Sugar and Heart Disease

thor

terra_ferma wrote: »

There's gonna be a programme about this very topic on telly tomorrow
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03t8r4h
(the twins are 'proper' doctors by the way)
Apparently it will make the point that both fat and sugar (+carbs) are needed by the body, and that processed foods high in both sugar and fat are the real baddies...
Goodbye low fat, goodbye low carb and welcome the very latest fad diet: clean eating anyone?
Well this means that I'll be following a fad diet for the first time in my life, as that's more or less what I'm doing, but the bad news is that prices of some wholefoods will go up if people start eating them more...

I saw an ad for this programme on the beeb earlier on and the title made me think that they will explore the issue of sugar, fat and heart disease but on seeing the clips in the link posted above, I'm not too sure. One thing for certain though is that I will be watching.

cherryblossomzel

~Chameleon~ wrote: »

That's because scientists use evidence based facts rather than headline grabbing sensationalism to report their findings.

I agree with you. I do also have a bit of sympathy for science reporters. They have to try and reduce down complex research to a form that the average person without a science degree can understand. Inevitably that means leaving out some of the bits.

I think the thing to do is to mistrust anyone who evangelically advocates unreasonably strict adherence to ANY diet dogma. No single "diet" or "lifestyle" is going to be the best for every person. Being able to critically think about this stuff (as the OP and other people posting here are clearly doing) means that we can all make as informed a decision as possible.

~Chameleon~

cherryblossomzel wrote: »

I agree with you. I do also have a bit of sympathy for science reporters. They have to try and reduce down complex research to a form that the average person without a science degree can understand. Inevitably that means leaving out some of the bits.

I think the thing to do is to mistrust anyone who evangelically advocates unreasonably strict adherence to ANY diet dogma. No single "diet" or "lifestyle" is going to be the best for every person. Being able to critically think about this stuff (as the OP and other people posting here are clearly doing) means that we can all make as informed a decision as possible.

Completely agree with what you say here. For that reason I never promote diets of any particular type although I do favour the natural Paleo style of eating but even then, people often can't agree as to what exactly falls under this umbrella. Some Paleo enthusiasts restrict or cut out dairy and grains but I don't agree with cutting out any food groups unless for health reasons, such as coeliac disease.

sweaty_betty

cherryblossomzel wrote: »

I think the thing to do is to mistrust anyone who evangelically advocates unreasonably strict adherence to ANY diet dogma. No single "diet" or "lifestyle" is going to be the best for every person. Being able to critically think about this stuff (as the OP and other people posting here are clearly doing) means that we can all make as informed a decision as possible.

I completely agree with this. People are so different, just as some people can eat huge quantities of junk and not put on an ounce, others put on weight very easily. Others are more sensitive to certain types of food. There is no one-size fits all.

One thing I think would help would be cookery-science linked lessons (we didn't have these when I was at school), where you learn to cook for yourself and understand the types of food and balance to aim for (in an ideal world). The convenience foods being full of fat/sugar/crap is one of the major contributors to health problems/obesity etc.