Food for thought
- This topic has 13 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 7 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Of the many injustices, sufferings and terrors that the capitalist system imposes on us, one of the most insidious is the way processed food is contributing to a pandemic of new, chronic diseases – just as we are winning the war against contagious diseases.
“Metabolic syndrome is a cluster of conditions — increased blood pressure, high blood sugar, excess body fat around the waist, and abnormal cholesterol or triglyceride levels — that occur together, increasing your risk of heart disease, stroke and diabetes.”
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/metabolic-syndrome/home/ovc-20197517
Obesity and metabolic syndrome go hand-in-hand and have spread throughout the world at a ferocious pace since the middle of the 20th century. This rate of rapid spread has lead researchers to conclude that we are faced with an epidemic – indeed, a pandemic, such is the rapid spread of these conditions from the West, to every corner of the globe.
This visualisation shows the increase in obesity worldwide with frightening clarity:
The blame is very much laid at the door of processed food which started to work its way into our diets since the 1950’s and 60’s. Before then, housewives (mainly) would prepare family meals from fresh ingredients. Since the 1950’s and 60’s, women started going out to work in large numbers. A family where mum and dad both work is now the norm, often long hours, where time pressure means that the temptation to live on ready meals is all too easy to understand. However, ready meals are fibreless, high in sugars, fats, salt and various preservatives. Being deprived of fibre makes it easy to freeze, store and transport over long distances, being high in sugar, salt and fats makes it very palatable to humans, so they tend to buy more of it.
Which particular ingredient in the processed food should take most of the blame has been subject to debate. Towards the end of the 20th century, the emphasis was very much on fat; however, this has now been discredited by researchers such as the paediatric endocrinologist, Dr. Robert Lustig:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcfT42D4dow
Sugar (i.e., sucrose), according to Lustig, is the culprit more than any other for our current predicament of ill health due to chronic diseases. Sugar is composed of glucose and fructose, and it’s the fructose which is the bad guy. Refined sugar is something new to the human metabolism – fat we have always had to contend with.
Fructose plays havoc with the body’s hormones, such as leptin and insulin which regulate our feeling of fullness and the conversion of sugar to fat. Sugar is an addictive substance like alcohol – or heroin – claims Lustig. Sugar metabolises in the body like alcohol (i.e., in high quantities, damages the liver.)
There’s an interesting bit in the above Youtube video where the Lustig talks about behaviour and biochemical drives – this impinges somewhat on the recent discussion of “free will”.
Also interesting is the role of stress to make us reach for comfort foods, rich in salt, sugar and fat. There is plenty of stress in most working people’s lives, be it from worry about keeping your job, paying back debt, securing a home or (particularly in America) affording health care.
As an example of the ruthless drive for profit of food and drink manufacturers, let’s take Coca Cola. As we all know, this drink contains high amounts of sugar. What many do not know, though, is that it also contains salt. The sugar masks the taste of the salt. So, these two ingredients work together to make people want more of the stuff, they like the taste of the sugar, and do not know that they have been exposed to high levels of salt as well – which makes you thirsty, which makes you want to drink more.
With an increase in metabolic syndrome, we need medicines to combat the new diseases – diabetes 2, high blood pressure, etc. And lo and behold, the pharmaceutical companies are at the ready with their pills and potions, to help us cope with the result of our adulterated diets.
It is almost as if the food and drink manufactures work together in an unholy alliance to increase their profits – the food manufactures make us sick, and the pharmaceutical giants dish out a plethora of medicines, many of which have serious side effects.
“Global pharma markets will reach $1.12 trillion in 2022”
http://pharmaceuticalcommerce.com/business-and-finance/global-pharma-market-will-reach-1-12-trillion-2022/
Meel
meel2 wrote:“Metabolic syndrome is a cluster of conditions — increased blood pressure, high blood sugar, excess body fat around the waist, and abnormal cholesterol or triglyceride levels — that occur together, increasing your risk of heart disease, stroke and diabetes.”We are now advised that these conditions can largely be avoided with regular exercise.
duplicate
Hi Vin
Quote:We are now advised that these conditions can largely be avoided with regular exercise.Did you watch the animation and the video?If it were that easy, why hasn't the constant "eat less, exercise more" mantra worked so far?We are still getting fatter. The chronic diseases that travel with obesity are still increasing.30% of the world's population is overweight or obese. "Britain has been branded the 'fat man' of western Europe with two thirds of adults overweight or obese – well ahead of countries such as France, Germany, Spain and Sweden."http://www.mirror.co.uk/lifestyle/health/22-billion-worlds-population-overweight-10609654If it was just a case of going for a few runs, why haven't we done that?Have we suddenly decided all 2/3 of us in Britain, to exercise out "free will" and sit on the sofa, eat pizzas and drink "soda" and to hell with the consequences?To me, Lustig's explanation of fructose (which metabolises through the liver like alcohol) messing up our fine-tuned hormone regulated balance of feeling full and wanting to exercise makes more sense.But to fully grasp this – possibly to some new idea – it is required that you sit through the video(s), listen attentively and then posing yourself a few questions.I lay a lot of the blame at the foot of the food/drink and pharmaceutical companies who do not care about what rubbish, detrimental to human health, they put in either their food or their medicines, as long as they can sell shedloads of stuff.Meel
My own personal experience would support the NHS advice. If I don't exercise my blood pressure, blood sugar, and waistline increases and I feel shit. If I exercise I have more energy and my blood sugar, pressure and waistline goes down. My diet changes very little http://www.nhs.uk/news/2012/07July/Pages/Lack-of-exercise-as-deadly-as-smoking.aspx
Vin wrote:
Quote:My own personal experience would support the NHS advice. If I don't exercise my blood pressure, blood sugar, and waistline increases and I feel shit. If I exercise I have more energy and my blood sugar, pressure and waistline goes down. My diet changes very little.That's good.I also exercise regularly – walking, mainly – and feel the better for it. Your NHS article quoted is fair enough as far as it goes. I have friends who swear by regular running on their running machine and keep their weight and health in check that way.But these friends are not greatly overweight – nor am I, or I suspect you, Vin.What Lustig is talking about are people who have gone beyond that stage. They are at the stage where they have become leptin resistant. Leptin is what makes you feel full, and then makes you want to get active. Years of taking in sugary foods and drink have made for an overproduction of insulin, which in turn makes the brain "not see" the leptin. Consequently, people with this condition think they are still hungry, and do not feel like exercising – the aberrant behaving hormones drives the behaviour, rather than the behaviour ("gluttony and sloth") being the first cause.He works, after all in a clinic for obese children. He gets obese babies into his clinic – should they be expected to exercise? If not, what is causing their obesity? It transpires that formula milk (at least in America) contains the sugar "sucrose", whereas mammalian milk contains "lactose" (which the body is ok with). Also, obese mothers have obese children (after initially being of low birthweight, they suddenly get ravenously hungry and soon become obese).Did you watch the animation of the way obesity has taken off across the world? Did it not look like a pandemic to you?Meel
The use of cooking oils has also been linked to the pandemic of obesity. Some heaalth experts are recommending that people were better off when the main fat used in cooking was lard!Some research seems to show that because oils are liquid there is a tendency to use far more when we splash it into the pan, as opposed to the little slither of lard used years ago.
Tim said
Quote:The use of cooking oils has also been linked to the pandemic of obesity. Some heaalth experts are recommending that people were better off when the main fat used in cooking was lard!Hi TimI wouldn’t discount this theory all together, but I must say I am doubtful – although I do agree that good old-fashioned lard and butter is better for you than margarines, but that’s because margarine contains trans fats. Who links cooking oil to the obesity epidemic, as a matter of interest?If cooking oils were the cause of obesity, why didn’t countries like Italy and Spain have an obesity problem until the advent of the modern, Western diet – after all, they’ve been using olive oil since the Romans and beyond.I’m more inclined to accept Lustig’s theory that it’s caused by the fructose in sugar (sucrose). The amount of sugary drinks alone consumed by the world’s population is frightening. Lustig and his researchers have causative data now for this being the case, according to his videos , not just correlative data. His insistence of sticking strictly to the science, he claims, has saved him – so far at least – from the wrath of the sugar manufacturers – who have destroyed the careers of scientists before.
I wrote:
Quote:Who links cooking oil to the obesity epidemic, as a matter of interest?I have refreshed my memory on this. Some people contend that the rise in the use of cheap, omega-6 rich cooking oils can be a contributing factor in the obesity epidemic. That would be oils like soya, maize and sunflower oil. Olive oil is a "good" oil and exempt from this suspicion.Maybe. What is certain is that the sugar manufacturers have a lot of clout and would like us to look elsewhere for an explanation of the obesity epidemic – and they are willing to go to great lengths to protect their reputation:https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/07/the-sugar-conspiracy-robert-lustig-john-yudkinSugar is sugar and fat at the same time – as sugar is turned into fat in the body by insulin.
Just a few more comments before I put this topic to bed. There is another interesting area being investigated regarding obesity and the other, “modern day”, diseases like diabetes2, etc. (Obesity is not the cause of diabetes2 and metabolic syndrome; it’s just that they travel together “as a package”.)That area is the effect on our microbiota of our recent environment; the food we eat, medicines, toxins, antibiotics, etc. Our microbiota is all the microbes living in and on us, not least in our guts. The saying goes that we are “10%” human as far as cells go, the rest of us are cells belonging to our tiny, fellow travellers. This figure has now been adjusted, according to Wikipedia, to 3:1 or possibly 1:1 – depending on the study. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Microbiome_ProjectIn any case, we are certainly home to a lot of microscopic life, and we are vitally dependent on it, not least for our immune system. The Human Microbiome Project completed its first findings in 2012 (although this did not make as much impact as the sequencing of the Human Genome in 2003); “In addition to establishing the human microbiome reference database, the HMP project also discovered several "surprises", which include:Microbes contribute more genes responsible for human survival than humans' own genes. It is estimated that bacterial protein-coding genes are 360 times more abundant than human genes……”One theory is that that giving out too many antibiotics tablets kills off the “good” microbes as well as the intended “bad” – and with the resultant dis-equilibrium of microbiota, allow other, “bad” ones to flourish in our guts. (So you might cure one problem, but give rise to others.)Another is that giving antibiotics to livestock is a well-known growth promotor. “Estimates are vague, but it is possible that up to 70% of America’s antibiotics are used in livestock. The added bonus that more animals can be crammed into a smaller space without succumbing to infections only furthered their use.” (“10% Human” by Alanna Collen) So could repeted courses of antibiotics have similar effects on humans?With the obesity epidemic looking like a pandemic of a contagious disease – could a virus, the for example, account for this rapid spread? This is another possibility discussed by Collen, with one “suspect” being the virus Ad-36, found in 30% of obese volunteers in one study.“Ad-36 is meddling with the normal energy-storage system. Exactly how big a contribution this virus has made to the obesity epidemic remains unknown, but, as with the story of the warblers, it tells us something important: obesity is not always a lifestyle disease caused by overeating and being under-active. Rather, it is a dysfunction of the body’s energy-storage system.” (Collen)Then there is the “desirable” microbe “Akkermansia mucinphila”. “This bacterium correlates neatly with weight – the less “Akkermansia” a person has, the higher their BMI.” (Collen) It transpires that introducing more fibre in the diet brings the numbers of this bacterium back up to healthy levels.Whichever the reason, and several things could be working together to cause the epidemic – I am certain that a lot of the blame must rest with our sugar-laden, fibre-poor food. The worst two isles in the supermarkets to me are the drinks isle – row upon row of sugar rich drinks (including juices), and then the cereals isle – virtually every brand full of added sugar – and virtually all devoid of fibre.The thing is, capitalist enterprises love sugar – it’s a preservative, extends shelf-life and people crave it. To our ancestors, a sweet fruit or berry was a sign that it was safe to eat, and it gave instant energy. Whereas sugar in fruit is ok and something we can cope with, processed sugar is something we have only been exposed to recently, with accumulative, disastrous effects on our health.In addition, the possible weight inducing effects of too many antibiotics – or of eating meat treated by growth inducing antibiotics – the food industry machine does not care how much ill health it produces, so it’s up to us to take action.
"Back in September 2016, the Journal of the American Medical Association published papers, discovered deep in the Harvard University archives, that demonstrated how the sugar industry has been manipulating research into heart disease for years. These papers revealed that the purveyors of this white poison – in behaviour straight out of the tobacco industry playbook – had been paying Harvard scientists throughout the 1960s to emphasise the link between fat and heart disease and ignore the connection with sugar. Since then, Coca-Cola has funded research into the link between sugar and obesity. And the confectionery industry has paid for research which “demonstrated” that children who eat sweets are thinner than those who don’t."https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2017/jul/13/sugar-is-poison-my-heart-attack-has-finally-opened-my-eyes-to-the-truth
pWell then is Meel2 holding something back? As we can do microbial contents of the gut etc etc and primitive Hadza communism in one go? http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qnx3/episodes/player There is also research going on about sugar intakes and flavanoid composition of foods etc. Went to a work related lecture on research on it recently as she was using the same sugar analysis method that I use at work that is regarded as a bit eccentric. Ion exchange HPLC with pulsed amperometric detection. It is great but hard work; there is a witchcraft like art to it which pisses most people off. Her research is very, very new and current. Flavaniod type things are especially prevalent in normal high sugar containing foods like fruit juice that contains a lot. They can act as digestive enzyme inhibitors and of sugar uptake in the gut, or slows it down. They don’t fully understand it yet. Well that is what they are looking at anyway. But with real fruit juice you don’t seem to get the fast sugar hit that is generally regarded as a problem re the development of diabetes. Subjective or objective. Mars bars and biscuits don’t have flavanoids in them. Connected to this is the following that has done the run around in my fruit juice industry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naringin Thus as I think it goes they calculated drug doses on uptake and there is always an assumption that some of the drug will get digested before in enters the system. I seem remember there is a problem in particular with anti chloresterol drugs? Drink to much grapefruit juice, the drug doesn’t get broken down in the gut and you overdose? These anti cholesterol drugs are real kick ass serious material when you look at what they do. There is a rumour mill that they are contributing to dementia and it has legs when you look at how they work and the importance fat wiring insulation in the brain. The chloresterol producing pharmaceutical industry , which makes fortunes out of it, obviously want to bury that kind of stuff. The Medical practitioners want us to live long on pizza’s and die ‘cabbages’. And don’t want to spook people out of a heart disease wonder cure. It is a delicate line given the rubella whooping vaccine versus autism scare. There also seems to be endorphin releases and highs on sugar consumption hits. I am a sugar junky myself and just don’t have it in house as a packet of biscuits lasts 10 minutes. Juice just doesn’t have the same affect even if it something like pineapple that can come it at 14%. They had a problem raising motherless rhino’s as there were a lot; they just died when they got onto a normal diet. Mixing in a bit of rhino pooh into the milk or whatever seemed to solve the problem.
European food still beats US food, by all accounts. We still have stricter laws governing food safety. It is easier to find good, nutritional food in Europe, whether organic or not.I used to worry that if the TTIP (the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership) trade agreement between the US and Europe came into effect, this would have a detrimental effect on our food. From what I understand, under this treaty it would be possible for American firms to sue European governments (for profits lost) if they stopped the import of American foodstuffs that contained ingredients currently banned in Europe. The TTIP has, however, been put on ice:https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jun/05/hopes-of-eu-us-trade-agreement-put-on-ice-say-brussels-sourcesThis is the account of a person from India on his first food shopping experience in the US:
Quote:The first time I went to a grocery store after moving to the US, I literally jumped in joy at the opulence of it all…The fruits and vegetables were perfectly waxed and huge compared to the little discolored runts found in India. I marveled as my host-mother Marlene selected these enormous, beautiful tomatoes and white onions and a head of lettuce that was bigger than my own head.We went back home, and I helped her make this wonderful looking salad, and we sat down to eat.I bit into a slice of tomato, ready for the burst of fresh flavor to attack my tongue.And … nothing!I blinked. I ate another slice. Same result.The lettuce leaf was also just a watery bite of nothing. Deflated, I followed my host mother’s suggestion and loaded up my salad with some sugary honey mustard dressing.Now, my dear American consumer friends, I have a question. How is it that the wealthiest nation on the planet produces the worst tasting vegetables and fruits?Quote:A landmark study (link is external) comparing the nutritional content of 43 different fruits and vegetables in 1950 and 1999 was published in 2004 in the Journal of the American College of Nutrition. The results showed quite definitively that the amount of protein, calcium, phosphorus, iron, riboflavin (vitamin B2) and vitamin C have declined substantially over the past half century. The study authors attributed this decline in nutritional content to agricultural practices designed to improve food qualities such as size, growth rate, pest resistance rather than nutrition.According to the World Watch Institute, farmers today can grow two to three times as much grain, fruit, and vegetables on a plot of land as they could 50 years ago, but that food contains 10 to 25 percent less iron, zinc, protein, calcium, vitamin C, and other nutrients. In simple terms, you would have to eat eight oranges today to derive the same amount of Vitamin A as our grandparents would have gotten from one.https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/good-thinking/201306/how-american-food-makes-us-fat-and-sickThis article makes a more detailed comparison between food regulations in Europe compared with the US:https://www.ecowatch.com/13-ways-the-eu-beats-the-u-s-on-food-safety-1881850175.html
And then there's plastic – in our food and drink…..I've been buying sea salt myself; I think it tastes better:
Quote:Sea salt around the world has been contaminated by plastic pollution, adding to experts’ fears that microplastics are becoming “ubiquitous” in the environment and finding their way into the food chain via the salt in our diets.Following this week’s revelations in the Guardian about levels of plastic contamination in tap water, new studies have shown that tiny particles have been found in sea salt in the UK, France and Spain, as well as China and now the US.Researchers believe the majority of the contamination comes from microfibres and single-use plastics such as water bottles, items that comprise the majority of plastic waste. Up to 12.7m tonnes of plastic enters the world’s oceans every year, equivalent to dumping one garbage truck of plastic per minute into the world’s oceans, according to the United Nations. “Not only are plastics pervasive in our society in terms of daily use, but they are pervasive in the environment,” said Sherri Mason, a professor at the State University of New York at Fredonia, who lead the latest research into plastic contamination in salt. Plastics are “ubiquitous, in the air, water, the seafood we eat, the beer we drink, the salt we use – plastics are just everywhere”.However, …
Quote:The health impact of ingesting plastic is not known. Scientists have struggled to research the impact of plastic on the human body, because they cannot find a control group of humans who have not been exposed.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.