Is sugar really bad for you? (2018)
bbc.com
bbc.com
Then, in the body of the article you get a feeling that it was commissioned by the sugar lobby. Showing the evidence but casting doubt every time. It concludes with a "it does not matter".
But as it is a BBC site, you also know that isn't the case.
I recommend watching a few USA new programs or even reading a few UK daily papers to see what "mouthpeice for the Tories" really are.
Just because the BBC may not agree with everyone all the time, it does not mean it is biased.
It's clearly visible in the political coverage of BBC News, which is ran by @bbclaurak. She's a conservative firebrand, the Sarah Sanders of the UK. Only she's running what is supported to be a neutral news organization.
Further, I don't know - you just have to watch the way they cover subjects that you understand and see how they totally bend the facts to favor which ever corporate interest they've been told to support. This is particularly the cases with coverage of climate change (their position seems to be that the solution is plastic straws and letting consumers decided to buy 'green electricity') and the hostility to Jeremy Corbyn.
The problem with the BBC is that it has been under attack by Sky TV (the premium commercial TV provider then owned by Murdoch) for two decades. A weak or compromised BBC is good business for them and a BBC under the control of the government is great a win-win for those in power..?
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rona_Fairhead,_Baroness_Fairhe..., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Patten
Surely the BBC has a tough line to walk; differing perspectives on the left and the right mean that both sides likely will view its content differently (and sometimes conclude it was biased). Despite this, it has to broadcast some content, since that's (literally) its mandate.
Perhaps the best solution is to have continued scrutiny from both sides of the political spectrum, and independent regulator to manage complaints... which is what we already have (and what you're helping achieve!)?
[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=left+wing+BBC [2] https://www.google.com/search?q=right+wing+BBC [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC
They should just me made to report the facts with the correct weight. The problem is that they include things like flat earthers, homeopaths etc into the conversation in a way which legitimizes them.
What they should be doing is requiring their news content to be fact based. So fact check politicians. Don't give the basket cases a platform (and fact check them if they slip in).
The author of this piece is a freelance journalist[1] who has written numerous obvious submarines[2]. Do you know how much a freelance journalist costs? Basically: nuthin! I could have put someone like that on my credit card when I was in grad school.
> PR people fear bloggers for the same reason readers like them. And that means there may be a struggle ahead. As this new kind of writing draws readers away from traditional media, we should be prepared for whatever PR mutates into to compensate. When I think how hard PR firms work to score press hits in the traditional media, I can't imagine they'll work any less hard to feed stories to bloggers, if they can figure out how.
And today we have "influencers", native content marketing and Medium (etc) blogs that are way less authentic than what PG wrote about in this post.
For those unaware, the BBC is primarily funded by UK public funds (not quite a tax, but a "TV Licence") and as such is prohibited from - amongst other things - 1) selling advertisements and 2) supporting any one political party more than any other. There are of course exceptions (especially wrt to international + online content + commercial arms of the BBC) but an article sponsored by the sugar lobby displayed by a non-commerical arm of the BBC as a UK public service would clearly be prohibited by the BBC charter.
The current atmosphere of Brexit has pushed the BBC under more scrutiny due to accusations of pushing articles that disporportionaly support the government line, rather than opposition.
Never trust journalists, never trust the media.
You may be one of these people and not even know it.
It’s an epidemic.
This is completely anecdotal, but my sugar habits are similar to drug-addicts, and while sugar certainly isn’t drugs it’s not healthy for me either. It’s also the only substance in my regular diet that affects me this way.
I guess it depends on the definition of a 'drug'?
It is. Like coffee is.
Claims require evidence.
You made a claim.
Caffeine is, by itself, a drug in a different sense. It causes a slight addiction and can cause slight withdrawal. It isn't all that unhealthy in itself, however, especially not in the amounts we find naturally in foods. It becomes more of an issue if one is taking caffeine pills and other such things. Eating unhealthily might be more unhealthy, honestly - even though overall, having an unhealthy diet isn't a drug.
Caffeine is, by itself, a drug in a different sense. It causes a slight addiction and can cause slight withdrawal."
This seems like a drug in the same sense, can you clarify?
Rather than making stuff up, here's dictionary definition of drug: a medicine or other substance which has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body.
As a user of both sugar and broccoli I can anecdotally attest that they do not have the same physiological effect on my body.
Pure granulated sugar, straight from a packet, doesn't appeal -- not to me. Yet I suspect that cocaine does not have this property.
A bowl of frozen raspberries, with cream and an additional 2 or 3 teaspoons of sugar sprinkled on top, is very sweet, like delicious rocket fuel. Whereas a bowl of ice cream, containing double the amount of sugar, doesn't taste any sweeter.
This is very noticeable with fatty foods in my own experience.
Evolution, the grand vivisectionist.
Fruit is a whole other story as it contains a bunch of micronutrients.
> I stopped using white sugar for an year and my shirt size has reduced by two inches.
How did the presence of additional minerals and vitamins in unrefined sugar help you lose weight?
For me, sugar in more then minimal quantities give huge ups and downs, cravings, nauseousness etc.
But medical research assumes that first hand experience can be deceiving, because of placebo effect. It also considers the impact self-deception on researchers, and tries to remove that effect with double-blind studies.
I find it difficult to believe that dietary changes that require a consistent level of engagement, both to be mindful of what you eat and to resist temptations, can be free of placebo effects. And since you're also evaluating subjectively the effects, you are also prone to the researcher's self-deception.
When I finally start exercising (for a month solid) after being sedentary for 6+ months, I feel greatly energized - physically and mentally. I feel stronger too. Based on my performance in many aspects of life, I'm pretty sure that the benefits aren't imagined.
The same applies to alcohol. After about three weeks of no alcohol, a kind of mental clarity, sharpness, and aggressiveness (as in _wanting_ to be mentally challenged instead of avoiding mental effort) becomes very present. This I do not believe is a placebo - although if it is, I'm still much happier with the real or perceived benefit.
So with sugar, why not the same? Plenty of people have written their stories about cutting sugar and how they felt for weeks or months, so I'm likely to believe that they really experienced the benefits.
Finally, placebo or not, there's little question that "empty calories" are at minimal non-beneficial, and at worst harmful.
Well pointed out, it is. And for "general public" kind of advice, scientific processes absolutely help and are necessary to get to the right conclusions. The thing is, when someone else benefits from you eating sugar, journalistic pieces that put try to put people on the wrong foot (like these) will come out. Probably papers sponsored by sugar industry as well.
So why not go for your own experience? Like blunte mentions, many people experience the same kind of positive effects - isn't that science after all? And even if it's all just one big placebo and there ultimately is no negative effect of eating loads of sugar, whats the problem? People feel better :)
This is conspiratorial thinking. It's not healthy to shut off every opinion different from yours as an attempt to deception.
> So why not go for your own experience?
As I said, individual experiences are difficult to trust. Anyway, for what it's worth, I did cut drastically my sugar intake, for months. I found no benefits.
In contrast rather go for good fat foods such as bacon, avocado, eggs, mineral rich meats such as pasture raised beef/chicken or fish. Half your plate should be leafy greens/veg. These provide good minerals, and molecularly different fuel called ketones instead of glucose, these are closer to stored fats aswell so the body is used to running on the same fuel. So when you're not eating and the body has consumed the energy in the food you ate, it can easily switch to using body fat reserves.
The transition from glucose to ketone in the body causes molecular rearrangement in a process called keto-flu, which can last up to 3 days. You can think of it like going cold-turkey from sugar and returning to the real normal.
It is important to only eat when hungry. And try to extend the periods between eating, even if it starts at 16, then 20 hours, some do periodic fastings of 48 or 72 hours. This kickstarts body self repair and optimization of your entire structure. It seems to even reverse cancer. Research this.. it is amazing.
She reckoned refined glucose was the real bad guy, as it's what your muscles actually burn, while other sugars need converting first. Therefore its distribution within the body is unregulated - you eat it, it gets burned, no question. Contrasting the others, for which the conversion process serves as some form of regulation and is likely to run slower when you don't actually need it.
She also acknowledged fructose as a problem, primarily when its in corn syrup (or vast quantities of fruit juice) as you don't have to digest cell walls etc to get it. Whereas in fruit the absorption is slower (though for something juicy like an orange I can't imagine that much slower)
I'm sure this is an oversimplification and any errors are mine!
Also if glucose was immediately burned it wouldn't have a chance to be turned into fat, though I don't know if that is actually true.
If you watch 'sugar the bitter truth' you can see a lot of scientific studies condensed into a good presentation.