Comments on: The sugar deception: Why does the ABC bother?

By: Rob

Rob — Tue, 26 Apr 2016 15:56:56 +0000

http://lifestyle.iafrica.com/wellness/your-health/1026859.html

By: Sarah

Sarah — Wed, 20 Apr 2016 03:54:36 +0000

Correction: *soul

By: Sarah

Sarah — Wed, 20 Apr 2016 02:07:21 +0000

Hi Bill,
This article has some valid points, and it frustrates me too, to no end when relatively old information is re-presented, often leaving out pieces of the evidence. However, I find this article very disappointing. It comes from a negative standpoint and doesn’t present any new or useful information (much like you are stating of ABC). I think dietetic professionals need to be very careful about how any industry associations shape their thoughts, research, recommendations and media image.
As a health professional I like to base my practise on the modern Hippocratic Oath ‘first do no harm’. While I agree that sugar isn’t the sole contributor to obesity and other health problems (just like no one nutrient is) I cannot see any negative nutritional outcomes to encouraging people to reduce added sugar in beverages and processed foods (unlike cutting out other things, such as legumes when on the paleo diet which does have potential outcomes).
As your links with the sugar industry are unhidden, articles like this provide a very easy target for people already feeding on speculation (which is sometimes not just speculation) that many dietitians don’t have people’s health, but rather their own agendas in mind.
I’m not trying to ‘attack the food industry’ in anyway, however, I am concerned about the public image of dietitians and the future of the profession. There are enough issues for dietitians to deal with, without also having to deal with the public’s view of dietitians and the DAA as having sold their sole to the corporate world.

By: Rob

Rob — Sat, 16 Apr 2016 12:12:53 +0000

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35193414

Very interesting new study that is showing its our gut bacteria which determines whether we tolerate high GI or low GI foods and thus individual needs are different. Gut bacteria testing could b new frontier to determine which foods need to be added or subtracted to gain optimal health and vitality and help propergate a healthy gut family…

By: George Henderson (@puddleg)

George Henderson (@puddleg) — Fri, 15 Apr 2016 04:10:47 +0000

In the old days it was easy – people ate such high-fat diets that all they needed to do to lose weight was cut out most carbohydrate. They didn’t need to increase fat in real terms, only as % of energy, as Stock and Yudkin showed in 1970.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/23/7/948.abstract

Today, fewer people who are overweight are eating enough fat to do this without excessive hunger. So a little extra is probably wise. And people who aren’t overweight, and want to improve some other aspect of metabolism by avoiding sugar and starch, will indeed need to keep calories more or less the same by eating more fat. (There’s no such food as saturated fat, although it’s easy to buy pure sugar)
It”s an interesting idea that the coconut plantations are now the main business threat to the sugar plantations.

By: Bill Shrapnel

Bill Shrapnel — Thu, 14 Apr 2016 22:10:55 +0000

Hello Rob
The three lines of evidence currently available suggest that sugar intake is in decline. But as I noted in my post the best data will be released in a fortnight or so. This should give us insight into trends in total sugars, added sugars and naturally occurring sugars.
You ask why we have not seen changes to the current high carbohydrate intake recommendations. Answer: Because the NHMRC hasn’t conducted the necessary scientific reviews or reviewed Acceptable Macronutrient Distribution Range for carbohydrate. This should have been done before or in conjunction with the dietary guidelines process.
Nutrition policy in Australia is in a mess.
Regards, Bill

By: Bill Shrapnel

Bill Shrapnel — Thu, 14 Apr 2016 22:02:31 +0000

Hello George
Eating less nutrient-poor, sugar-rich food will assist weight control and improve cardiometabolic health. But so will eating less nutrient-poor, starch-rich food and less nutrient-poor, saturated fat-rich food. We should be encouraging all three, not just one.
There is a commercial driver behind the anti-sugar/anti-carb movement – to increase consumption of coconut oil – and it has been very successful. Whenever you see an anti-carb campaigner it is always interesting to note whether they also recommend an increase in consumption of saturated fat. This is not science; it’s marketing.
Regards
Bill

By: Bill Shrapnel

Bill Shrapnel — Thu, 14 Apr 2016 21:54:38 +0000

Hi Bill
I actually have reservations about the amount of carbohydrate (45-65%E) recommended by the NHMRC. Both boundaries are too high in my view. But saying the problem is sugar is too simplistic – both refined starch and sugar appear to have similar effects on cardiometabolic health. Why focus on one and ignore the other?
One problem we have at present is a dearth of scientific leadership on carbohydrates. The NHMRC made two big mistakes in the development of the last dietary guidelines – the failure to review saturated fat and CHD (which would have shown CHO conferred similar risk to saturated fat) and the failure to review the role of glycaemic load in chronic disease, especially type 2 diabetes and CHD.
The Heart Foundation used to lead on these issues but seems to have gone to sleep.
And when people like Brand-Miller speak authoritatively they get attacked.
We live in interesting times.
Regards
Bill

By: Dr Bill Sukala

Dr Bill Sukala — Thu, 14 Apr 2016 13:37:01 +0000

Hi Bill,
Carbohysteria is still alive and well in Australia. I think it’s worth pointing out that Rory Robertson is still beating his chest on this issue and here we are years later still giving him airtime in the mainstream media. In 2014, I agreed to sit down and have a chat with Rory to get his side of the story. I can say that, on a personal level, I think he’s a nice guy and he honestly believes what he preaches with near religious fervour. I pointed out to him that whilst it’s true he lost a lot of weight by cutting out refined sugar, it was likely more to do with replacing empty calories with nutrient dense ones. But to no avail, that wasn’t going to cut it. Sugar was the enemy and there was no wavering in that view. I, for one, will be happy to see this matter put to rest….for now….until the next nutrient controversy!

By: George Henderson (@puddleg)

George Henderson (@puddleg) — Thu, 14 Apr 2016 09:42:18 +0000

If chaps like Rory Robertson and Pete Evans and their readers are giving up sugar and losing weight, and noot drinking soft drink, behaving much as health or weight conscious people have always behaved, what is happening to the rest of the population who continue to consume sugar? If they were also losing weight, or weight-stable, there would be no obesity epidemic, and fewer overweight people. Per capita consumption can never tell the full story. Someone is eating all the sweets and drinking all the soft drink, and they have a problem.