We have been running away from fat for years as if it were the plague. Skim milk, 0% yogurts, fat-free sausage, we avoid nuts, we cut the fat from food, "I don't eat it that has a lot of fat" and so on to satiety, because for decades we are being told that fat is the worst we can consume, although it turns out to be very necessary in a balanced diet.
Years running away from fat because of 60 years ago, when the first studies appeared that listed the factors that increased the risk of coronary heart disease, obesity, etc., the sugar industry managed to bribe scientists who published the data so that omit everything related to sugar.
A double intention trap
Thanks to this action the achievement was twofold. On the one hand, the damage that sugar could cause to people's health was silenced, making its consumption was not limited by bad reputation that the truth would have supposed; on the other hand, when the data was published demonizing fats, people began to withdraw them from the diet, consequently increasing the consumption of other foods, among them, those who carried more sugar.
Thus, at least, it is explained in a research conducted at the University of California in San Francisco, recently published in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine, in which they have analyzed the documents of that time until they find the trap.
Apparently the sugar industry paid nutrition scientists from Harvard University to do some studies where it was concluded that the main factors of heart disease were saturated fats Y cholesterol. They should also downplay the effects that food and drinks with sugar could cause.
The amount that each of them received was the equivalent of 50,000 dollars of current money (it seems little to me, for what they got).
Meanwhile, obesity increased terribly
People were told that what they should avoid were fats, but not sweets, so with a fully decompensated diet, loaded with carbohydrates, many of them quickly absorbed (such as sugar), and low in foods rich in healthy fats such as fish or nuts, obesity and associated diseases (such as diabetes, hypertension and heart disease) increased in indicia alarmingly.
As we read in Medline, Stanton Glantz, professor of medicine at the University of California and author of the study, explains it this way:
There are many ways in which the result of a study can be subtly manipulated, something in which the industry has a lot of practice. As the saying goes, powerful gentleman is a gift of money.
And it is that according to the research, the sugar industry already knew in the 50s that if fat consumption was reduced, it would increase sugar, despite the fact that at that time studies were already beginning to warn of the possible existence of a link between sugar and risk factors for heart disease: cholesterol and elevated triglycerides.
Seeing that these data began to appear, a commercial group of the sugar industry (the Sugar Research Foundation) asked scientists at Harvard University to review these investigations, for which they would receive the money commented. That review of the evidence was published in the magazine. New England Journal of Medicine in 1967, and most of it was blamed on cholesterol.
That information calmed so much in the population that decades have passed until in recent years much of the blame is being taken from cholesterol, to the point that the new US food guides. they no longer limit their consumption (The one ingested does not have as much to do with the level of cholesterol in the blood, and the level of cholesterol in the blood does not seem to be so dangerous).
But how bad is eating sugar?
Although there is some controversy about it in current studies (one already suspects that the sugar industry could be behind again), in many medical circles it is beginning to speak of sugar as of the "new tobacco".
This is because, as tobacco legislation decreased heart disease rates, many countries are considering the possibility of also legislate in reference to sugar, increasing taxes on beverages that are rich in this ingredient.
WHO has long been pushing for these drinks to add taxes of at least 20% to try to stop their consumption and reduce obesity and diabetes of the population
And the evidence seems clear:
- Oxford researchers estimated that a 15% reduction in sugar consumption would prevent 180,000 people in the UK will end up being obese in just one year with this measure, and an even greater number of people would avoid being overweight.
- Another study analyzing data from 175 countries revealed that for every 150 additional calories from sugar (compared to 150 calories from fat or protein), the prevalence of type 2 diabetes in the population was up to 11 times higher.
- A third study concluded that in American adults who consume more than 25% of daily calories in sugar, the risk of cardiovascular mortality is triple compared to those who consume less than 10%. This happened regardless of the BMI and physical activity they performed (even those who played sports, because they ate that amount of sugar, had triple the risk).
- A fourth study (and I leave it, because we could spend hours, and I think that with these data it is already quite evident), shows how the reduction of sugar is able to quickly modify the health status of a person. A sample of 43 Latino and African-American children with metabolic syndrome were marked on a diet in which they did not reduce the number of calories they took, nor the percentage of carbohydrates, but yes they lowered the percentage of sugar from 28% of total calories to 10%. At 10 days they saw that the levels of triglycerides, LDL cholesterol, fasting blood pressure and insulin had been significantly reduced.
So what do we do with the children?
Start looking at the labels of what we feed them and eliminate all those foods (not to call them edible) that carry high amounts of sugar in their composition. From yogurts for children with 15-18 grams of sugar per 125 ml (nobody in their right mind would put 4 tablespoons of sugar to a child, but the industry does), to breakfast cereals with more than 40% of sugar in its composition, through cookies, liquid yogurts, milk for babies over one year, desserts, snacks, juices, soft drinks, etc.
In other words, what we should do with children is to give them food. Real food. Of what they sell in the markets. Fresh food.
If it’s not that complicated, everything comes out in the food pyramid (you just have to turn it around, which many people do it the other way around): increasing the consumption of vegetables, vegetables and fruits already displaces a large part of the unhealthy edibles they eat; go back to give them legumes, which are falling into oblivion; recover the nuts, which are the sea of healthy (eye with the risk of choking); drinking water (and no juices or soft drinks); and avoid everything that is marked as "occasional or moderate consumption" as much as possible.
And this is something that starts in the supermarket when choosing what we buy, because what does not come home, they will not be able to eat it. Thus, if everything we have at home is healthy, the risk is minimal and the probability of hitting and keeping sugar at bay is very high.
Photos | iStock
In Babies and more | Too much sugar in our diet and that of our children, a problem now and in the future, will we finally see less sugar in baby food? Is a dangerous overdose of candy possible?
