Exfarmer
Member
- Location
- Bury St Edmunds
for many years consumers have been deluged with advertising backed by scientific fact to change their diet for health reasons.
The first big campaign of course was the Margarine v dairy fat, with very convincing adverts that using margarines rather than butter were very much better for your heart and eating these products would extend your life. This was backed by the long term Boston study run by the American Heart Association a scientific body but funded by the major manufacturers of Margarine. This research which showed a very substantial drop in death rates of consumers of alternative products to butter has since been widely debunked.
We have seen similar campaigns funded in the main by large manufacturers who have seen the possibility of creating a market for product they can produce cheaply as an alternative to a conventional widely used foodstuff. To market these novel foodstuffs they have to initially create a demand by promoting it as a good choice for any number of reasons, the environment is increasingly being used as in the case of meat substitutes, but health is always seen as the number one marketing ploy. This has as discussed been used to promote Margarine for years , but alongside this over the last 30 years increasingly sugar has been promoted as the silent killer by its link to obesity.
For some years now governments across the world have been persuaded to take action which has been amazingly effective, UK consumption has dropped over 50% in my lifetime. the public has been persuaded by massive advertising campaigns paid for by the minute cost of producing substitutes and the old trick of persuading journalists to carry the mantra into serious discussion buy the trick the Margarine advertiser and many other large industry used, organising events and conferences in exotic parts of the world where they are bombarded with information in the expectation they will feed this into their articles so it becomes excepted "fact".
Now thankfully a serious newspaper has carried an article which many scientists have been saying for years, debunking much of the anti sugar work. The belief that sugar is bad, is based on the fact that it is just pure calories and the sweetness triggers a basic desire to eat it. This ignores the very important role of sugar in quelling hunger pangs.
These are triggered by blood sugars reducing and the body having a natural desire to raise them. When eaten sugar very quickly breaks down to release glucose which is taken up by the blood and causes a cessation of these pangs. Without sugar, the body urges the brain to keep feeding.
www.thetimes.co.uk
Hopefully it will not be another 30 - 50 years for the world to realise that artificial meat was just that another con by big industry
The first big campaign of course was the Margarine v dairy fat, with very convincing adverts that using margarines rather than butter were very much better for your heart and eating these products would extend your life. This was backed by the long term Boston study run by the American Heart Association a scientific body but funded by the major manufacturers of Margarine. This research which showed a very substantial drop in death rates of consumers of alternative products to butter has since been widely debunked.
We have seen similar campaigns funded in the main by large manufacturers who have seen the possibility of creating a market for product they can produce cheaply as an alternative to a conventional widely used foodstuff. To market these novel foodstuffs they have to initially create a demand by promoting it as a good choice for any number of reasons, the environment is increasingly being used as in the case of meat substitutes, but health is always seen as the number one marketing ploy. This has as discussed been used to promote Margarine for years , but alongside this over the last 30 years increasingly sugar has been promoted as the silent killer by its link to obesity.
For some years now governments across the world have been persuaded to take action which has been amazingly effective, UK consumption has dropped over 50% in my lifetime. the public has been persuaded by massive advertising campaigns paid for by the minute cost of producing substitutes and the old trick of persuading journalists to carry the mantra into serious discussion buy the trick the Margarine advertiser and many other large industry used, organising events and conferences in exotic parts of the world where they are bombarded with information in the expectation they will feed this into their articles so it becomes excepted "fact".
Now thankfully a serious newspaper has carried an article which many scientists have been saying for years, debunking much of the anti sugar work. The belief that sugar is bad, is based on the fact that it is just pure calories and the sweetness triggers a basic desire to eat it. This ignores the very important role of sugar in quelling hunger pangs.
These are triggered by blood sugars reducing and the body having a natural desire to raise them. When eaten sugar very quickly breaks down to release glucose which is taken up by the blood and causes a cessation of these pangs. Without sugar, the body urges the brain to keep feeding.
Sweeteners could be sabotaging that diet
Dieters should avoid some sugar-free drinks, meal replacements and sweeteners because they could increase their appetite, researchers say. Sucralose, an artificial sweetener, increases food cravings and appetite in women and people who are obese, according to one of the largest studies of its kind.
www.thetimes.co.uk
Hopefully it will not be another 30 - 50 years for the world to realise that artificial meat was just that another con by big industry
