I go into this, curious if you are now backing off the claim that it's "hidden sugars" or ready meals (which we have no evidence to suggest are a significant contributor of sugar intake)?
My stance has not changed from my original argument about sugars - the whole point of a debate topic, is to debate. Hidden sugars would be what goes in a ready meal, as per my definition of the term hidden sugars aforementioned.
Again, sugars in savory foods (ALL savory foods) account for about 5% of total added sugars consumed in the UK.
Given that, what's the evidence that: (1) ready meals are relevant to the obesity problem in the UK and other countries; and (2) that ready meals are a significant source of sugar.
Excerpts from a BBC article;
But one area of concern is ready meals when people tend to eat an entire portion.
"Many other ready meals have far lower levels, but why do we have so much sugar in some "main courses"?
"Often we take sugar into our bodies but don't recognise it as sugar, mistaking it for more savoury tastes," says Barry Smith, founder of the University of London's Centre for the Study of the Senses.
Sugar acts as a balance to the bitterness or sourness of other flavours, such as salt or spices, which means the sweetness isn't tasted but still gives the body the effects of a "sugar rush", just as foods such as chocolate do. So some savoury foods are having the same effect on the body as sweet ones, and causing similar cravings, but with a different taste.
"The brain's saying 'Give me more like that'," says Smith. "It's getting lots of sugar without you actually knowing, so is less able than when eating sweets to say 'I've had enough. Stop now.' It's morally dubious that so much sugar is in things that people don't know or recognise from their tasting. We don't allow ourselves the freedom to choose. It's slightly surreptitious."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/magazine-36071678
This, tying into my idea of not feeling full from a meal and thus overeating based on sugar being within the meal providing empty calories. I would suggest based on this, such eating habits (in this case ready meals) are a factor on the obesity epidemic.
You really need to post some examples of what these ready meals are that contain so much sugar. I know you're in the UK and I'm in the US, but we need some specifics of the types of foods you are referring to, ideally with the brand name and/or picture of the label so we understand it. I eat a decent number of frozen meals for lunch, use convenience foods to help get dinner on the table, and I'm rarely over my sugar goal on a daily basis.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »However, I am guessing that this study is the one referred to: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/4/899.full.
If so, beats me why it could not be posted.
From the abstract: "Currently, we are experiencing an epidemic of cardiorenal disease characterized by increasing rates of obesity, hypertension, the metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes, and kidney disease. Whereas excessive caloric intake and physical inactivity are likely important factors driving the obesity epidemic, it is important to consider additional mechanisms. We revisit an old hypothesis that sugar, particularly excessive fructose intake, has a critical role in the epidemic of cardiorenal disease...."
Before I go into this, curious if you are now backing off the claim that it's "hidden sugars" or ready meals (which we have no evidence to suggest are a significant contributor of sugar intake)?
My stance has not changed from my original argument about sugars - the whole point of a debate topic, is to debate. Hidden sugars would be what goes in a ready meal, as per my definition of the term hidden sugars aforementioned.
Again, sugars in savory foods (ALL savory foods) account for about 5% of total added sugars consumed in the UK.
Given that, what's the evidence that: (1) ready meals are relevant to the obesity problem in the UK and other countries; and (2) that ready meals are a significant source of sugar.
Excerpts from a BBC article;
But one area of concern is ready meals when people tend to eat an entire portion.
"Many other ready meals have far lower levels, but why do we have so much sugar in some "main courses"?
"Often we take sugar into our bodies but don't recognise it as sugar, mistaking it for more savoury tastes," says Barry Smith, founder of the University of London's Centre for the Study of the Senses.
Sugar acts as a balance to the bitterness or sourness of other flavours, such as salt or spices, which means the sweetness isn't tasted but still gives the body the effects of a "sugar rush", just as foods such as chocolate do. So some savoury foods are having the same effect on the body as sweet ones, and causing similar cravings, but with a different taste.
"The brain's saying 'Give me more like that'," says Smith. "It's getting lots of sugar without you actually knowing, so is less able than when eating sweets to say 'I've had enough. Stop now.' It's morally dubious that so much sugar is in things that people don't know or recognise from their tasting. We don't allow ourselves the freedom to choose. It's slightly surreptitious."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/magazine-36071678
This, tying into my idea of not feeling full from a meal and thus overeating based on sugar being within the meal providing empty calories. I would suggest based on this, such eating habits (in this case ready meals) are a factor on the obesity epidemic.
You really need to post some examples of what these ready meals are that contain so much sugar. I know you're in the UK and I'm in the US, but we need some specifics of the types of foods you are referring to, ideally with the brand name and/or picture of the label so we understand it. I eat a decent number of frozen meals for lunch, use convenience foods to help get dinner on the table, and I'm rarely over my sugar goal on a daily basis.
Link wit example was posted.0 -
svetskisampion wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »However, I am guessing that this study is the one referred to: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/4/899.full.
If so, beats me why it could not be posted.
From the abstract: "Currently, we are experiencing an epidemic of cardiorenal disease characterized by increasing rates of obesity, hypertension, the metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes, and kidney disease. Whereas excessive caloric intake and physical inactivity are likely important factors driving the obesity epidemic, it is important to consider additional mechanisms. We revisit an old hypothesis that sugar, particularly excessive fructose intake, has a critical role in the epidemic of cardiorenal disease...."
Before I go into this, curious if you are now backing off the claim that it's "hidden sugars" or ready meals (which we have no evidence to suggest are a significant contributor of sugar intake)?
My stance has not changed from my original argument about sugars - the whole point of a debate topic, is to debate. Hidden sugars would be what goes in a ready meal, as per my definition of the term hidden sugars aforementioned.
Again, sugars in savory foods (ALL savory foods) account for about 5% of total added sugars consumed in the UK.
Given that, what's the evidence that: (1) ready meals are relevant to the obesity problem in the UK and other countries; and (2) that ready meals are a significant source of sugar.
Excerpts from a BBC article;
But one area of concern is ready meals when people tend to eat an entire portion.
"Many other ready meals have far lower levels, but why do we have so much sugar in some "main courses"?
"Often we take sugar into our bodies but don't recognise it as sugar, mistaking it for more savoury tastes," says Barry Smith, founder of the University of London's Centre for the Study of the Senses.
Sugar acts as a balance to the bitterness or sourness of other flavours, such as salt or spices, which means the sweetness isn't tasted but still gives the body the effects of a "sugar rush", just as foods such as chocolate do. So some savoury foods are having the same effect on the body as sweet ones, and causing similar cravings, but with a different taste.
"The brain's saying 'Give me more like that'," says Smith. "It's getting lots of sugar without you actually knowing, so is less able than when eating sweets to say 'I've had enough. Stop now.' It's morally dubious that so much sugar is in things that people don't know or recognise from their tasting. We don't allow ourselves the freedom to choose. It's slightly surreptitious."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/magazine-36071678
This, tying into my idea of not feeling full from a meal and thus overeating based on sugar being within the meal providing empty calories. I would suggest based on this, such eating habits (in this case ready meals) are a factor on the obesity epidemic.
Note that this article -- which is not a great source -- lacks numbers. It's saying that one particular meal supposedly has high sugar, which I'm sure is true, but some also have high fat or low veg, so why not talk about that? Given -- again -- that ALL savory foods account for only 5% of added sugars, this seems a ridiculous thing to focus on. I am (again) certain it's because people like the idea that they didn't overeat due to any agency, but were somehow tricked or not responsible for it.
Smith gives no evidence here that consuming sugar in a savory food leads to cravings or overeating. He's basically just speculating. I think if you apply logic, blaming the 5% of added sugar in savory things for people eating the other 95% of added sugar (in foods that most find delicious and would enjoy whatever else they ate) is rather odd and backwards.1 -
svetskisampion wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »However, I am guessing that this study is the one referred to: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/4/899.full.
If so, beats me why it could not be posted.
From the abstract: "Currently, we are experiencing an epidemic of cardiorenal disease characterized by increasing rates of obesity, hypertension, the metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes, and kidney disease. Whereas excessive caloric intake and physical inactivity are likely important factors driving the obesity epidemic, it is important to consider additional mechanisms. We revisit an old hypothesis that sugar, particularly excessive fructose intake, has a critical role in the epidemic of cardiorenal disease...."
Before I go into this, curious if you are now backing off the claim that it's "hidden sugars" or ready meals (which we have no evidence to suggest are a significant contributor of sugar intake)?
My stance has not changed from my original argument about sugars - the whole point of a debate topic, is to debate. Hidden sugars would be what goes in a ready meal, as per my definition of the term hidden sugars aforementioned.
Again, sugars in savory foods (ALL savory foods) account for about 5% of total added sugars consumed in the UK.
Given that, what's the evidence that: (1) ready meals are relevant to the obesity problem in the UK and other countries; and (2) that ready meals are a significant source of sugar.
Excerpts from a BBC article;
But one area of concern is ready meals when people tend to eat an entire portion.
"Many other ready meals have far lower levels, but why do we have so much sugar in some "main courses"?
"Often we take sugar into our bodies but don't recognise it as sugar, mistaking it for more savoury tastes," says Barry Smith, founder of the University of London's Centre for the Study of the Senses.
Sugar acts as a balance to the bitterness or sourness of other flavours, such as salt or spices, which means the sweetness isn't tasted but still gives the body the effects of a "sugar rush", just as foods such as chocolate do. So some savoury foods are having the same effect on the body as sweet ones, and causing similar cravings, but with a different taste.
"The brain's saying 'Give me more like that'," says Smith. "It's getting lots of sugar without you actually knowing, so is less able than when eating sweets to say 'I've had enough. Stop now.' It's morally dubious that so much sugar is in things that people don't know or recognise from their tasting. We don't allow ourselves the freedom to choose. It's slightly surreptitious."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/magazine-36071678
This, tying into my idea of not feeling full from a meal and thus overeating based on sugar being within the meal providing empty calories. I would suggest based on this, such eating habits (in this case ready meals) are a factor on the obesity epidemic.
You really need to post some examples of what these ready meals are that contain so much sugar. I know you're in the UK and I'm in the US, but we need some specifics of the types of foods you are referring to, ideally with the brand name and/or picture of the label so we understand it. I eat a decent number of frozen meals for lunch, use convenience foods to help get dinner on the table, and I'm rarely over my sugar goal on a daily basis.
Link wit example was posted.
I do see that now and am looking at it, I actually just came back to edit my post asking for the examples.
The first grouping are almost all ketchup and/or other tomato based condiments. Tomatoes have a good deal of naturally occurring sugars, which I'm sure was not taken into consideration in this article...
2 -
caroldavison332 wrote: »no. we pay too much in taxes already and it won't dissuade people from eating it. Look what they pay for cigarettes.
This argument, unfortunately, doesn't work. Taxes on sodas, etc. in the U.S. have resulted in huge decreases in the sales of soda in those cities (Philadelphia, as an example, has seen a drop of up to 50% in sales, depending on neighborhood and market). And cigarette smoking in the U.S. has declined from 42%+ to a new low of 16.8%.
There are other arguments to make for or against the practice, but taxing does work. It especially keeps the young (who have limited purchasing power) from starting bad habits, etc.
And of course, extra tax or not, people will still choose to eat junk food, etc. Taxes are used to discourage, not to outlaw.
IMHO, these taxes seem to be more "fair" in countries where healthcare is paid for by the government. Especially if the funds raised are used only for healthcare, mitigating obesity related diseases, etc. Here in the U.S. it seems less so to me.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »However, I am guessing that this study is the one referred to: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/4/899.full.
If so, beats me why it could not be posted.
From the abstract: "Currently, we are experiencing an epidemic of cardiorenal disease characterized by increasing rates of obesity, hypertension, the metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes, and kidney disease. Whereas excessive caloric intake and physical inactivity are likely important factors driving the obesity epidemic, it is important to consider additional mechanisms. We revisit an old hypothesis that sugar, particularly excessive fructose intake, has a critical role in the epidemic of cardiorenal disease...."
Before I go into this, curious if you are now backing off the claim that it's "hidden sugars" or ready meals (which we have no evidence to suggest are a significant contributor of sugar intake)?
My stance has not changed from my original argument about sugars - the whole point of a debate topic, is to debate. Hidden sugars would be what goes in a ready meal, as per my definition of the term hidden sugars aforementioned.
Again, sugars in savory foods (ALL savory foods) account for about 5% of total added sugars consumed in the UK.
Given that, what's the evidence that: (1) ready meals are relevant to the obesity problem in the UK and other countries; and (2) that ready meals are a significant source of sugar.
Excerpts from a BBC article;
But one area of concern is ready meals when people tend to eat an entire portion.
"Many other ready meals have far lower levels, but why do we have so much sugar in some "main courses"?
"Often we take sugar into our bodies but don't recognise it as sugar, mistaking it for more savoury tastes," says Barry Smith, founder of the University of London's Centre for the Study of the Senses.
Sugar acts as a balance to the bitterness or sourness of other flavours, such as salt or spices, which means the sweetness isn't tasted but still gives the body the effects of a "sugar rush", just as foods such as chocolate do. So some savoury foods are having the same effect on the body as sweet ones, and causing similar cravings, but with a different taste.
"The brain's saying 'Give me more like that'," says Smith. "It's getting lots of sugar without you actually knowing, so is less able than when eating sweets to say 'I've had enough. Stop now.' It's morally dubious that so much sugar is in things that people don't know or recognise from their tasting. We don't allow ourselves the freedom to choose. It's slightly surreptitious."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/magazine-36071678
This, tying into my idea of not feeling full from a meal and thus overeating based on sugar being within the meal providing empty calories. I would suggest based on this, such eating habits (in this case ready meals) are a factor on the obesity epidemic.
Note that this article -- which is not a great source -- lacks numbers. It's saying that one particular meal supposedly has high sugar, which I'm sure is true, but some also have high fat or low veg, so why not talk about that? Given -- again -- that ALL savory foods account for only 5% of added sugars, this seems a ridiculous thing to focus on. I am (again) certain it's because people like the idea that they didn't overeat due to any agency, but were somehow tricked or not responsible for it.
Smith gives no evidence here that consuming sugar in a savory food leads to cravings or overeating. He's basically just speculating. I think if you apply logic, blaming the 5% of added sugar in savory things for people eating the other 95% of added sugar (in foods that most find delicious and would enjoy whatever else they ate) is rather odd and backwards.
Again I point you to Johnsons study and what believe doesn't reiterate my point of feeling full. In the following paragraph it says;
The mechanism was related to the inability of fructose to acutely stimulate insulin and leptin and to inhibit ghrelin, all factors that are known to affect the satiety center in the central nervous system. Yudkin (34) also argued that the sweetness of fructose (or sucrose) often makes food more palatable, and, indeed, the food industry has capitalized on this by frequently adding HFCS or sugar to normally nonsweetened foods (such as crackers) to enhance the taste. This may stimulate more food intake.
Since sugar has that affect on satiety, the consumption of foods with very little nutritional value but with that common "hidden sugar" buzzword, many people overeat without actually realising they're doing so.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »However, I am guessing that this study is the one referred to: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/4/899.full.
If so, beats me why it could not be posted.
From the abstract: "Currently, we are experiencing an epidemic of cardiorenal disease characterized by increasing rates of obesity, hypertension, the metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes, and kidney disease. Whereas excessive caloric intake and physical inactivity are likely important factors driving the obesity epidemic, it is important to consider additional mechanisms. We revisit an old hypothesis that sugar, particularly excessive fructose intake, has a critical role in the epidemic of cardiorenal disease...."
Before I go into this, curious if you are now backing off the claim that it's "hidden sugars" or ready meals (which we have no evidence to suggest are a significant contributor of sugar intake)?
My stance has not changed from my original argument about sugars - the whole point of a debate topic, is to debate. Hidden sugars would be what goes in a ready meal, as per my definition of the term hidden sugars aforementioned.
Again, sugars in savory foods (ALL savory foods) account for about 5% of total added sugars consumed in the UK.
Given that, what's the evidence that: (1) ready meals are relevant to the obesity problem in the UK and other countries; and (2) that ready meals are a significant source of sugar.
Excerpts from a BBC article;
But one area of concern is ready meals when people tend to eat an entire portion.
"Many other ready meals have far lower levels, but why do we have so much sugar in some "main courses"?
"Often we take sugar into our bodies but don't recognise it as sugar, mistaking it for more savoury tastes," says Barry Smith, founder of the University of London's Centre for the Study of the Senses.
Sugar acts as a balance to the bitterness or sourness of other flavours, such as salt or spices, which means the sweetness isn't tasted but still gives the body the effects of a "sugar rush", just as foods such as chocolate do. So some savoury foods are having the same effect on the body as sweet ones, and causing similar cravings, but with a different taste.
"The brain's saying 'Give me more like that'," says Smith. "It's getting lots of sugar without you actually knowing, so is less able than when eating sweets to say 'I've had enough. Stop now.' It's morally dubious that so much sugar is in things that people don't know or recognise from their tasting. We don't allow ourselves the freedom to choose. It's slightly surreptitious."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/magazine-36071678
This, tying into my idea of not feeling full from a meal and thus overeating based on sugar being within the meal providing empty calories. I would suggest based on this, such eating habits (in this case ready meals) are a factor on the obesity epidemic.
You really need to post some examples of what these ready meals are that contain so much sugar. I know you're in the UK and I'm in the US, but we need some specifics of the types of foods you are referring to, ideally with the brand name and/or picture of the label so we understand it. I eat a decent number of frozen meals for lunch, use convenience foods to help get dinner on the table, and I'm rarely over my sugar goal on a daily basis.
Link wit example was posted.
I do see that now and am looking at it, I actually just came back to edit my post asking for the examples.
The first grouping are almost all ketchup and/or other tomato based condiments. Tomatoes have a good deal of naturally occurring sugars, which I'm sure was not taken into consideration in this article...
And of the 7 entrees that are were chosen, 5 of them are some combination of 'sweet and sour' and another is MANGO chicken (mangoes are very high in sugar to begin with)... talk about slanted writing and cherry-picking your examples...2 -
WinoGelato wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »However, I am guessing that this study is the one referred to: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/4/899.full.
If so, beats me why it could not be posted.
From the abstract: "Currently, we are experiencing an epidemic of cardiorenal disease characterized by increasing rates of obesity, hypertension, the metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes, and kidney disease. Whereas excessive caloric intake and physical inactivity are likely important factors driving the obesity epidemic, it is important to consider additional mechanisms. We revisit an old hypothesis that sugar, particularly excessive fructose intake, has a critical role in the epidemic of cardiorenal disease...."
Before I go into this, curious if you are now backing off the claim that it's "hidden sugars" or ready meals (which we have no evidence to suggest are a significant contributor of sugar intake)?
My stance has not changed from my original argument about sugars - the whole point of a debate topic, is to debate. Hidden sugars would be what goes in a ready meal, as per my definition of the term hidden sugars aforementioned.
Again, sugars in savory foods (ALL savory foods) account for about 5% of total added sugars consumed in the UK.
Given that, what's the evidence that: (1) ready meals are relevant to the obesity problem in the UK and other countries; and (2) that ready meals are a significant source of sugar.
Excerpts from a BBC article;
But one area of concern is ready meals when people tend to eat an entire portion.
"Many other ready meals have far lower levels, but why do we have so much sugar in some "main courses"?
"Often we take sugar into our bodies but don't recognise it as sugar, mistaking it for more savoury tastes," says Barry Smith, founder of the University of London's Centre for the Study of the Senses.
Sugar acts as a balance to the bitterness or sourness of other flavours, such as salt or spices, which means the sweetness isn't tasted but still gives the body the effects of a "sugar rush", just as foods such as chocolate do. So some savoury foods are having the same effect on the body as sweet ones, and causing similar cravings, but with a different taste.
"The brain's saying 'Give me more like that'," says Smith. "It's getting lots of sugar without you actually knowing, so is less able than when eating sweets to say 'I've had enough. Stop now.' It's morally dubious that so much sugar is in things that people don't know or recognise from their tasting. We don't allow ourselves the freedom to choose. It's slightly surreptitious."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/magazine-36071678
This, tying into my idea of not feeling full from a meal and thus overeating based on sugar being within the meal providing empty calories. I would suggest based on this, such eating habits (in this case ready meals) are a factor on the obesity epidemic.
You really need to post some examples of what these ready meals are that contain so much sugar. I know you're in the UK and I'm in the US, but we need some specifics of the types of foods you are referring to, ideally with the brand name and/or picture of the label so we understand it. I eat a decent number of frozen meals for lunch, use convenience foods to help get dinner on the table, and I'm rarely over my sugar goal on a daily basis.
Link wit example was posted.
I do see that now and am looking at it, I actually just came back to edit my post asking for the examples.
The first grouping are almost all ketchup and/or other tomato based condiments. Tomatoes have a good deal of naturally occurring sugars, which I'm sure was not taken into consideration in this article...
And of the 7 entrees that are were chosen, 5 of them are some combination of 'sweet and sour' and another is MANGO chicken (mangoes are very high in sugar to begin with)... talk about slanted writing and cherry-picking your examples...
Doesn't debunk the idea that they are ready meals with sugar easily accessible to consumers though does it?2 -
WinoGelato wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »However, I am guessing that this study is the one referred to: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/4/899.full.
If so, beats me why it could not be posted.
From the abstract: "Currently, we are experiencing an epidemic of cardiorenal disease characterized by increasing rates of obesity, hypertension, the metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes, and kidney disease. Whereas excessive caloric intake and physical inactivity are likely important factors driving the obesity epidemic, it is important to consider additional mechanisms. We revisit an old hypothesis that sugar, particularly excessive fructose intake, has a critical role in the epidemic of cardiorenal disease...."
Before I go into this, curious if you are now backing off the claim that it's "hidden sugars" or ready meals (which we have no evidence to suggest are a significant contributor of sugar intake)?
My stance has not changed from my original argument about sugars - the whole point of a debate topic, is to debate. Hidden sugars would be what goes in a ready meal, as per my definition of the term hidden sugars aforementioned.
Again, sugars in savory foods (ALL savory foods) account for about 5% of total added sugars consumed in the UK.
Given that, what's the evidence that: (1) ready meals are relevant to the obesity problem in the UK and other countries; and (2) that ready meals are a significant source of sugar.
Excerpts from a BBC article;
But one area of concern is ready meals when people tend to eat an entire portion.
"Many other ready meals have far lower levels, but why do we have so much sugar in some "main courses"?
"Often we take sugar into our bodies but don't recognise it as sugar, mistaking it for more savoury tastes," says Barry Smith, founder of the University of London's Centre for the Study of the Senses.
Sugar acts as a balance to the bitterness or sourness of other flavours, such as salt or spices, which means the sweetness isn't tasted but still gives the body the effects of a "sugar rush", just as foods such as chocolate do. So some savoury foods are having the same effect on the body as sweet ones, and causing similar cravings, but with a different taste.
"The brain's saying 'Give me more like that'," says Smith. "It's getting lots of sugar without you actually knowing, so is less able than when eating sweets to say 'I've had enough. Stop now.' It's morally dubious that so much sugar is in things that people don't know or recognise from their tasting. We don't allow ourselves the freedom to choose. It's slightly surreptitious."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/magazine-36071678
This, tying into my idea of not feeling full from a meal and thus overeating based on sugar being within the meal providing empty calories. I would suggest based on this, such eating habits (in this case ready meals) are a factor on the obesity epidemic.
You really need to post some examples of what these ready meals are that contain so much sugar. I know you're in the UK and I'm in the US, but we need some specifics of the types of foods you are referring to, ideally with the brand name and/or picture of the label so we understand it. I eat a decent number of frozen meals for lunch, use convenience foods to help get dinner on the table, and I'm rarely over my sugar goal on a daily basis.
Link wit example was posted.
I do see that now and am looking at it, I actually just came back to edit my post asking for the examples.
The first grouping are almost all ketchup and/or other tomato based condiments. Tomatoes have a good deal of naturally occurring sugars, which I'm sure was not taken into consideration in this article...
And, the numbers cited are for 100g serving size. I'm not sure who uses 100g of ketchup, as this is nearly 4 times the serving size - but certainly any item that an individual consumes 4 x the recommended serving size is going to be skewed on the high side.
I also wouldn't call condiments "ready meals" and so when you look at the examples of those which were posted, (ironically three of which are Sweet and Sour Chicken - wow shocking that those would have sugar in them!!!), the content is around 25 g of sugar or less. If this is one of your meals for the day, how is that an alarmingly high amount of sugar? I don't regularly track sugar on MFP, but I just looked and my goal is around 65g/day - so this is reasonable and again, I'm rarely over my goal even with eating these sorts of foods.
0 -
svetskisampion wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »However, I am guessing that this study is the one referred to: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/4/899.full.
If so, beats me why it could not be posted.
From the abstract: "Currently, we are experiencing an epidemic of cardiorenal disease characterized by increasing rates of obesity, hypertension, the metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes, and kidney disease. Whereas excessive caloric intake and physical inactivity are likely important factors driving the obesity epidemic, it is important to consider additional mechanisms. We revisit an old hypothesis that sugar, particularly excessive fructose intake, has a critical role in the epidemic of cardiorenal disease...."
Before I go into this, curious if you are now backing off the claim that it's "hidden sugars" or ready meals (which we have no evidence to suggest are a significant contributor of sugar intake)?
My stance has not changed from my original argument about sugars - the whole point of a debate topic, is to debate. Hidden sugars would be what goes in a ready meal, as per my definition of the term hidden sugars aforementioned.
Again, sugars in savory foods (ALL savory foods) account for about 5% of total added sugars consumed in the UK.
Given that, what's the evidence that: (1) ready meals are relevant to the obesity problem in the UK and other countries; and (2) that ready meals are a significant source of sugar.
Excerpts from a BBC article;
But one area of concern is ready meals when people tend to eat an entire portion.
"Many other ready meals have far lower levels, but why do we have so much sugar in some "main courses"?
"Often we take sugar into our bodies but don't recognise it as sugar, mistaking it for more savoury tastes," says Barry Smith, founder of the University of London's Centre for the Study of the Senses.
Sugar acts as a balance to the bitterness or sourness of other flavours, such as salt or spices, which means the sweetness isn't tasted but still gives the body the effects of a "sugar rush", just as foods such as chocolate do. So some savoury foods are having the same effect on the body as sweet ones, and causing similar cravings, but with a different taste.
"The brain's saying 'Give me more like that'," says Smith. "It's getting lots of sugar without you actually knowing, so is less able than when eating sweets to say 'I've had enough. Stop now.' It's morally dubious that so much sugar is in things that people don't know or recognise from their tasting. We don't allow ourselves the freedom to choose. It's slightly surreptitious."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/magazine-36071678
This, tying into my idea of not feeling full from a meal and thus overeating based on sugar being within the meal providing empty calories. I would suggest based on this, such eating habits (in this case ready meals) are a factor on the obesity epidemic.
You really need to post some examples of what these ready meals are that contain so much sugar. I know you're in the UK and I'm in the US, but we need some specifics of the types of foods you are referring to, ideally with the brand name and/or picture of the label so we understand it. I eat a decent number of frozen meals for lunch, use convenience foods to help get dinner on the table, and I'm rarely over my sugar goal on a daily basis.
Link wit example was posted.
I do see that now and am looking at it, I actually just came back to edit my post asking for the examples.
The first grouping are almost all ketchup and/or other tomato based condiments. Tomatoes have a good deal of naturally occurring sugars, which I'm sure was not taken into consideration in this article...
And of the 7 entrees that are were chosen, 5 of them are some combination of 'sweet and sour' and another is MANGO chicken (mangoes are very high in sugar to begin with)... talk about slanted writing and cherry-picking your examples...
Doesn't debunk the idea that they are ready meals with sugar easily accessible to consumers though does it?
No, it doesn't - however, on a general basis, how many people eat these meals exclusively? Just because the meals are available does not mean that they are consumed in a great enough quantity to have any contributory affect on the obesity of the general population.1 -
svetskisampion wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »However, I am guessing that this study is the one referred to: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/4/899.full.
If so, beats me why it could not be posted.
From the abstract: "Currently, we are experiencing an epidemic of cardiorenal disease characterized by increasing rates of obesity, hypertension, the metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes, and kidney disease. Whereas excessive caloric intake and physical inactivity are likely important factors driving the obesity epidemic, it is important to consider additional mechanisms. We revisit an old hypothesis that sugar, particularly excessive fructose intake, has a critical role in the epidemic of cardiorenal disease...."
Before I go into this, curious if you are now backing off the claim that it's "hidden sugars" or ready meals (which we have no evidence to suggest are a significant contributor of sugar intake)?
My stance has not changed from my original argument about sugars - the whole point of a debate topic, is to debate. Hidden sugars would be what goes in a ready meal, as per my definition of the term hidden sugars aforementioned.
Again, sugars in savory foods (ALL savory foods) account for about 5% of total added sugars consumed in the UK.
Given that, what's the evidence that: (1) ready meals are relevant to the obesity problem in the UK and other countries; and (2) that ready meals are a significant source of sugar.
Excerpts from a BBC article;
But one area of concern is ready meals when people tend to eat an entire portion.
"Many other ready meals have far lower levels, but why do we have so much sugar in some "main courses"?
"Often we take sugar into our bodies but don't recognise it as sugar, mistaking it for more savoury tastes," says Barry Smith, founder of the University of London's Centre for the Study of the Senses.
Sugar acts as a balance to the bitterness or sourness of other flavours, such as salt or spices, which means the sweetness isn't tasted but still gives the body the effects of a "sugar rush", just as foods such as chocolate do. So some savoury foods are having the same effect on the body as sweet ones, and causing similar cravings, but with a different taste.
"The brain's saying 'Give me more like that'," says Smith. "It's getting lots of sugar without you actually knowing, so is less able than when eating sweets to say 'I've had enough. Stop now.' It's morally dubious that so much sugar is in things that people don't know or recognise from their tasting. We don't allow ourselves the freedom to choose. It's slightly surreptitious."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/magazine-36071678
This, tying into my idea of not feeling full from a meal and thus overeating based on sugar being within the meal providing empty calories. I would suggest based on this, such eating habits (in this case ready meals) are a factor on the obesity epidemic.
You really need to post some examples of what these ready meals are that contain so much sugar. I know you're in the UK and I'm in the US, but we need some specifics of the types of foods you are referring to, ideally with the brand name and/or picture of the label so we understand it. I eat a decent number of frozen meals for lunch, use convenience foods to help get dinner on the table, and I'm rarely over my sugar goal on a daily basis.
Link wit example was posted.
I do see that now and am looking at it, I actually just came back to edit my post asking for the examples.
The first grouping are almost all ketchup and/or other tomato based condiments. Tomatoes have a good deal of naturally occurring sugars, which I'm sure was not taken into consideration in this article...
And of the 7 entrees that are were chosen, 5 of them are some combination of 'sweet and sour' and another is MANGO chicken (mangoes are very high in sugar to begin with)... talk about slanted writing and cherry-picking your examples...
Doesn't debunk the idea that they are ready meals with sugar easily accessible to consumers though does it?
No, it doesn't - however, on a general basis, how many people eat these meals exclusively? Just because the meals are available does not mean that they are consumed in a great enough quantity to have any contributory affect on the obesity of the general population.
Even if you did, it's not the sugar in them that would contribute to obesity, it's the calories. (I know you are aware)1
This discussion has been closed.
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
- 423 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