At the minute 55:39 of the video you could hear Dr Lustig summarizing how the spending for different food items has changed over the past 30 years. There you could see and hear that the spending for meat has decreased (-9.8%) as did for dairy products (-2.6%). All remaining categories saw increased spending of dollar on them, although the diagram below suggests otherwise. The spending on fruits and vegetables increased by +0.1%, grains and baked products + 1.2%, beverages +0.1% and the processed foods and sweets by +11.4%. The data came from Bureau of Labor Statistics, just in case somebody was interested.
This graph followed a short speech about how the processed food has been spiked with sugar, that sugar is in everything and it makes people to buy more of these products. I do not object against this argument but there is more into the picture you could see. Have you noticed almost no change in beverages? Large portion of these on the market are occupied by sugar sweetened beverages (SSB) which contribute to the sugar intake the most, sweets are the negligible part of sugar intake on the population level and it was rather the SSBs that were studied the most in relation to obesity and metabolic diseases.
In light of what you have just read, how it match the diagram, Dr Lustig repeatedly presented to you all the time?
I have already discussed the true trend of sugar sweetened beverages over a longer term period than is in this second diagram and how flawed were the argument of Dr Lustig in this respect:
"... between NHANES 1999-2000 and 2007-2008, the total consumption of added sugars decreased by mean 23.4 grams per day, representing a decrease 3.5% by which added sugars contributed to the total energy intake... two thirds of the decreased added sugar consumption was due to the decrease in soda intake, corresponding to net mean reduction by 14.6 g/d."
Moreover, the first diagram says nothing about the increased consumption of sugar as such, which, as we know now, has been decreasing since 2000 in the U.S. This graph simply illustrates how the spending of the population has changed over 30 years, dollar per dollar, not capturing the changes of prices for different commodities and the dietary changes of the population - the lower expenditure on meat does not necessarily mean that people purchase less meat. It may as well mean that the cost of meat has declined due to the rise of intensive livestock farming. Or it also could mean that there are more vegetarians nowadays so that the sale of meat has plummeted - also due to the increase of food processing, offering meat substitute alternatives such as soy mycoprotein based, my favorite Quorn. However, the category Meats most likely only referred to the meat bought as such whereas the Processed Foods category may also contained processed meats and meat products. This was not said.
All Dr Lustig actually presented was that people pay more for the processed food and some sweets within, but nothing about the actual consumption of sugar and fructose. And I do not quite understand why sweets have been put together into one category with processed foods, but the beverages were listed differently. The sweets are more related to the beverages (mostly sugar sweetened) than to processed foods, are they not?
It is true that the processed food market has seen its boom over the past decades but this category is too large for us to be able to draw a final conclusion which nutrient in this category has increased the most, whether in terms of consumption or increased spending. Processed foods refer to anything from those sweets (a minor contributor to sugar intake), through pastries for the microwaves to ready-made pizzas or peanut butter. My peanut butter contains only about 2g of sugar per over 200g of product. Can we say that this extra two grams of sugar and about one gram of fructose within can contribute significantly to the consumers health issues if the consumer drunk a tin of coke afterwards? Meanwhile, we do not consume the whole pack of peanut butter at once... I taste it more salty than sweet, anyway. How about added salt in most of the processed food products and hypertension in salt sensitive part of the population? People love salt as much as they love sugar. And the most fattening foods, those chips and crisps are rather salty than sweet... Sugar came as third, remember?
At 56:04 you could hear Dr Lustig saying, in relation to the category of Grains and Baked goods that carbohydrates went up but not much (1%).
Excuse me?
Was it only this category that contained carbohydrates? There is a lot of carbohydrates in the category of Processed foods, too!
The analysis of how much the non-sugar carbohydrates has increased over about 30 years can be found here. What the graph actually means, is, that the dollar spent for this particular food group has grown only by 1%, not that the consumption of the particular commodity has increased that little. It has increased much more over the 30 years.
And, please, Dr Lustig, how come you had no idea that the sweet BBQ sauce had added sugar in there, until you were told or checked the ingredients list? Tomato sauce often contains sugar, not only because it appeals on the taste buds of the consumers, but also because it is a processed food that aims to survive a long shelf-life without being prematurely spoiled. And: how much sugar is in there actually and what the natural sugar found in tomatoes anyway?
I have grown my own tomatoes and they were exceptionally sweet - unlike those in the shop. Mine grew in a compost rich soil, too, with all the nutrients available that the plants scrappings had in them, not just a few artificial minerals in the fertilizers which are used to grow beautiful but tasteless and of lower nutrition value tomatoes available in the supermarket. Were these sweet and full of flavor and nutrients rich home grown tomatoes harmful to my health just because some laboratory would be able to extract the extra sugars (also fructose, tomatoes are botanically a fruit) from my tomatoes and put the same sugar back? I doubt so.
And the final point: Sugar not only makes food palatable so people tend to buy more. The increased purchase of processed foods simply reflects on the busier than ever population that likes quick fixes and convenience. And within these there you can find the occasional candy or chocolate bar, but also potato crisps and other savory snacks, in which you also can find a a tiny gram of sugar for flavoring or moisture.
I hope you now have an idea about the complexity of the issue with the changed purchases for various food items. Adding sweets to the processed food is a very unfortunate move and only misleads the audience, again. It is for sure that the sugar consumption has decreased but the purchase of processed food, mainly fast food and ready-made meals and snacks has increased, as did their portion size. This increased portion size is also a reason for increased spending because people want a value and buy a double portion of a ready meal. But instead of sharing it with a partner they often manage to shovel it in alone, usually in front of the TV or a computer.
Take it that it is the increased purchase and the consumption of processed food that has been behind the increased obesity and metabolic issues trends because even the increased addition of sugar into these foods has not managed to reverse the sugar consumption trends in the available data.
No comments:
Post a Comment