Lose ‘lbs’ not ‘£s’
Posted by Andrew Wadge on 01 February 2010 in General interest
Despite the absurdity of Hannah Sutter’s proclamation in Saturday’s Daily Mail, that government advice to ‘exercise more and eat fewer calories’ is making people fat, I felt I had to respond.
She claims that our advice to base meals on carbohydrates isn’t right for the sedentary lifestyles we lead today. She explains exactly how the white rice, pasta and bread we are filling up on is converted into fat around our middles, whilst providing very little in the way of nutrients.
Well yes, if we stuff ourselves with pasta and don’t take any exercise, then of course we’ll put on weight. Any energy that we take in – not just that from carbohydrates – will be stored as fat if we don’t burn it off. That’s why we recommend people eat less and move more. The problem is that people aren’t eating the right amount of food for how active they are.
However, I should also point out that we advise people to choose wholegrain over refined carbohydrates, because they contain more nutrients and provide a slower energy release.
Interestingly, the Mail failed to point out that Hannah Sutter, a lawyer and not a scientist by trade, has a vested interest in this subject – she has her own website selling a weight loss programme based on the theory of ketosis. This is yet another example of a fad diet that won’t lead to established healthy eating habits because it’s unrealistic and difficult to stick to for any length of time.
Government advice to eat a healthy balanced diet based on a range of foods, in roughly the right proportions, is however realistic for the long-term. I’m surprised that Ms Sutter didn’t consider that perhaps it’s the people who aren’t following government advice are ones who are getting fatter.
- Share this with:
-
-
-
-
-
BA Festival of Science
I'm afraid i agree with Hannah 100%. Carbohydrates make us fat NOT fat. I also find it funny that in the recent decades when we ate more animal fats,we we're slimmer and suffered from less cancer and heart disease. Diabete's is a condition of too much sugar in the blood,yet the advice from Diabete's UK is to cut down on fat and eat MORE starchy sugary foods!!!! insane or what? No, just look at the healthy,slim traditional hunter gatherers on the planet who shun our 'healthy' 5 a day advice, and also at what people ate decades and centuries ago (there were no 'heart healthy' vegetable oils centuries ago,and did people drop like flies through heart disease on all that butter?) More fat less sugar is the best food for a human being. The advice to eat 'healthy' sugary bread,potatoes,cereals,pasta and fruits will make you gain weight. Vegetable oil is also a killer so do what your grandma and grandad did and eat lard,eggs,cream,cheese,meat,dripping and offal. It never did them any harm. I'd also ignore EVERYTHING the 'health' industry tells us,because it cannot (and has not) proven a direct link between animal fat and heart disease,and also cannot prove low cholesterol is healthy either. It just conviniently ignores biology and evolution.
Posted by mark cheshire on February 13, 2010 at 04:46 PM GMT #
How many kcals/day people eat is dictated by their appetites (unless they're locked-up). The fact is that people are eating too many kcals/day, resulting in obesity.
For many people, myself included, low-carbohydrate diets result in eating fewer kcals per day, despite the fact that fat contains 7-9kcals/g (depending on fatty acid chain length).
Launching an ad-hominem attack on Hannah Sutter does not help your case.
Substrate Utilisation studies show what proportion of carb/fat the body burns at different exercise intensities. I think you'll find that, for sedentary people, the middle of the bell curve is at approx 64% fat/36% carb.
Posted by Nigel Kinbrum on February 16, 2010 at 02:21 PM GMT #
The words 'people' 'glass' and 'houses' spring to mind.
It is vitally important that we understand the motives and interests of any commentator or organisation with the power to influence our behaviour. Taking the moral high ground, however, is a dangerous thing to do when there is little or no transparency in the motives and interests of one's own organisation.
The FSA has myriad commercial links and many of its experts have have very close (and questionable?) links the food processing industry.
As a public representative, surely you can only question the motives of others when you yourself can justify some of your absurd policies and demonstrate transparency?
Posted by Naomi on February 27, 2010 at 10:33 AM GMT #
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8478629.stm
Low-carb diet proves more than twice as effective at lowering blood pressure than a low-fat diet with the addition of a popular fat reducing/blocking drug.
We welcome your comments on this Mr. Wadge.
Posted by Steve Green on March 02, 2010 at 10:05 AM GMT #
Oh dear,
Andrew. This post is the reason that heart disease, obesity, diabetes, cancer - metabolic syndrome in general - is at epidemic levels. You are living proof of the government institution that adheres to the flawed Ancel Keys "science" in the 1950's and has stood by it since. It is a scientists responsibility to admit when they are wrong, and so far, none of you have.
The fact that you are even suggesting that "it's all okay - we say whole grains" is any kind of a solution, or indeed a counter argument is laughable.
The Daily Mail is a rag, no doubt, but the fact that this person is promoting ketogenic / lowER-carb / higher fat / whatever - means she is on the right track. The science is easy to locate and from much better qualified men than you. The proof is in trying it. If you believe that the suggestions of these diets are fads, I'm afraid you are going to be suffering from the very ills the FSA should be trying to protect us from.
I'll bring to your attention a couple of things that may interest you. Lets address the common, and ludicrous, obsession with thermodynamics.
The first article is written by Dr Robert Lustig, Professor of Clinical Paediatrics, in the Division of Endocrinology at the University of California, who is only interested in fat kids getting thin and normal kids not getting fat.
http://bit.ly/1stlawthermodynamicsFAIL
The second is why "A calorie is a calorie" violates the second law of thermodynamics - Nutrition Journal 2004:
http://bit.ly/AcalorieISNTacalorie
The third is an 89 minute, freely available lecture on the chemical process of fructose absorption from called Sugar: The Bitter Truth. Again from Dr Lustig.
http://bit.ly/Sugar_Bitter_Truth
None of these papers / lectures have any purpose other than to illustrate quite how damaging the opinions of people like you, in a position of ultimate power of our recommended diet are directly attributing to the chronic illness and disease of this country.
A commentary or rebuttal would be most welcome. I have no formal qualifications, so swing hard.
Craig.
Posted by Craig Zielinski on March 05, 2010 at 12:48 AM GMT #