The Chief Medical Officer misleads parliament about sugar and obesity...again

****

This is 'normal service':

She said she believes "the research will find sugar is addictive" and that "we may need to introduce a sugar tax".

I sorry but it simply is not true - not even a tiny little bit - that sugar is addictive. Except in the 'it's very nice and we like to eat it' sense of addiction.  The 'research' as the Chief Medical Officer is already there - lots of it - and it says that sugar isn't addictive. Here's Jan Ulbrecht, associate professor in biobehavioral health and medicine in the College of Health and Human Development at Penn State University arguing that sugar isn't addictive:

"Since the human body does not become physically dependent on sugar the way it does on opiates like morphine and heroin, sugar is not addictive," 

The idea - commonplace amongst the purveyors of New Puritan junk science - is that, because sugar stimulates the brain to produce dopamine in the same way as cocaine therefore it is addictive.

The central issue here, however, isn't about addiction but about obesity - firstly whether we have increasing levels of obesity and secondly whether that obesity is caused by our increasing dependence on sugar.

Both of these things are false.

On the growth in obesity - here's a chart of mean BMI (body mass index) for the UK 1993-2007:

On average we really haven't got much fatter. And we know that childhood obesity is falling something that probably reflects the other unhelpful fact for anti-sugar campaigners - children are consuming less sugar (in every form).

Indeed sugar consumption has fallen - all forms of sugar not merely the white stuff in the sugar bowl but the scary 'hidden sugar' the campaigners keep telling us about. Our consumption of 'non-milk extrinsic sugars' has fallen by more than half since the 1970s and by 10% over the past decade. Sugars now represent about 16% of our total energy intake compare to about a third three decades ago. If there's a single culprit for the increased levels of obesity it isn't sugar. Indeed nothing other than fruit and fruit juices has increased compared to 1970.

So why, given the availability of this real information - that there isn't an 'obesity epidemic' and that sugar consumption has halved - does the Chief Medical Officer make out to MPs that sugar is a problem that requires regulation or a new tax?

....

Quote of the day - what addiction isn't...

****

From Chris Snowdon:

As a general rule of thumb, if someone tells you that cupcakes or smartphones are "as addictive as cocaine" on the basis that they all produce dopamine in the brain, walk away. They're saying no more than that pleasurable activities stimulate the brain's pleasure centres, which is a banal tautology.

Do take note all you health reporters.

....

Sorrry but, no. Obessively checking your smartphone isn't 'addiction'

****

The word addiction is overused - and most often this overuse is misleading if not downright wrong. Here's a good example:

A study of 2,000 US college students revealed that 10 per cent would say that have a full-blown addiction to their handsets, with 85 per cent compulsively checking theirs and three quarters needing to sleep beside it.

So we ask people whether they're addicted to the phone and they tell us they are - and we call this addiction? Truth is that, if you ask people who relaly are addicted - to alcohol, to tobacco or to some other drug - they'll often tell you they aren't addicted.

Addiction is a primary, chronic disease of brain reward, motivation, memory and related circuitry. Dysfunction in these circuits leads to characteristic biological, psychological, social and spiritual manifestations. This is reflected in an individual pathologically pursuing reward and/or relief by substance use and other behaviors.

Addiction is characterized by inability to consistently abstain, impairment in behavioral control, craving, diminished recognition of significant problems with one’s behaviors and interpersonal relationships, and a dysfunctional emotional response. Like other chronic diseases, addiction often involves cycles of relapse and remission. Without treatment or engagement in recovery activities, addiction is progressive and can result in disability or premature death.

We could argue about this definition but one thing's clear - it doesn't apply to compulsively checking your phone!

....

Damian Thompson, New Puritan Sugar Addict

Not a headline I ever expected to write but Damian Thompson, acerbic, catholic journalist has come out as an enthusiast for the pseudo-science of popular addictions, a core part of the New Puritan agenda. I'm sure others will point out that quoting Robert Lustig on the subject of sugar is rather like using a witch doctor as a guide to modern medicine.

The impression Thompson gives is that there has been an explosion in sugar consumption:

Year after year, the West’s love affair with sugar intensifies. But we pay very little attention to our compulsive attitude to the stuff.

Is this the case? For sure the world's consumption of sugar has tripled since the 1960s but we should note that the world's population has doubled in that time - so the per capita consumption of sugar has increased by around 60%. However, in the UK the National Diet & Nutrition Survey showed:

There were no significant differences in energy intake in any age or sex group compared with previous surveys.  Intakes of total sugars as %food energy were lower in boys aged 4 – 10 y in 2008-9 than in 1997.  In children aged 4 – 10 years, median daily intakes of NMES as a %food energy were lower in 2008-9 (13.7-14.6%) than in 1997 (16.8%).  No significant changes in NMES were seen in children aged 11 – 18 years or adults.  In all groups the %participants who consume fruit juice has increased.  In children aged 4 – 10 years consumption of soft drinks (not low calorie) has reduced. No changes were reported for adult consumption of sugar, preserves and confectionery and savoury snacks.  Chocolate confectionery consumption was lower for all children compared to 1997.

So despite the cup cake revolution, we're actually consuming less sugar than we were 15 years ago. As with every scare story - and I guess Thompson has a book to plug - in public health the truth is very different from the popular New Puritan headlines. We are getting healthier not least because our diet is healthier.

The real agenda from the likes of Thompson is to promote the purposeful life and to condemn anything that seems like hedonism - pleasure for its own sake.

Should we worry? Yes – for several reasons. Cupcakes and mini-bites don’t just play havoc with our blood sugar levels: they reinforce the sense, very strong among hard-pressed urban professionals, that life is only bearable if we reward ourselves with endless “treats”. Yet we also feel guilty when we reward ourselves. 

The New Puritan is out - Damian Thompson accords entirely to its moralising creed. He disapproves of "addictive" pastimes - "prescription drugs, internet porn, computer games and dozens of other consumer items" - offering just condemnation rather than some sensible explanation of his position other than that it is sinful or, that worst of modern sins, unhealthy. And like many in this New Puritan age, Thompson cares little for accuracy, preferring instead the painted of disapproving pen pictures and the frowning critiques of doctors:

"Watch what happens in an office when somebody walks in carrying a box of Krispy Kreme doughnuts. There’s a general squealing sound and everyone rushes over excitedly. You’d think someone had just arrived at a party with a few grams of coke. People descend on it in the same way."

The doctor who Thompson approvingly quotes clearly goes to very different parties from the rest of us! And those squeals of delight? I've seen them over pizza, sausages and mushrooms, none of which are noted for their sugar content.

It may be that Thompson has a problem with sweeties - he certainly implies as much: 

Supermarkets are constantly ratcheting up our anxiety about fatty foods while pushing things called “mini-bites” at us. Speaking as a sugar addict myself, I can only describe these as an invention of the devil.

I think we're getting to the heart of the problem - Thompson thinks 'something should be done'  about sugar because he's a sugar 'addict'. All the rest of us should be refused access -despite being unaddicted (or quite comfortable in our addiction) - because he has a problem. All I can say to this is that Thompson should sort out his problem rather than pretend that it's a problem all the rest of us share.

....

Lord, save us from "researchers"!

****

We will all be addidcted - to the demon interwebs with their social networks!

Resisting the urge to check social networking sites for updates is more difficult than turning down a drink, according to a study of people's everyday desires.

Something must be done before the economy grinds to a complete halt while everyone alive checks their tweets and amends their status!

This is the sort of research that, you know, gives research a bad name. And the main finding about daytime desires:

The survey of 250 people found that sleep and sex were the two things people most longed for during the day...

So we're all regular and normal after all!

...