For years we have been running away from the fat as if plague is involved. Skim milk, yogurt 0%, sausage without fat, we avoid nuts, we cut the fat out of the food, "that's not me as that has a lot of fat" and so on, until the fullness, because from decades ago is telling us that fat is the worst thing that we can consume, despite the fact that it happens to be very necessary in a balanced diet.
Years running away from the fat because of 60 years ago, when appeared the first studies that listed the factors that increased the risk of coronary heart disease, obesity, etc, the sugar industry managed to bribe the scientists who published the data for that omitted everything related with the sugar.
A trap with double intent
Thanks to this action the achievement was double. On the one hand, silenced the damage that the sugar could cause in the health of the people, making their consumption not to be seen as limited by the bad reputation that the truth would have entailed; on the other hand, the published data demonetization fats, people began to withdraw from the diet, increasing the consumption of other foods, among them, those that had more sugar.
So, at least, explained in a research conducted at the University of California in San Francisco, recently published in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine, who have analyzed the documents of the time to find the trap.
Apparently, the sugar industry paid scientists of nutrition of the University of Harvard to do a few studies where it was concluded that the main factors of heart disease was saturated fat and cholesterol. Also, they had to downplay the effects that foods and drinks with sugar might cause.
The amount received by each one of them was the equivalent of $ 50,000 of present money (just seems to me, for what they got).
Meanwhile, obesity has increased terribly
It was said to the people that what they had to avoid were fat, but not so sweet, so with a diet completely unbalanced, loaded with carbohydrates, many of them fast-absorbing (such as sugar), and low in foods rich in healthy fats such as fish or nuts, obesity and obesity-related diseases (such as diabetes, hypertension, and heart disease) were increased in incidence at an alarming rate.
Sugar and infant feeding
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, many ways that you can manipulate with subtlety the result of a study, something that the industry has a lot of practice. As the saying goes, a mighty gentleman is don money.
And is that according to the investigation, the sugar industry already knew in the 50s that if it reduced the consumption of fat, increase the sugar, despite the fact that by that time the studios were already beginning to warn of the possible existence of a link between sugar and risk factors for heart disease: cholesterol and high triglycerides.
To see that these data began to appear, a trade group for the sugar industry (the Sugar Research Foundation) asked scientists from Harvard University, a review of those investigations, that would receive the money earlier. Such a review of the evidence published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1967, and in it lay the greater part of the blame on the cholesterol.
That information caló both in the population that have gone on for decades, until in recent years it is taking away a large part of the blame on the cholesterol, to the point that the new dietary guidelines from the U.S. do not restrict their consumption (the consumption does not have 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, so how bad is eating sugar?
Although there is some controversy about it in the current studies (one already suspects that the sugar industry might be behind again), in many medical circles, is starting to talk about sugar as "the new tobacco".
This is because as well as to legislate the tobacco decreased the rates of heart disease, many countries are considering the possibility of legislating also in reference to sugar, increasing the taxes on drinks that are rich in this ingredient.
WHO already a long time ago that is pushing for these beverages will add a tax of at least 20% to try to curb consumption and reduce obesity and diabetes in the population.
And is that the evidence seems clear:
Researchers from Oxford found that a reduction of sugar consumption of 15% would prevent that 180,000 people from the Uk ended up taking obesity in just one year with such a measure, and an even greater number of people would be overweight.
Another study analyzing data from 175 countries found that for every 150 additional calories from sugar (compared with 150 calories from fat or proteins), the prevalence of type 2 diabetes in the population was up to 11 times greater.
A third study concluded that u.s. adults consume more than 25% of the daily calories in sugar, the risk of cardiovascular mortality is triple in comparison with those who consumed less than 10%. This was irrespective of the BMI and the physical activity undertaken (including those that were sport, by the fact of eating 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 pretty obvious), shows how the reduction of the sugar is able to quickly change the state of health of a person. A sample of 43 children, latinos and african americans with metabolic syndrome I made a diet that did not reduce the number of calories that you take, or the percentage of carbohydrates, but decreased the percentage of sugar in the 28% of the total calories to 10%. To the 10 days they saw that they had significantly reduced levels of triglycerides, LDL cholesterol, blood pressure, and fasting insulin.
So, what do we do with the children?
Start to look at the labels of what we feed them and eliminate all those foods (don't call them edible) that carry high quantities of sugar in its 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 per cent of sugar in its composition, passing biscuits, yoghurt, liquid milk for babies over a year, desserts, snacks, juices, soft drinks, etc
In other words, what should we do with the children is to give them food. Food of truth. Of the that sold in the market. Fresh food.
If it is not so complicated, everything comes out in the food pyramid (you only have to flip it, that a lot of people do the other way around): to increase the consumption of vegetables, vegetables and fruit already shifted a large part of the food unhealthy to eat; come back to give you beans, that are falling into oblivion; to retrieve the nuts, which are the sea of healthy (eye with the choking risk); drinking water (and not juice or soda); and avoid anything that is marked as "consumption occasionally or moderately" to the extent possible.
And this is something that begins in the supermarket to choose what we buy, because what you don't get home, not able to eat it. That way, if everything we have at home is healthy, the risk is minimal and the probability of hitting a target and keep the sugar at bay, is very high.