In Asia’s Fattest Country, Nutritionists Take Money From Food Giants - Sensationalist Headlines

[URL]https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/23/health/obesity-malaysia-nestle.html[/URL] [quote]KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia — Over the past three decades this increasingly prosperous nation has become the fattest country in Asia, with nearly half the adult population now overweight or obese. Several years ago, Dr. Tee E Siong, Malaysia’s leading nutrition expert, decided to act, organizing a far-reaching study of local diets and lifestyle habits. The research, conducted by scientists from the Nutrition Society of Malaysia, which Dr. Tee heads, has produced several articles for peer-reviewed academic journals. But scientists weren’t the only ones vetting the material. One of the reviewers was Nestlé, the world’s largest food company, which financed the research. Among the published [URL="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4697324/"]articles[/URL] was one that concluded that children who drank malted breakfast beverages — a category dominated in Malaysia by Milo, a sugary powder drink made by Nestlé — were more likely to be physically active and spend less time in front of a computer or television. The research exemplified a practice that began in the West and has moved, along with rising obesity rates, to developing countries: deep financial partnerships between the world’s largest food companies and nutrition scientists, policymakers and academic societies.[/quote] Saw this on the firefox new tab page

Wow thanks Nestlé! We wouldn't know what to do without your Healthy Milo® Drink! How generous of you to look into all the positive health benefits your Milo® has for us!

Nestlé is the only company I purposefully avoid due to scummy practices.

well damn if Nestlé® says it's cool then glug glug I guess I heard from a spokesman that that Milo drink also makes your dick grow six inches and gets you a gf

"peer-reviewed" that never ends up being peer-reviewed. No one cares, really. "[B]The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness[/B]." Quote from Richard Horton, Editor-in-chief of [I]The Lancet[/I]. He was talking about scientific research in very prestigious fields such as biomed, so what hope do you really think exists for fields much lower on the totem pole? I dont think people are aware of how NOT different research is these days to the much maligned periods of the 50s and 60s with flagrant interference from big tobacco and food companies. Otherwise this mind-numbing blind worship of "science!" on the popular internet wouldn't be so prevalent. Anyway, the example present in the OP is one of the more flagrant and thankfully obvious ones. However, much more nefarious is thousands of "studies" just like this go unmolested into well-regarded journals every year. The full text is available in the link on pubmed, and its a fucking joke.

Consumer rights in this country is a fucking joke. I have yet to see a single real case of lawsuits nor backlash from false advertisements and whatnot. Politicians are calling out at restaurants to reduce sugars in their foods and drinks but major companies like nestle can literally put buckets of them in their products and no one will bat an eye. Multiple companies blatantly advertise multiple products as "healthy food" or "active food" saying how its all good for you. Then you turn the packaging around, look at the amount of salt/fats/sugar they have and realize this shit is probably more toxic than coca-cola. Nestle is definitely on top of this game. I used to regularly indulge in their so called "healty low-fat" yoghurt, only to realize months later after gaining weight the fact that there's over 20 teaspoons of sugar per serving. Ever since then I've been looking at the nutrition facts of every single product I buy. Milo is the staple drink for almost every children, is served in school and are given to school children for free once or twice every year. Powdered Milo which is served at home and in restaurants usually contain 3tsp of sugars, but they are usually served with extra 3-4tsp of sugar or with condensed sweetened milk. The contents for Australian Milo and Malaysian Milo is different, although the Malaysian one tastes better the Australian ones IIRC does not contain diabetic amounts of sugars thanks to Australian Laws. In general the public health here is slightly fucked in terms of food and nutrition IMO. We like to indulge in oily fatty foods and down them with super sweet ass drinks. The whole country has a really sweet tooth, I personally know a few people who almost never drink water.

Is it bad that I drink iced tea with nearly every meal?

[QUOTE=TheBorealis;53010297]Is it bad that I drink iced tea with nearly every meal?[/QUOTE] No. Theres absolutely nothing inherently wrong with sugar, in fact its beneficial to metabolism (see: glycogen and preferential use of glycogen in the body). However, as the amount of sugars in the diet increase, so too should the vitamin content per the metabolic demands. This wasn't a problem in the past as much as it is now as most sources of sugar were dense with micronutrients - fruit, honey, milk etc. Nowadays the consumption of vitamin deficient high calorie liquids is prevalent, in ADDITION to a overall high caloric diet, and diets often laden with toxic polyunsaturated fats. It is a disaster metabolically, and so it is little wonder obesity is prevalent and diabetic conditions are on the rise. High calories, low physical activity, and increasingly deficient vitamin and mineral contents of the diet = metabolic diseases short version: the only problem with sugar beverages is the ease in which large amounts of calories can be added to the diet without noticing, particularly by people who drink these habitually rather than simply as part of a meal.

[QUOTE=viramax;53010328]No. Theres absolutely nothing inherently wrong with sugar, in fact its beneficial to metabolism (see: glycogen and preferential use of glycogen in the body). However, as the amount of sugars in the diet increase, so too should the vitamin content per the metabolic demands. This wasn't a problem in the past as much as it is now as most sources of sugar were dense with micronutrients - fruit, honey, milk etc. Nowadays the consumption of vitamin deficient high calorie liquids is prevalent, in ADDITION to a overall high caloric diet, and diets often laden with toxic polyunsaturated fats. It is a disaster metabolically, and so it is little wonder obesity is prevalent and diabetic conditions are on the rise. High calories, low physical activity, and increasingly deficient vitamin and mineral contents of the diet = metabolic diseases short version: the only problem with sugar beverages is the ease in which large amounts of calories can be added to the diet without noticing, particularly by people who drink these habitually rather than simply as part of a meal.[/QUOTE] Excuse me, has Nestlé sent you?

[QUOTE=_Kent_;53010470]Excuse me, has Nestlé sent you?[/QUOTE] Hey idiot, look at the post I made earlier in the thread calling out this joke of a "study". Exactly how you took that post to be in support of nestle, I'm not quite sure. Regardless of whatever you seem to think, there is nothing obesity promoting about sugar for the sake of being sugar - a fact repeatedly proven in metabolic ward studies (the only kind of studies worth talking about, because people are unreliable narrators of their own lives) since as far back as 1935. In isocaloric (this means diet A and diet B have [I]exactly[/I] the same kcal content, just different macronutrient percentages) comparisons, there is no "metabolic advantage" to low sugar diets, despite widespread internet moron belief, which a few individuals are currently getting filthy rich off of promoting. Such as gary taubes, through his apparently "non profit" organization. Obesity and metabolic diseases in general are rising because of a significant INCREASE in caloric intake coupled with a DECREASE in physical activity. Secondary to this is a DECREASE in nutrient content which worsens the problems across the board. However the primary problem, independent of anything else, is caloric intake and expenditure. "sugary drinks" are a problem in so far as they contribute significant calories to a diet without many people even treating them as a meal. A lot of people drink soda habitually, not even out of desire. A soda habit can easily contribute anywhere from 250 to 900 additional calories every day. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("flaming" - GunFox))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=TheBorealis;53010297]Is it bad that I drink iced tea with nearly every meal?[/QUOTE] Unsweet, bagged ice tea or canned Lipton? If the latter, enjoy your kidney stones I suppose.

I remember reading something about how calorie for calorie, sugar was worse for heart disease than fats. I'd have to see if I can find it though.

consideration of rat studies on the beneficial metabolic and cardiovascular effects of caloric [B]reduction[/B]. Note I didn't say sugar reduction, i didn't say fat reduction, i didn't say protein reduction, CALORIC REDUCTION, period. [url]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4002317/[/url] And quoting one of the most pertinent sentences: "When considering all possible aging interventions evaluated,[B] there is little doubt that CR remains the most robust.[/B]" Overeating is killing people, literally. But we'll keep spinning our wheels trying to find some method of losing weight while still pigging out every few hours and sitting on our asses glued to a device. It's not going to happen, and moving into the 2020s, we'll keep seeing obesity, CVD and metabolic diseases like insulin resistance skyrocket while pharma keeps trying to sell ineffective drugs like metformin by using sleight of hand in published research. and yet, the best solution is also the simplest one to implement.

[QUOTE=TheBorealis;53010297]Is it bad that I drink iced tea with nearly every meal?[/QUOTE] Yes, that's how my dad got a kidney stone. Make sure you drink lots of water during the day too unless you wanna piss out a rock

[QUOTE=TheBorealis;53010297]Is it bad that I drink iced tea with nearly every meal?[/QUOTE] I don't understand peoples love for iced tea (in a can) over normal tea Its tea in the same way that an energy drink is a coffee. The real thing, hot or iced, is just that much better. [QUOTE=viramax;53010328] Theres absolutely nothing inherently wrong with sugar[/QUOTE] If a little of it is good, that must mean nothing is wrong at all with it, right?

They did exactly the same thing to the states. Remember the low fat craze of the '90's (in the US)? Entirely artificial bullshit. The low fat products being pushed were filled with sugar. Meanwhile fat had long since been discarded as a serious issue. Carbohydrates are the thing that makes basically everything else a problem.

Can someone explain to me why food companies like Nestle pour unnecessary amounts of sugar into their food? It could be sweet with like 5g-10g per whole serving, what's the rationale behind making the food and drinks just liquid sugar?

[QUOTE=adam1172;53010295] *Milo rant* Nestle is definitely on top of this game. I used to regularly indulge in their so called "healty low-fat" yoghurt, only to realize months later after gaining weight the fact that there's over 20 teaspoons of sugar per serving. Ever since then I've been looking at the nutrition facts of every single product I buy. Milo is the staple drink for almost every children, is served in school and are given to school children for free once or twice every year. Powdered Milo which is served at home and in restaurants usually contain 3tsp of sugars, but they are usually served with extra 3-4tsp of sugar or with condensed sweetened milk. The contents for Australian Milo and Malaysian Milo is different, although the Malaysian one tastes better the Australian ones IIRC does not contain diabetic amounts of sugars thanks to Australian Laws. In general the public health here is slightly fucked in terms of food and nutrition IMO. We like to indulge in oily fatty foods and down them with super sweet ass drinks. The whole country has a really sweet tooth, I personally know a few people who almost never drink water.[/QUOTE] This is why you should only order milo o ice kosong but yeah all those healthy drinks and yogurts ads are all full of shit

[QUOTE=croguy;53010589]Can someone explain to me why food companies like Nestle pour unnecessary amounts of sugar into their food? It could be sweet with like 5g-10g per whole serving, what's the rationale behind making the food and drinks just liquid sugar?[/QUOTE] Addiction basically

[QUOTE=croguy;53010589]Can someone explain to me why food companies like Nestle pour unnecessary amounts of sugar into their food? It could be sweet with like 5g-10g per whole serving, what's the rationale behind making the food and drinks just liquid sugar?[/QUOTE] Sugar is a highly addictive chemical.

We don't drink storebought tea, fresh uh brewed? (is that the right word with storebought bags?) And my drink amount is probably tea>water>milk=soft drinks>orange juice.

[QUOTE=TheBorealis;53010297]Is it bad that I drink iced tea with nearly every meal?[/QUOTE] Iced tea is broad in itself, as a range of "teas" are called iced tea, from completed unsweetened (no sugars or artificial sweeteners) to more sugar than pop. [editline]28th December 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=TheBorealis;53011067]We don't drink storebought tea, fresh uh brewed? (is that the right word with storebought bags?) And my drink amount is probably tea>water>milk=soft drinks>orange juice.[/QUOTE] If you are using teabags to make it (assuming no sugar or anything of the sort in the teabags which there probably isn't), and putting little if any sugar in it, you probably don't have much to worry about in terms of sugar or calories with it.

kuala lumpur doopety doo i've got another breakfast for you

wow why am I not surprised that people on the internet ignore and give boxes to poor viramax who's actually saying truthful things and giving the most scientific, empiric perspective of this issue in this entire thread. There's an awful amount of people who like to jerk themselves off over science, read the first sentence of abstracts, and rampantly cherry-pick data and results to fit their own beliefs without doing the hard trench work of reading through multitudes of studies, critically thinking, and comparing information to reach the most truthful answer they can. Instead people get caught up with conflicts of interest and eagerly misconstrue arguments with absolutely no regard for the truth. And we wonder why we can't reach solutions to common problems in a variety of fields :sad:

[QUOTE=Butthurter;53010588]even street vendors are just serving sugar filled drinks off the bat, theres literally nowhere you can go for affordable healthy living unless youre going all in with plain bottled water[/QUOTE] Look at orange juice they take oranges and then extract the everything out of it, and then reconstitute it and add artificial flavoring and coloring. It's effectively sugar water. this is the alleged "healthy" drink but it's just as bad as soda, possibly worse. It having Vitamin C isn't even a valid point because fuck, everyone adds that to every thing to make it 'healthier', you could probably get some from a cheese burger at this point. The only real way to get a healthy juice is to juice everything yourself from local sources, with a lack of pesticide use.

[QUOTE=Repulsion;53011946]wow why am I not surprised that people on the internet ignore and give boxes to poor viramax who's actually saying truthful things and giving the most scientific, empiric perspective of this issue in this entire thread. There's an awful amount of people who like to jerk themselves off over science, read the first sentence of abstracts, and rampantly cherry-pick data and results to fit their own beliefs without doing the hard trench work of reading through multitudes of studies, critically thinking, and comparing information to reach the most truthful answer they can. Instead people get caught up with conflicts of interest and eagerly misconstrue arguments with absolutely no regard for the truth. And we wonder why we can't reach solutions to common problems in a variety of fields :sad:[/QUOTE] Viramax is saying that [I]for a fixed amount of calories[/I], sugar isn't much worse than other nutrients, which is a complete moot point considering sugar [I]has a very high calorie density[/I]. He even says that the best way to reduce the negative effects of food on our health is to reduce calorie consumption but doesn't point out that the first thing you need to do to do that efficiently is, you know, cut off sugar.

[QUOTE=_Axel;53012004]Viramax is saying that [I]for a fixed amount of calories[/I], sugar isn't much worse than other nutrients, which is a complete moot point considering sugar [I]has a very high calorie density[/I]. He even says that the best way to reduce the negative effects of food on our health is to reduce calorie consumption but doesn't point out that the first thing you need to do to do that efficiently is, you know, cut off sugar.[/QUOTE] I interpreted viramax's point as not trying to defend sugar and instead pointing out the underlying errors in thinking regarding this issue, which is why this isn't a moot point because those errors, in this case demonizing aspects of the situation irresponsibly, often distract people from the core of the issue they're dealing with. This is less so an issue here because demonizing sugar [I]will[/I] lead to people cutting off sugar intake and then likely dropping calorie intake, but this mindset is not sustainable for creating an educated populace that makes the decisions that are personally right for them instead of a perpetual cycle of blaming one type of macronutrient for people's health problems, and then another, and then another. The fact is, there are very few foods and drugs that are entirely good or bad for you ("the difference between medicine and poison is dosage" and all that), and while it can be difficult to parse the required information needed to make the correct personal choice, even impossible for some people, until this sort of knowledge and truth-seeking behavior is actively encouraged and supported, these types of cycles will continue to play out. The problem of corporations fucking with the nutrition of their target populaces is a symptom of corporations recognizing this weakness and exploiting it. Now, concerning whether the average person can fight against these trends and actively educate themselves as they need to be to make educated, healthy decisions regarding nutrition gets into a whole other issue involving human competency, but I'm optimistic, especially considering that the average human now has an incomprehensible amount of knowledge-accruing methods available to them when compared to pretty much any other point in history.

What errors? What are the mistakes posters have made here? A gram of sugar [I]will[/I] fuck you up much more than a gram of any other nutrient, that's a fact. Viramax is the one who brought up a "per calories" measurement which is irrelevant and nobody in the thread was discussing that. Nobody in the entire world intuitively eats based on energy, that's not how the stomach works. Mass is the parameter that drives satiety, which is what anybody who doesn't count their calories (ie 99% of the world) rely on to know when to stop eating. Sugar is more harmful [I]because[/I] of its high energy density and useless contribution to the metabolism, and you'll have a [I]very[/I] hard time getting the general public, which doesn't monitor their energy intake, to reduce their calories consumption [I]without[/I] telling them to cut on sugar.

[QUOTE=GunFox;53010577]They did exactly the same thing to the states. Remember the low fat craze of the '90's (in the US)? Entirely artificial bullshit. The low fat products being pushed were filled with sugar. Meanwhile fat had long since been discarded as a serious issue. Carbohydrates are the thing that makes basically everything else a problem.[/QUOTE] Not really. Depends on the carbs - sugars are terrible for you. But many carbohydrates are very good for brain function since that is essentially all your brain eats all day. Eating more carbohydrates before bed also has been shown to reduce hunger in the morning by quite a significant degree. A balanced diet that is also structured to promote a better lifestyle is what you should aim for. Ever since I moved my dinner later and cut down my breakfast to very little, and moved my lunch to 2PM, I've lost ten pounds in the last month. I haven't even cut my absurd soda intake yet, which I've just started doing. I eat significantly less calories and don't feel any hungrier, it's helped a lot. [editline]28th December 2017[/editline] Also - while reducing calories overall is important, it's also important to look where the calories are coming from. If you have to go out to get lunch from work, then I suggest looking at the %of calories is fat / protein, and get the higher ratio for the protein, even if it's more calories overall. Also reduce carbs too, obviously.

By underlying errors I wasn't referring to anything that any particular poster in this thread has made, but more generally the trend of looking for a simple answers to complicated issues. In this case, the simple answer is the correct one, but on a larger scale it isn't necessarily the best way to handle things, especially in a world where science is, once again, fucking up the traditional way of approaching things by offering new and unprecedented options. The rise of manufactured and engineered food means that relying on mass alone simply doesn't work out as well as it used to, just like the rise of automated technologies means that relying on getting a job in the service or manufacturing sectors doesn't work out as well as it used to. I'm not disagreeing with you, let's be clear. A gram of sugar will fuck you up more, just like a gram of protein powder contains much more protein than a gram of lean muscle (which isn't necessarily the case depending on the powder and a host of other variables but I hope you catch my drift). Many people should drastically cut their sugar intake, this is an irrefutable fact. My point is that, if the overall/final goal in this situation is to improve the nutrition of humans in general, I think that the approach that will yield the most results in the long-term is helping people understand [I]why[/I] they should cut their sugar, and [I]how[/I] sugar interacts metabolically with their bodies, rather than going for the easy way out and demonizing any one cause of a complex issue that has way more than one cause. This may be incredibly optimistic, but alas.