Added sugar in foods- Can it be the villain for unhealthy society?

The debate whether sugar is the real villain of peace when it comes to the spread of diseases like diabetes, CVD, hypertension, kidney ailments etc will go on in this world as long as conclusive and unanimous view emerge from the scientific community. But food industry seems to be "convinced" that sugar is innocent as a food adjunct used by them and its addition to millions of processed products make them palatable and enjoyable. Of course it has a right to demand for proof that sugar really does any harm to human beings if and when consumed in "moderate" quantities. There lies the rub! What is moderate quantity? Is there any definitive view regarding what is moderate consumption? The tendency of the industry to add sugar at levels far more that is really called for getting the sweet taste does not help its cause either. The emerging view that naturally present sugar and added sugar in the products while processing makes a difference cannot be brushed away easily. In almost all cases naturally occurring foods like whole grains, whole fruits and others are far superior in terms of health value to their processed counterparts and white refined sugar also must be viewed from this perspective. Probably this is the basis of the move in some countries to restrict the extent of added sugar during processing to no more than 10% of total calories in the daily diet. Though this is being stoutly resisted by the industry, this new suggestion will find acceptance among the consumers world over. Here is a take on the new guidelines being considered for nutrition labeling in the US.  

"But lately, the message has gotten a lot more specific and comes down to this: If you are getting more than 10% of your calories from "added sugars" — everything from the sugar in your coffee to the high-fructose corn syrup in your ketchup —  you are getting too much. Some experts say even 10% is probably excessive, given the links between sugar and obesity, diabetes and heart disease. The latest authority to endorse the 10% or less idea: the Food and Drug Administration. Under a proposal it announced this summer, food labels would have to say how close each serving comes to providing 50 grams, or 200 calories, of added sugar — the 10% mark for a typical 2,000-calorie diet. That's 12 teaspoons of sugar. So what does that mean for your eating and drinking day? If you are a soda drinker, it's huge: 50 grams is the amount in one sugar-sweetened 16-ounce bottle, meaning if you gulp one down, the rest of your day should be an added sugar-free zone. That might be tough in a world where even pasta sauces and bread have added sweeteners.(Note: the sugars naturally found in milk and fruit don't count). "It's really worth keeping your eye on the major sources," says Michael Jacobson, president of the nutrition watchdog group Center for Science in Public Interest. "The culprits are obvious." According to a recent report from the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, the expert group that recommends U.S. dietary guidelines, the major sources of added sugar in the U.S. diet are: • Beverages: 47%. Those include soft drinks (25%), fruit drinks (11%), sweetened coffee and tea (7%), sport and energy drinks (3%) and alcohol (1%). • Snacks and sweets such as cakes, pies and cookies: 31%. • Everything else, including condiments and dressings: 22%. The report says average consumers now get 13.4% of their calories from added sugar, but that is based on what people admit to government researchers, Jacobson says. Other data suggest average intake might be 20% or higher, he says. Either way, "we have a long way to go," says Rachel Johnson, a nutrition professor at the University of Vermont and spokesperson for the American Heart Association. Even without new labeling rules — opposed by some food industry groups — consumers can cut added sugars now, she says. "The first step is to think about your drink," she says. After that: • Use current labels, which list total sugars, to estimate added sugars. "If there's no milk or fruit in it, assume all the sugar is added sugar," she says. • Look for the "ose." If an ingredient ends in those letters — sucrose, fructose, maltose and dextrose — it's a sugar. • Buy unsweetened versions of healthy foods such as oatmeal and yogurt and sweeten them yourself. Whether you use sugar, honey or maple syrup (Johnson, as a Vermonter, favors that), you probably will use less than a food company would. For further reading, refer below cited reference:"

This is a welcome development in the area of health science and the sensitivity this has created among the policy makers is noteworthy. There is lot of logic in the argument that if sugar addition in quantities more than that demanded by the taste and flavor angles can be justified only if technologically it is a necessity. In sugar preserves sugar addition serves a different purpose viz to preserve the product through the osmotic pressure exerted by high concentration of sugar on pathogenic organisms thus achieving extended shelf life and safety. Also logical is the argument that even if sugar present in a packed product is less than what is perceived to be right by individual consumers, it can always added before using at home. It is certain majority of the consumers will accept lower levels of sugar which can make a big impact on consumption of white sugar in the long term and hopefully will lead to a more healthy world.

V.H.POTTY

http://vhpotty.blogspot.com

http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

THE "VILLAINOUS" SUGAR!-NEW FINDINGS ON ITS DANGERS!

Food science is getting more and murkier day by day if thousands of conflicting reports/findings/inferences being published in hundreds of journals as well as media publications are meticulously read! Practically every report on one or the other aspect of food, nutrition and health is contradicted by a different group though both claim their findings are truthful and correct! For example who does not know that too much sugar or salt or fat can be injurious to health for people in a sedentary society though "how much" is "too much" is still mired in controversy. According to a recent study published in a decent scientific periodical, it is claimed that those who consume added sugar are more vulnerable to death with lesser life span than those taking limited sugar who live longer. This finding is based on some laboratory studies using mice as subjects and extrapolating the results to humans. Here is a take on these new "findings".

"When mice were fed a diet that was 25% added sugars – an amount consumed by many humans – the females died at twice the normal rate and the males were less likely to reproduce and hold territory, scientists said in a study published Tuesday. The study shows "that added sugar consumed at concentrations currently considered safe exerts dramatic impacts on mammalian health," the researchers said in the study, published in the journal Nature Communications. "Many researchers have already made calls for reevaluation of these safe levels of consumption." The study's senior author, University of Utah biology professor Wayne Potts, said earlier studies fed mice sugars at levels higher than people eat in sodas, cookies, candy and other items. The current study stuck to levels eaten by people". 

Granted that the results might be true for mice which were living in a restricted environment, how can one conclude that the same could apply to humans who are living in unrestricted environments with freedom to exercise as much as they want or can. After all calorie burning is influenced by the extent of physical activity indulged by the humans. If the logic of study is taken seriously, practically every food item coming from the soda, pastry, confectionery, ice cream or dessert industry sectors must be banned forthwith!. Take the population in India where thousands of ethnic foods are made and consumed for centuries containing high sugar levels and the mortality should have been astronomical according to the above studies. But only recently Indians are developing diabetes probably by the lack of calorie burning exercises while those generations preceding the present one never had so much problem consuming sugar. The key to this mystery is adequate physical activity which was part and parcel of life in the last century and years preceding that. No wonder diabetes is practically non-existent in the rural areas where hard working farmers consume lot of jaggery and sweetmeats practically every day, much more than what these mice ate in the above studies. Of course to day's society must heed to the warning alarm raised by the findings and must cut down sugar drastically or do rigorous exercise regularly to burn the high calorie foods they take in their diets.  

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

FREE RADICALS-FROM VILLAIN TO HERO!

It may be scandalous to even suggest that oxy radicals that are formed in biological systems whether in humans or in animals are not as harmful as being made out. Recent scientific evidence generated using tadpoles, scientists appear to have got a clue that oxy radicals are necessary in the body for regeneration and recovery of cells after injury and liberal consumption of antioxidants may even harm the system. For being healthy they suggest that oxy radical levels will have to be optimal and too low or too high can have undesirable consequences. Here is a take on this new startling revelation which has received acclaim world over.

"Researchers at the University of Manchester have found that Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS) – oxygen-containing free radicals that are commonly believed to be harmful to cells – actually play a vital role in the regeneration of the tails of tadpoles. The finding could have profound implications for the healing and regeneration of human tissue. Free radicals are a group of highly reactive molecules. The radicals containing oxygen are collectively known as ROS, and play a predominant role in biological systems: they are involved in cell signaling and maintaining homeostasis but, when their concentration increases beyond a certain threshold, they are believed to be responsible for cell damage and, some suggest, even aging. As a result antioxidants, which suppress ROS, have almost become a synonym for good health. But in recent years, evidence has been mounting to suggest that ROS may not be the bad guys after all. Just days ago, a paper by Professor James Watson – co-discoverer of the DNA's double-helix – was published that greatly re-evaluated the importance of free radicals, with the Nobel laureate going so far as to say that antioxidant supplements "may have caused more cancers than they have prevented." Now, building on their previous work, a research group led by Professor Amaya at the University of Manchester has confirmed that in tadpoles, hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) – a very common free radical – is not only harmless to cells, but is actually the catalyst that makes it possible for tadpoles' tails to completely regenerate in less than a week".

Who would have thought that the very same villain castigated till recently for their role in cancerous growth is now being rehabilitated after understanding their role better in biological systems? What will happen to the multi billion dollar industry that is making a living, peddling hundreds of anti oxidant containing health supplements claiming their benefits against all types of caners? As the required clarity has still not emerged regarding the optimum levels of oxy radicals required by human beings to maintain good health, these anti oxidant supplements may still be walloped by the consumers but a major effort may be needed to assure the consumers that consumption of too much of anti oxidants will not be dangerous. Will a day arrive when human beings are advised not to consume anti oxidant containing foods indiscriminately? No one knows as yet!

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

FRUCTOSE, THE VILLAIN FOR OBESITY- NEW RESEARCH FINDINGS

The fructose vs glucose controversy surrounding obesity development is of a relatively recent origin. If a poll is taken on this issue probably the result may be evenly balanced with 50% condemning fructose while the other half doubting its role in over weight problem! What is the truth? If the latest report on the subject is to be believed, fructose definitely behaves differently. first because of its ability to cross brain barrier and the second due to its influence hypothalamus which controls the appetite. Here is a take on this subject which provides interesting insight into the on going controversy. 

Subjects showed substantial differences in their hypothalamic activity after consuming the fructose-sweetened beverage versus the one sweetened by glucose within 15 minutes. Glucose lowered the activity of the hypothalamus but fructose actually prompted a small spike to this area. As might be expected from these results, the glucose drink alone increased the feelings of fullness reported by volunteers, which indicates that they would be less likely to consume more calories after having something sweetened with glucose than something sweetened with more fructose.Fructose and glucose look similar molecularly, but fructose is metabolized differently by the body and prompts the body to secrete less insulin than does glucose (insulin plays a role in telling the body to feel full and in dulling the reward the body gets from food). Fructose also fails to reduce the amount of circulating ghrelin (a hunger-signaling hormone) as much as glucose does. (Animal studies have shown that fructose can, indeed, cross the blood-brain barrier and be metabolized in the hypothalamus.) Previous studies have shown that this effect was pronounced in animal models.

It is always an intriguing situation considering that the common sugar which is a chemical combination of fructose and glucose was being consumed by mankind for centuries and the obesity problem as being seen to day was never an issue of the old society. The coincidence between the commercialization of cheap high fructose syrup (HFCS), a product containing predominantly fructose and quantum jump in the obese population in the US cannot be wished away simply and the study brings out the stark reality that scientifically HFCS with high fructose proportion can influence appetite in a way that in spite of no need for food, consumers are "forced" to eat mechanically by the brain due to its negative influence on two hunger controlling hormones, insulin and ghrelin. These findings must spur further research to confirm the results which are indeed disturbing.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com