[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03t8r4h ]What's worse for us: sugar or fat?
To answer the hottest question in nutrition, twin doctors Chris and Xand Van Tulleken go on month long high-fat and high-sugar diets. The effects on their bodies are shocking and surprising.
But they also discover that in the debate about fat and sugar, the real enemy might have been hiding in plain sight.[/url]
fat good sugar bad, saved watching it, im off for cream cake
I heard the guys in Radio 5 this afternoon and one said there's no food in nature that has fat and sugar.
Coconut? Milk? (Lactose is a sugar) Those were 2 I thought within about half a second, so I decided it wasn't worth watching.
iDiet FTW.
What's the betting a balanced diet will prove to be best?
Watched it for about 5 mins and yup, that's about it.
Oscar was right all along 🙄
Recording as wife has got 24Hrs Back at Work on.
heard the guys in Radio 5 this afternoon and one said there's no food in nature that has fat and sugar.
Honey and errr Sugar.
Eat Less Move More.
/Thread*
* 😀
I heard the guys in Radio 5 this afternoon and one said there's no food in nature that has fat and sugar.Coconut? Milk? (Lactose is a sugar) Those were 2 I thought within about half a second
.... or any animal made of meat (so only the edible animals) will have fat and glycogen in them
If you watch the programme, they are referring to processed foods where the sugar:fat ratio is around 50:50 which, I bet, is hard to find in nature.
No surprises in the conclusion of the programme, though.
You beat me to it mikey74!
It's a specific 50/50 combination of fat and sugar they are on about.
Upshot is to avoid processed foods, doughnuts, cheesecake, etc.
Who'd have thought?!
interesting enough i though, basically eat what you like bar the 50:50 mix and exercise and you should do alright. Hardly revolutionary, but interesting all the same.
I would've liked more info about saturated fat and whether it's still considered the enemy with regards blocking your pipes.
There have been noises that sugar causes inflammation of the arteries and it's this that's the issue not the fat. Didn't go there though.
Horizon's mean well but never seem to deliver on the excitement of the topic. So in that respect no surprises.
The program is too short to go into everything, and it is a pretty complex topic. There is a lot of really interesting research being done into dietary composition, and the role of sugars/fats at the moment.
The Eat Less, Move More brigade are oversimplifying too I think - my partner is eating around 1400kcal/day and goes to various classes/training sessions 5 days a week, plus running and is stalled with the weight loss. I eat a "traditional" healthy diet and do a pretty active outdoors job and am also stalled.
So we are willing to try something else - not as extreme as this - but probably a slightly higher fat/lower carb centered on low GI stuff, and see how we go!
I thought the program was quite poor. The conclusion seemed to be that if we make really nice food, it's really hard not to eat more of it.
I thought the program was quite poor. The conclusion seemed to be that if we make really nice food, it's really hard not to eat more of it.
For many, that is probably a deeper message than you give it credit for.
Some scary implications for the 4 hour / iDave diet though re high fat diet and insulin maintenance.
trans fats and highly refined sugars ftmfw.
Some scary implications for the 4 hour / iDave diet though re high fat diet and insulin maintenance.
Very true. Hopefully it helps put to bed those diets that focus on eating one type of food over all others. A balanced diet really does appear to be the way to go.
Isn't a balanced diet exactly 50% fat & 50% carbs. 🙂
not really, because those diets AREN'T hi fat/lo carb. (In fact iDiet promotes lean meats & plenty of lo GI carbs). Some paleo diets are though, although AFAIK exercise (especially hi intensity) is supposed to help a lot with the body's response to insulin. I don't think the doctors on Horizon did much/any exercise? As was pointed out the study was too limited to draw any real conclusions.Some scary implications for the 4 hour / iDave diet though re high fat diet and insulin maintenance.
watching it now but balanced diet will be the answer. Any idiot could tell you this (and I'm that idiot). People telling us calories matter have been ripping us off for years. I was saying this years ago on here. Did anyone listen? Nope.
Eating one type of thing all the time will cause problems. No shit.
I watched it, not surprised in the slightest that they chose two of the most annoying people on the planet to present it.
What was the content?
Oh yeah, the 50:50 ratio. 🙄
I've not seen the programme yet, but I've read the thread. I have one question.
Vegetables?
one of them was allowed veg, the sugar guy.
The guy on the fat only diet couldn't eat any whereas the guy on the carbs diet could eat as much as he wanted.
Eating one type of thing all the time will cause problems. No shit.
That's one possible outcome.
[quote=samuri ]Eating one type of thing all the time will cause problems. No shit.
Especially chocolate.
They're on exercise bikes now.Oh look, the sugar guy is out of steam, fat guy is going along quite happily. WHAT A SURPRISE!!!!!
I recognise that hill! I've only been up it once too.
So no transfat (not found naturally I think) but both saturated and unsaturated are ok.
Sugar ok.
But don't eat sugar and fat 50:50 at the same time cause you'll over eat.
And eating too much makes you fat. So cut out donuts and say thank you to your wife when she eats your chocolate- it's her way of saying she likes you trim 8)
P.S. exercise is good for you
Fair summary?
well that is just ridiculous. Even the hi-fat/lo-carb paleo diets involve eating LOADS of veg. Sounds like these blokes just decided to eat 2 equally unhealthy restrictive diets, for no real reason.The guy on the fat only diet couldn't eat any whereas the guy on the carbs diet could eat as much as he wanted.
I missed this.. Although I know everyone in the office is going to be banging on about it to me tomorrow
I noticed idave ranting about it on twitter calling some team sky guy an idiot for not realising you can turn fat into sugar
You still at the top then Samuri?
You still at the top then Samuri?
Wahey!
Did you see me stood there as they passed?
I've been hunting hedgehogs for 2 years. Spikey bastards. Good diet though.
Didn't I hear the Swedish government is the first western government to recommend a high fat/ low carb diet
As was pointed out the study was too limited to draw any real conclusions.
It was for TV, therefore more journalism, rather than a "study".
Same with the 5:2 "fasting" thing a year or so back.
Same with the exercise like heck for 10 minutes until you collapse programme too.
They know the "conclusion" before they start, but make the programme in a way that makes it looks like it's trying to find something out, and use people with a Dr. prenominal to portray a level of authority.
60mins dedicated to say... too much ice cream is bad for you, and many "diets" / "fads" probably are too.
To be fair I don't think the programme was aimed at people like us, people that already get the thing about exercise and a healthy balanced diet - even if we don't stick to it all the time. But there would have been plenty of Dorito scoffing blobs sat on their sofas with plates of cheesecake and donuts lined up for pudding to whom (who?) this programme just might have been a revelation!
wobbliscott - Member
To be fair I don't think the programme was aimed at people like us, people that already get the thing about exercise and a healthy balanced diet - even if we don't stick to it all the time. But there would have been plenty of Dorito scoffing blobs sat on their sofas with plates of cheesecake and donuts lined up for pudding to whom (who?) this programme just might have been a revelation!
Wobbli, I think you're being a little generous to some of the folk on here. There are plenty on fad diets.
few points, the American doctor seemed to target fast & frequent insulin response as a big issue caused by high sugar diets,
yet at the end of the program, they simply measured a single insulin response, to drinking a sugar'd drink that the 'fat diet' guy had not had in over 4 weeks. should they have not done insulin response during the day with eating what they were on for 4 weeks?????
also, the 50:50 ratio - people will now think they should avoid a single food group that contains 50:50 ratio, when in fact if in one hand you have a full sugar coke and the other a burger, you got a 50:50 problem right there.....
and .....
is it 50:50 per eating meal, or 50:50 in general for a few hours, a day? month? year?
one thing that comes out from ANYTHING to do with "being fat" - exercise is good.
so WHY ARE WE BUILDING MORE ROADS THAN CYCLE LANES
one thing that comes out from ANYTHING to do with "being fat" - exercise is good.so WHY ARE WE BUILDING MORE ROADS THAN CYCLE LANES
Nail, head.
We live in a society where people are more sedentary than they've ever been. When you see black and white photos of a collection of, say, miners, how many of them are overweight?
My local ASDA now has a drive-through collection point for online orders, so you don't even have to walk the twenty yards from a parking spot any more.
In the US, obesity capital of the world, the car is king. I once visited an area with two shopping malls on opposite sides of the road, and it wasn't possible to walk from one to the other. The expectation was that you'd drive between them. Pavements and walkways were in place but they were decorative; if you went down them, they just ended in the middle of nowhere.
How many people are there whose sole daily exercise is to walk from their front door to their car (which has to be in 'their' space outside their house or they get shirty), and from the car park to their desk at work, and back?
Never mind whether a bag of chips is worse than a bag of Haribo or not. You want to lose weight, park your car 15 minutes' walk from your house you bone idle bastard.
Is it just me, or is Horizon generally not the series it once was?
There was a lot more distracting camera work and general appearance of a pretentious DP at work than there was decent science in that prog.
They said, pretty much at the start (in a 'throwaway' remark) that the study with a sample size of two was "not very scientific" and then at the end acknowledged that, to draw any meaningful conclusions, you'd need a much larger study, so why proceed with the whole, meaningless thing at all? It was just an unentertaining, unengaging rip off of Supersize Me.
And the identical twins thing didn't help - I kept losing track of which one was which.
so WHY ARE WE BUILDING MORE ROADS THAN CYCLE LANES
To make it easier to drive to trail centres - duh!