Marmalade is low fat.
4 Likes
Er yeah, but the point as I take it is that itās also high sugar, which is just as or more damaging to oneās health as something high fat. Further, the clerk was also likely echoing the ālow fatā mantra of corporate food advertising, whereby fatās tastiness is replaced by high amounts of sugar. āLow fatā food can be more fattening than food that doesnāt have its fat removed.
1 Like
Right you are. Just like Coca Colaās new product Coke Life only has 90 calories per 12oz can, but still has 24g of sugar in it (twice the amount of daily sugar intake that W.H.O. recommends for adults).
1 Like
Yesā¦ yes it isā¦
A modicum of marmalade on a couple of pieces of toast, is hardly going to tip you over the edge. Itās all about moderation.
1 Like
AND about being more aware than food megacorps want us to be of how much sugar there is in processed food.
1 Like
I did a quick search of marmalade nutritional information and most fall into the 8-12g range for 1 Tablespoon. Putting you close to or right at the daily intake amount. On top of that add any sugar used in the bread, tea, coffee, fruit juice, cereal, etc. and youāve probably blown through an entire weeks worth of sugar in one meal.
2 Likes
In fact Iām pretty sure if Paddington Bear were real he would look like this: http://i.imgur.com/4PLDVYE.jpg
He outgrew the cute little outfit in a year.
1 Like
My guess is that it is all about the non-nutritive sweeteners, actually.
Nonnutritive sweeteners, energy balance and glucose homeostasis
Purpose of review
To review recent work on potential mechanisms underlying a paradoxical positive association between the consumption of nonnutritive sweeteners (NNS) and weight gain.
Recent findings
Several potential mechanism, not mutually exclusive, are hypothesized. First, by dissociating sweetness from calories, NNS could interfere with physiological responses that control homeostasis. Second, by changing the intestinal environment, NNS could affect the microbiota and in turn trigger inflammatory processes that are associated with metabolic disorders. Third, by interacting with novel sweet-taste receptors discovered in the gut, NNS could affect glucose absorptive capacity and glucose homeostasis.
There is likely a fourth that would involve intestinal microbes either developing the ability to digest the sweeteners or selecting for microbes that are more efficient at their job.
Artificial Sweeteners May Change Our Gut Bacteria in Dangerous Ways - Scientific American
2 Likes
Whaaa?! So heās real - and they REPLACE him? Aaaah!
1 Like
btw - has Coke been adding caffeine and maybe other stimulants to compete against the āenergyā drinks?
When I drink it nowadays (well, diet coke) I get what feels like 6 cups of coffee worth of kick. When I was 18, that did not happen.
If the cheapskates still put cocaine in it, this might reduce obesity.
8 Likes
A bottle of normal softdrink like coke or pepsi has about 80mg of caffeine in it. Thatās the same as a cup of coffee. You may absorb it faster because sugar is great at priming digestion, but I donāt think thereās much of a difference in sugar and caffeine between your bottle of coke, and a grande non-fat cinnamon mocha frappe full whip at Starbucks.
On the other hand, Iāve never seen an energy drink with less than 160mg of caffeine per 16oz can, and my preferred brand boasts 384mg of caffeine per 16oz can, and tastes like insecticide. I like it. I have to stop though.
3 Likes
Weirdly, Iām not seeing this. The diet soda market is huge and people getting scared away from sugar arenāt drinking less soda because of health fads, theyāre drinking less sugary soda. Iām not saying the interests donāt align, but Iām not seeing something incredibly insidious. People all too often get the order of events wrong with these kinds of studies. These researchers were likely looking for funding long before Coke came along. Will the funding source potentially introduce bias? Sure. But itās not a given that itās going to be bad study, or that the conclusion they will reach is utterly predictable. All Iām saying is: If they reach conclusions that fit your pre-conceived ideas, will you suddenly accept them? Cause thatās definitely not the scientific way to think about this.
There are some theoretical ideas, but nothing really conclusive that Iāve seen. The metabolic activity of non-nutritive sweeteners is a subject Iāve been looking into lately. I havenāt seen a study that gave me a strong suspicion that this is the case. Even if I did, Iād hold off embracing the conclusion.
I think people have this misconception that you can find a few studies and that this supports a position, but that is not how science works. Actually itās a great way to fool yourself. You have to find the studies that contradict your ideas as well and see how these things stack up side by side, and very often, there just isnāt enough information.
I think youāre being a bit hard on the Marlboro Man there.
1 Like
Maybe so; but letās scientifically postulate that the marketing people at Coke are behind this.
1 Like
Which means very little in terms of the science. Either the science is good or itās bad. Pointing to where the message comes from as evidence of a claimās veracity, or lack thereof, is the very definition of the ad hominem fallacy.
I though that anecdote was supposed to be a story of an accidental object lesson for the shopper: āOh, even this undeniably sugar-laden gel can be labelled low-fat? I guess that label alone actually means fuck-all to my overall health in the long run!ā
