Some questions about nutrition advice

[therother]

I'm curious about the general understanding what constitutes a healthy lifestyle. I'm in the UK so I'm particularly interested in how public health advice is being received by UK-based people, but am also interested the perceptions of people from other countries.

A few questions to gauge how people think about certain issues:

• Do you believe, broadly, that weight gain is primarily caused by eating too much and exercising too little, ie calories eaten = calories burned + fat gained?
• Do you believe that fat, and saturated fat in particular, is a leading cause of heart disease, diabetes, obesity and many cancers?
• Do you believe eating large amounts of red meat has a comparable risk to your health to smoking tobacco?
• Without looking it up, what's the rough proportional of saturated, monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats in a sirloin steak?
• Do you believe that replacing fat with starchy vegetables (like potatoes), pasta, bread and rice will help obese people lose weight?
• Do you believe that the main problem with sugar, in addition to being bad for your teeth, is that sugary foods contain lots of calories without supplying essential micronutrients like vitamins, i.e. that sugar constitutes "empty calories"?
• Given the choice between two foods, both with equal caloric content, would you choose a lower fat option that replaces the calories from fat with sugar over the full fat (but lower sugar) option?
• Is it better to be fit or to be lean?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Many of these questions are non issues if you simply follow the policy of "in moderation" when it comes to your diet.

[therother]

That is an oft repeated mantra, whether its true or not kinda depends on what you mean by "moderation". The balance of macronutrients (fat vs carbs)? Portion size, should we just eat less? What level of exercise is needed to remain healthy, eg do we need to take up marathon running? And so on. In other words, I really am interested in the answers to the above questions, they are trying to get at the perception of what exactly a healthy lifestyle entails. I left some out because the list was getting too long, (eg what do you think is better for you, a Coke, a Diet Coke or a glass of freshly squeezed orange juice?), so it could be worse.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I'm curious about the general understanding what constitutes a healthy lifestyle. I'm in the UK so I'm particularly interested in how public health advice is being received by UK-based people, but am also interested the perceptions of people from other countries.

I think nutrition is a very small part of a healthy lifestyle. Like those people who get really into their food are actually less healthy than regular people.

[LIST][*]Do you believe, broadly, that weight gain is primarily caused by eating too much and exercising too little, ie calories eaten = calories burned + fat gained?

Yes.

[*]Do you believe that fat, and saturated fat in particular, is a leading cause of heart disease, diabetes, obesity and many cancers?

No.

[*]Do you believe eating large amounts of red meat has a comparable risk to your health to smoking tobacco?

No.

[*]Without looking it up, what's the rough proportional of saturated, monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats in a sirloin steak?

No idea.

[*]Do you believe that replacing fat with starchy vegetables (like potatoes), pasta, bread and rice will help obese people lose weight?

No.

[*]Do you believe that the main problem with sugar, in addition to being bad for your teeth, is that sugary foods contain lots of calories without supplying essential micronutrients like vitamins, i.e. that sugar constitutes "empty calories"?

No I think it's that it tastes so good you keep eating it.

[*]Given the choice between two foods, both with equal caloric content, would you choose a lower fat option that replaces the calories from fat with sugar over the full fat (but lower sugar) option?

I would choose full fat though I don't know for what food you could just swap them like that

[*]Is it better to be fit or to be lean?

Ehhh fit? Don't understand.

I feel like you know all the answers and are going to score it. But that's what I believe...

[therother]

Thanks.

I would choose full fat though I don't know for what food you could just swap them like that

You might be surprised. It's common for manufacturers to replace fat with sugar (or flour) in many "low fat" products.

I feel like you know all the answers and are going to score it. But that's what I believe...

Ah, I should have made this clear: with the exception of the one about steak, there are no "right" answers.

[a completely inoffensive name]

That is an oft repeated mantra, whether its true or not kinda depends on what you mean by "moderation". The balance of macronutrients (fat vs carbs)? Portion size, should we just eat less? What level of exercise is needed to remain healthy, eg do we need to take up marathon running? And so on. In other words, I really am interested in the answers to the above questions, they are trying to get at the perception of what exactly a healthy lifestyle entails. I left some out because the list was getting too long, (eg what do you think is better for you, a Coke, a Diet Coke or a glass of freshly squeezed orange juice?), so it could be worse.

Is the concept of "moderation" really at debate here? This seems to be a common sense thing. 1/3 pound burgers and cokes are not great all the time and neither is a constant diet of rabbit food, tofu and plain water.

If you are trying to elicit more detailed lines to draw then your questions just degenerate into a "depends on the person" answer.

[Ice]

Many of these questions are non issues if you simply follow the policy of "in moderation" when it comes to your diet.

This.

[Papewaio]

In general 1:1:1 portions of protein:complex carbohydrate:fat.

=][=
"Is it a European swallow or an African swallow?"
BTW as far as the steak is concerned it is more than the cut.
Fat content, type and ratio all depend on:
Is it grass or grain fed?
Lives in a stall or gets to wander a field?
Amount of hilly country.
age of the animal.
Breed of the animal.

All these contribute to the marbling characteristics of the cut.

Add to that is the steak aged, cooked in oil, grilled on a BBQ and there is no absolute answer for the ratio of fats in steak.

[rory_20_uk]

There has been more recent interest into a much higher protein and fat diet with little carbohydrate. The argument being that this is closer to what we used to have as hunter / gatherers and is healthier than the high complex sugars that are a very recent alteration to diet.

Some studies have shown that type 2 diabetes disappears on very carbohydrate controlled diets.

Of course sugar is "empty" calories by itself, as is drinking fat or alcohol. The only persons who should be taking large amounts of simple sugars are those recovering from severe starvation as protein or fats could kill them. But sadly I like sweet things and sweetener is either bloody expensive or doesn't taste that nice.

The risk of atherosclerosis is closely linked to one's serum cholesterol level. As the cholesterol level increases, one's risk goes up exponentially. However, how one's serum cholesterol level is linked to diet I am not sure.

The interesting thing about relative risks as one can hear that the contraceptive pill increases one's relative risk of cancer by 2. They never go on to say that smoking increases it by thousands.

Some studies say that red meat increases one's relative risk of dying. Frankly, most things do, and I'd rather the occasional steak than live a very long, uninspired life.

[therother]

@Papewaio: you are of course correct about the exact fat composition of steak depends on a number of variables. I was more interested in people's general opinion, mostly whether they thought steak is almost entirely saturated fat (steak is actually mostly protein and water, and only a few percent fat, the majority of which is unsaturated). Many of the preconceptions we have turn out to be wrong. For instance, fish can have twice as much saturated fat as meat.

I'd say your 1:1:1 protein:complex carbs:fat rule is probably fine if you are healthy, although that's quite a lot of protein for the average person. It would probably not be good for someone who is insulin resistant for instance (like most obese people).

@rory_20_uk: Yes, we are now doing studies examining higher fat, low carb diets for the first time since the 1960s (when high fat/low carbohydrates was the orthodoxy). Most studies show that increasing fat intake and reducing carbs leads to more sustainable weight loss (particularly for those who are insulin resistant), increased HDL, better LDL (more of the buoyant stuff, less of bad dense stuff), lower blood pressure, better triglyceride levels. The best known general indicator of an impending heart trouble is your HDL to triglyceride ratio, the higher the better. Not that I'm saying that HDL protects again heart disease or that triglycerides cause it, just that the ratio of these biomarkers appear most strongly associated with CHD.

The evidence that our diet for the last 2-3 million years was predominantly animal meat is strong and leads to the question of why, if it is so deleterious to our health, our bodies didn't adapt better. Add in that most populations untouched by the western diet ate a substantial amount of animal meat and saturated fat but still seem to be free of heart disease, cancer, diabetes and obesity (the Inuit are a classic example), and leads me to set a pretty high evidence bar that meat consumption is bad for you. Significant complex carbohydrates only entered our diets when we become agrarian, which is an evolutionary blink of the eye ago. Refined carbohydrates and significant sugar intake is very new to our diet. My initial hypothesis would therefore be that sugar and flour are far more likely candidates for the cause of most of our lifestyle diseases.

The link between atherosclerosis and heart disease is, at best, not fully understood. Egyptian mummies have been shown to have atherosclerosis and the Masai (on their traditional high fat diet) have very high level of serum cholesterol and atherosclerosis but no significant incidence of heart disease, certainly in comparison to western rates. The "plumbing" analogy between our arteries and water pipes is compelling but, it seems, potentially misleading.

Seeing as you've essentially given the answer to question 3, a recent study was put the extra mortality risk of eating red meat at ~10-20%, which worked out at about one extra death per 100. And the problems with that study are legion, so I'd say that's more than likely an overestimate. Similar studies of cigarette smoking put the increased mortality risk for lung cancer at 2000%. So not even close. Why is this important? Because our desire to lower saturated fat led to a massive campaign in the UK and the US to lower total fat consumption. In response, we increased our carbohydrates intake, especially sugar and refined carbohydrates, because manufacturers removed fat and commonly added sugar or flour to make it taste ok. The choice between Coke, Diet Coke and orange juice is a tough one. OJ, removed from the fibre in the orange, is just a sugar solution with some micronutrients. Coke is a sugar solution with none. Diet Coke has no sugar, but has artificial sweeteners that could be potentially harmful. The best choice is probably Diet Coke, but a glass of water would be much better than all three. Surprisingly, Coke plus a multivitamin wins hands down over the OJ as it has less sugar per ml.

The idea of sugar as empty calories (Q6) ties back to question 1. Is isocaloric food isometabolic? The answer is no and sugar is one of the best examples of this. 100g of sugar is metabolised entirely differently to 100g of fat. Indeed, the constituents of sucrose (table sugar) are metabolised differently as well (sucrose is one glucose and one fructose). Glucose can be burned by all cells, fructose is dumped in its entirety on the liver. The energy balance in Q1 is only really applicable by looking at body as a whole (all possible energy intake and outgoings) or, perhaps more usefully, specifically at the fat cells. Fat in fat cells is highly regulated (in healthy people anyway) and so doesn't match this simplistic and misleading interpretation of the first law of thermodynamics. Insulin level are what primarily regulates whether we burn or store fat. And insulin levels are primarily determined by carbohydrate intake. Higher insulin generally means your fat cells seek to store fat, lower levels lead them to release it.

[Strike For The South]

Eating paleo has been en vouge in the gym for years

Ho hum.

[Devastatin Dave]

I think nutrition is a very small part of a healthy lifestyle. Like those people who get really into their food are actually less healthy than regular people.



Yes.


No.



No.


No idea.

No.

No I think it's that it tastes so good you keep eating it.


I would choose full fat though I don't know for what food you could just swap them like that


Ehhh fit? Don't understand.

I feel like you know all the answers and are going to score it. But that's what I believe...

Agreed. I've lost 45 lbs over the past 2 years from simply counting calories. I've gained a lot of muscle from weight training and cardio. Now I'm off several blood pressure medicines and other medications that revolve around weight issues. Your body is a machine, keep it fed well, tune it, and change your oil with high fiber.

[Devastatin Dave]

I think nutrition is a very small part of a healthy lifestyle. Like those people who get really into their food are actually less healthy than regular people.



Yes.


No.



No.


No idea.

No.

No I think it's that it tastes so good you keep eating it.


I would choose full fat though I don't know for what food you could just swap them like that


Ehhh fit? Don't understand.

I feel like you know all the answers and are going to score it. But that's what I believe...

Agreed. I've lost 45 lbs over the past 2 years from simply counting calories. I've gained a lot of muscle from weight training and cardio. Now I'm off several blood pressure medicines and other medications that revolve around weight issues. Your body is a machine, keep it fed well, tune it, and change your oil with high fiber.

[Papewaio]

Input and output would have to be considered as well as length for life when comparing with previous generations.

Most of us city dwellers sit on our way to work, sit at work, walk to a coffee or a cigarette, sit for more work, sit on our commute home, sit for dinner, sit and watch tv. Then find it difficult to find time to do a half hour of exercise.

Yet we are living close to twice as long as our Roman counterparts. A lot of whom died to minor diseases by modern measures. The diseases we are dying of look like those that take longer than the ancients lived and a lo of these diseases such as gout were limited to the nobility.

We have old rich lazy people diseases that manifest themselves well beyond the average lifespan of most humans who existed before us.

As for evolution and it's speed just look at how quickly being lactose tolerant spread through populations who drink milk. Similarly look at the lack of tolerance to alcohol for populations that had not been exposed to alcohol. A small advantage constantly applied will spread relatively quickly.

Given just these two examples is it not possible that most of us have a higher tolerance for grains than our nomadic ancestors. After all jus look at the high rates of type 2 diabetes in Australa's aborigines. Sure their diet is pretty bad, but they suffer far worse than their western counter parts on similar modern diets of alcohol and junk food.

[Papewaio]

Input and output would have to be considered as well as length for life when comparing with previous generations.

Most of us city dwellers sit on our way to work, sit at work, walk to a coffee or a cigarette, sit for more work, sit on our commute home, sit for dinner, sit and watch tv. Then find it difficult to find time to do a half hour of exercise.

Yet we are living close to twice as long as our Roman counterparts. A lot of whom died to minor diseases by modern measures. The diseases we are dying of look like those that take longer than the ancients lived and a lo of these diseases such as gout were limited to the nobility.

We have old rich lazy people diseases that manifest themselves well beyond the average lifespan of most humans who existed before us.

As for evolution and it's speed just look at how quickly being lactose tolerant spread through populations who drink milk. Similarly look at the lack of tolerance to alcohol for populations that had not been exposed to alcohol. A small advantage constantly applied will spread relatively quickly.

Given just these two examples is it not possible that most of us have a higher tolerance for grains than our nomadic ancestors. After all jus look at the high rates of type 2 diabetes in Australa's aborigines. Sure their diet is pretty bad, but they suffer far worse than their western counter parts on similar modern diets of alcohol and junk food.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Input and output would have to be considered as well as length for life when comparing with previous generations.

Most of us city dwellers sit on our way to work, sit at work, walk to a coffee or a cigarette, sit for more work, sit on our commute home, sit for dinner, sit and watch tv. Then find it difficult to find time to do a half hour of exercise.

Yet we are living close to twice as long as our Roman counterparts. A lot of whom died to minor diseases by modern measures. The diseases we are dying of look like those that take longer than the ancients lived and a lo of these diseases such as gout were limited to the nobility.

We have old rich lazy people diseases that manifest themselves well beyond the average lifespan of most humans who existed before us.

As for evolution and it's speed just look at how quickly being lactose tolerant spread through populations who drink milk. Similarly look at the lack of tolerance to alcohol for populations that had not been exposed to alcohol. A small advantage constantly applied will spread relatively quickly.

Given just these two examples is it not possible that most of us have a higher tolerance for grains than our nomadic ancestors. After all jus look at the high rates of type 2 diabetes in Australa's aborigines. Sure their diet is pretty bad, but they suffer far worse than their western counter parts on similar modern diets of alcohol and junk food.

Be careful with that hypothesis, in the case for lactose, I think all humans have had similar mechanisms for digesting our own mothers milk for millenia. It's not that big of a leap to having that lactose tolerance extend beyond our natural age of typically digesting milk (it cuts off in later years since [I would think] ancient peoples did not drink milk from other animals throughout their life until domestication arrived). However, its a whole other thing for our body to handle something completely brand new and adapt to it for digestive purposes.

But biology isn't exactly my strong suit. The main point being is that evolution promoting a modification in an already established mechanism is going to come about faster then a promotion towards a brand new mechanism being created for a new foreign substance.

[Papewaio]

In general lactose intolerance for adults is higher in countries whose people have not milked animals for generations.

Alcohol which definitely isn't naturally produced with breasts ... it would be a very popular genetic engineer who does make it happen... Tolerance for alcohol is associated with those societies that drink.

Given that the ice age finished only ten or so millennia ago it shows humans have adapted to at least some parts of our diet in the agrarian age. So it isn't too big a leap to point out the paleo diets might not be 100% in alignment with as as we have been under environmental pressure to adapt to the non-nomadic diets of grain based societies.

The thing we haven't had time to adjust too is the modern knowledge worker who toils at a PC. Lack of exercise is the newest phenomena and would be the key bit to realign with what our grandparents and near ancestors did. So Pre-industrial revolution energy expenditure would be where I'd look for quick lifestyle wins not 10,000 year old diets.

[a completely inoffensive name]

In general lactose intolerance for adults is higher in countries whose people have not milked animals for generations.

Alcohol which definitely isn't naturally produced with breasts ... it would be a very popular genetic engineer who does make it happen... Tolerance for alcohol is associated with those societies that drink.

Given that the ice age finished only ten or so millennia ago it shows humans have adapted to at least some parts of our diet in the agrarian age. So it isn't too big a leap to point out the paleo diets might not be 100% in alignment with as as we have been under environmental pressure to adapt to the non-nomadic diets of grain based societies.

The thing we haven't had time to adjust too is the modern knowledge worker who toils at a PC. Lack of exercise is the newest phenomena and would be the key bit to realign with what our grandparents and near ancestors did. So Pre-industrial revolution energy expenditure would be where I'd look for quick lifestyle wins not 10,000 year old diets.

Alcohol is still extremely toxic to humans and provides no benefit nutritionally or energetically to our body as far as I know. It's a poor example in my opinion. Millenia of drinking alcoholic products and we can at most tolerate around 200-250ml of alcohol in a short period (for 180lb males). A standard 12 fl oz (355ml) drink's worth of ethanol (about 23 standard drinks worth if I did my math right) would certainly kill anyone.

Meanwhile, I can drink half a gallon of milk in an hour if I wanted to with no real harm.

Other than that, I would agree with your concluding sentence.

[Papewaio]

From Wikipedia http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoh...ance#section_3
"The tolerance to alcohol is not equally distributed throughout the world's population, and genetics of alcohol dehydrogenase indicate resistance has arisen independently in different ethnic groups.[2] People of European descent on average have a high alcohol tolerance and are less likely to develop alcoholism compared to Aboriginal Australians, Native Americans and some East Asian groups.[3][4][5] This is related to an average higher body mass, but also to the prevalence of high levels of alcohol dehydrogenase in the population.[6][7] The high alcohol tolerance in Europeans and some other ethnic groups has probably evolved as a consequence of centuries of exposure to alcohol in established agricultural societies.[8][2]"

[therother]

We have old rich lazy people diseases that manifest themselves well beyond the average lifespan of most humans who existed before us.

Whilst it's probably true that we are living longer than ever before, much of that comes from much lower infant/child mortality, improved treatments for infectious diseases, more secure food supply and a much less hostile environment. For instance, about 1 in 7 Inuit in the 1820s died in their 60s, about 1 in 30 in their 80s, easily long enough to develop cancers, heart disease and diabetes. Infectious diseases and accidents accounted for the vast majority of (premature) Inuit deaths. But the Inuit had virtual no incidence of heart disease, cancer, diabetes and obesity. Similar trends are seen in other non-western populations (the Masai and Tokelau all ate different diets to the Inuit and each other, but all had very little incidence of heart disease despite eating >60% saturated fat). Inuit and Masai (not sure about Tokelau but I suspect so) all get lifestyle diseases when they adopt our diet, even if they retain their physical activity levels (so exercise and genetics don't account for it). There is a reason why they are called lifestyle diseases: as a general rule, you don't get them unless adopt our lifestyle.

As for evolution and it's speed just look at how quickly being lactose tolerant spread through populations who drink milk. Similarly look at the lack of tolerance to alcohol for populations that had not been exposed to alcohol. A small advantage constantly applied will spread relatively quickly.

It's probably more like those that were alcohol or lactose intolerant were selected against, meaning genetic variants allowing a diet that contained substantial amounts of milk and alcohol rose to high frequency. The same is probably true of sugar and refined carbohydrates (there are already some of us who can guzzle these to their hearts content without harm) except it's taking longer due to our ability to semi-remove ourselves from selection pressures.

Given just these two examples is it not possible that most of us have a higher tolerance for grains than our nomadic ancestors. After all jus look at the high rates of type 2 diabetes in Australa's aborigines. Sure their diet is pretty bad, but they suffer far worse than their western counter parts on similar modern diets of alcohol and junk food.

I would say that's likely to be true. But we would have adapted to a diet high in whole grains and not refined, white flour or sugar.

[therother]

The thing we haven't had time to adjust too is the modern knowledge worker who toils at a PC. Lack of exercise is the newest phenomena and would be the key bit to realign with what our grandparents and near ancestors did. So Pre-industrial revolution energy expenditure would be where I'd look for quick lifestyle wins not 10,000 year old diets.

Then you have the problem of explaining manual labourers in western countries, who probably do much harder physical labour than our grandparents, who have very high incidences of CHD and obesity. Exercise, although very good for you, isn't the silver bullet.

[therother]

Alcohol is still extremely toxic to humans and provides no benefit nutritionally or energetically to our body as far as I know.

As is sugar: I can't say it any better than Robert Lustig, Professor of Paediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology at UCSF:


.

[Rhyfelwyr]

My philosophy is just to get a calory surplus and try to get 1 (whatever unit they measure protein in) for each 1lb lean body mass.

I'm one stone away from being obese and have high blood pressure at 22.

I'm doing it right.

[gaelic cowboy]

Alcohol is still extremely toxic to humans and provides no benefit nutritionally or energetically to our body as far as I know. It's a poor example in my opinion. Millenia of drinking alcoholic products and we can at most tolerate around 200-250ml of alcohol in a short period (for 180lb males). A standard 12 fl oz (355ml) drink's worth of ethanol (about 23 standard drinks worth if I did my math right) would certainly kill anyone.

Meanwhile, I can drink half a gallon of milk in an hour if I wanted to with no real harm.

Other than that, I would agree with your concluding sentence.

Your thinking in terms of today when generally water in the West is safe to drink, back in the day People might often drank beer as a safer alternative to water. Remember these people probably didnt understand that boiling the water would purify it, but they knew fine well not to drink from the local river that was downstream of the local tannery.

[drone]

Your thinking in terms of today when generally water in the West is safe to drink, back in the day People might often drank beer as a safer alternative to water. Remember these people probably didnt understand that boiling the water would purify it, but they knew fine well not to drink from the local river that was downstream of the local tannery.

Indeed. Beer (due to boiling, alcohol content, and hop acidity) was safer than water to drink. Beer was also a way to "store" grains, old-style beers did preserve some nutritional value. Wine was also safer to drink, don't know about nutritional value though.

[a completely inoffensive name]

From Wikipedia http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoh...ance#section_3
"The tolerance to alcohol is not equally distributed throughout the world's population, and genetics of alcohol dehydrogenase indicate resistance has arisen independently in different ethnic groups.[2] People of European descent on average have a high alcohol tolerance and are less likely to develop alcoholism compared to Aboriginal Australians, Native Americans and some East Asian groups.[3][4][5] This is related to an average higher body mass, but also to the prevalence of high levels of alcohol dehydrogenase in the population.[6][7] The high alcohol tolerance in Europeans and some other ethnic groups has probably evolved as a consequence of centuries of exposure to alcohol in established agricultural societies.[8][2]"

We must be arguing two different thing because this does not negate my point. I am not denying that a degree of tolerance to relatively new substances can occur. I am saying that when you make the point of being able to create a new mechanism to allow you to not die when you eat relatively large quantities and actually convert the new material into nutritional or energetic benefit, alcohol is a crappy example because despite thousands of years of growing tolerance it still isn't good for us at all. Thus making your point, "won't we just adapt to our new diets" moot unless you are talking about the really, really long term.

As is sugar: I can't say it any better than Robert Lustig, Professor of Paediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology at UCSF:


.

The poison is the dose, sugar is toxic in the way vitamin A is toxic. We need it for vital purposes but too much will create an imbalance in the mechanisms of our body. You cannot say the same for alcohol.

Your thinking in terms of today when generally water in the West is safe to drink, back in the day People might often drank beer as a safer alternative to water. Remember these people probably didnt understand that boiling the water would purify it, but they knew fine well not to drink from the local river that was downstream of the local tannery.

I am not getting at what the purpose of all this is.

[therother]

The poison is the dose, sugar is toxic in the way vitamin A is toxic. We need it for vital purposes but too much will create an imbalance in the mechanisms of our body. You cannot say the same for alcohol.

Sugar, or at the least fructose in sugar, is essentially metabolised in the same way to alcohol. It's likely to be the main cause of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, for instance. Like alcohol, there is a safe limit to how much and how fast you can absorb. Observational epidemiological studies (*) have associated drinking a glass of red wine a day with decreased risk of heart disease but potentially worse risk of breast cancer (probably lot more by now). For sugar that limit is unknown, but I'd guess about 30g/day (less than one 330ml can of coke) is safe enough and even that should be taken with fibre (e.g. in fruit) to stop your pancreas going mental and over expressing insulin. Also, the body doesn't need sugar (or any dietary carbohydrates, for that matter).

(*) this should be taken with a pinch of salt as such studies can't demonstrate cause, so could be other (unaccounted for) behaviours of red wine drinkers that is responsible for this.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Out of curiosity what's your stance on having an "added sugar tax" like we had a thread about a few weeks ago?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Observational epidemiological studies (*) have associated drinking a glass of red wine a day with decreased risk of heart disease but potentially worse risk of breast cancer (probably lot more by now).

That is due to certain (possibly) beneficial organic compounds within grapes (specifically the skin if I remember correctly) that are present within the wine. Not at all due to the alcohol within it.

For sugar that limit is unknown, but I'd guess about 30g/day (less than one 330ml can of coke) is safe enough and even that should be taken with fibre (e.g. in fruit) to stop your pancreas going mental and over expressing insulin. Also, the body doesn't need sugar (or any dietary carbohydrates, for that matter).

Sure it does. Your body needs energy and simple sugars are a high source of energy. Fructose and sucrose found in HFCS is the same as the fructose and sucrose your body gets from cane sugar and fruits. The issue are the high concentrations of it in drinks like soda or in meals. They trigger insulin spikes which is bad, something that fruits generally don't do unless you liquefy a pound of strawberrys and chug that.

[therother]

Out of curiosity what's your stance on having an "added sugar tax" like we had a thread about a few weeks ago?

Hmm. It often annoys me that sugary drinks are often the cheapest available, sometimes cheaper than bottled water. Sugar in liquid form is particularly bad for you. So I'd probably be in favour of a tax similar to the alcohol tax on Coke and the like. For other products, I think I'd be more in favour of proper labelling and banning anything with high sugar content being labelled with words like "diet" or "healthy".

That is due to certain (possibly) beneficial organic compounds within grapes (specifically the skin if I remember correctly) that are present within the wine. Not at all due to the alcohol within it.

Interesting, thanks.

Sure it does. Your body needs energy and simple sugars are a high source of energy. Fructose and sucrose found in HFCS is the same as the fructose and sucrose your body gets from cane sugar and fruits. The issue are the high concentrations of it in drinks like soda or in meals. They trigger insulin spikes which is bad, something that fruits generally don't do unless you liquefy a pound of strawberrys and chug that.

The body requires glucose to function and glucose is a sugar (when we say blood sugar we mean blood glucose). We don't need to eat sugars though: fats can be transformed into glucose. There's a brief description of the process on wikipedia.