Whereabouts in the scheme of things does the "No Sugar" soft drink fit in? Apparantly they are bombed up with artificial sweeteners. Would someone drinking 3 or 4 litres of Zero Coke be doing himself a mischief? I know tradies, brick layers, who use it instead of water and in our tropical heat (Mackay, Qld) I can't see it being as good as plain water with some electrolyte boosting at times during the day.

Allison DB, Fontaine KR, Manson JE, Stevens J, VanItallie TB (October 1999). "Annual deaths attributable to obesity in the United States". JAMA 282 (16): 1530–8. doi:10.1001/jama.282.16.1530. PMID 10546692

Lots of differences including overall energy intake. There is also a big difference between exercise and physical activity - I'll bet your parents were much more physically active than you

David is likely to be right - it's about "incidental" activity as part of daily life, not necessarily formal exercise.

It doesn;t seem feasible that increasing body weight could be caused by environmental chemicals. Asthma, for example, is generally a reaction to natural allergens - viruses, dust and pollens.

I agree it does not seem feasible but I would still like to see a study of activity and diet in the 50s and 60s compared to activity and diet today. Remember I am talking about large amounts of sugar and fat. For one example all my family had 2 heaped teaspoons of sugar in their tea and coffee which were often accompanied by cake or biscuits. Probably about 6 times a day. Anyway it was just a thought.

Blah Blah Blah Australian Paradox - get a new act!

Try actually reading the studies before quoting your fructose mantra! And your false dichotomy of whether you are anti-fructose/sugar or pro it, is a cheap debating trick to try and win points - it isn't working!

Thirty seconds research would show the Heart Foundation has always been against sugar sweetened beverages and for them the quantity per serve matters. No contradiction or conspiracy - it is fairly simple!

I've corrected you on a number of your nutrition fauz pas in the past months so before you hold up your glowing report card re the Australian Paradox (that most people don't care about) - why not tell the whole story Rory? Not just in your own story but on fructose and sugar research too?

Your attempts to brand anything that comes from Sydney Uni or people in its nutrition department as wrong because of your problem with one paper is probably your most ridiculous position - but if you want everyone held to that standard - start with yourself!

David,

You (falsely) claim to have corrected me on this and corrected me on that. At least you have never claimed to have corrected me on my main point about the lack of scientific integrity involved in that key paper published by the University of Sydney and promoted globally by pro-sugar lobbies: http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/WHO'S%20CITING%20OZ%20PARADOX.pdf .

That's because the Australian Paradox paper so obviously is an academic disgrace. After all, Dr Barclay and Professor Brand-Miller's (false) conclusion of "an inverse relationship" between Australian sugar consumption and obesity was based - bizarrely - on a sugar series the ABS had discontinued as unreliable over a decade before the paper was (self) published, while four other measures of per-capita sugar consumption in the authors' own charts trended up not down in the relevant timeframe (scroll down to those charts at http://www.australianparadox.com/ )

David, will you at least concede that sugar industry's own sugar series flatly contradicts the Australian Paradox claim, confirming - if anything - that the trend in Australian sugar consumption over the past quarter-century was flat or up, not down, and obviously not down consistently or substantially.

Again, the paradox-killing chart is at http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/JBM-AWB-AustralianParadox.pdf .

David, Chris last year did a notable public backflip on the veracity of Australian Paradox finding - from embracing it as excellent and using it to attack David Gillespie, to dismissing it as hopelessly wrong and refusing to discuss the matter (Slide 27 at http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/AUSTRALIAN-PARADOX-101-SLIDESHOW.pdf ).

And Sue Leraci (above/below?) now is sounding a lot like David Gillespie, enthusiastically citing the view that "Unsweetening the world’s diet may be the key to reversing the obesity epidemic". Regular readers will recall that here last year she was inclined to rubbish those like me expressing such a view. Happily, Sue - like the Heart Foundation - finally has grabbed the right end of the stick on the obvious link between modern sugar consumption and obesity (https://theconversation.edu.au/coca-cola-part-of-the-solution-to-obesity-yeah-right-11662 ).

Why can't you concede anything on this matter, David? You have set yourself up as the Web's global policeman on the scientific integrity of papers focussed on sugar and dietary fats (http://website.informer.com/visit?domain=davidgillespiesbigfatlies.com ), yet you are not prepared to state the obvious: that the University of Sydney's "shonky sugar study" should corrected or retracted.

After all, imagine the incompetence involved in basing a scientific "finding" on a data series that was discontinued as unreliable over a decade before the paper was published, while at the same time all of the evidence - in the authors' own published charts - pointed in the other direction. And imagine a lead author publishing that extraordinarily faulty paper while acting as the "Guest Editor" of the publishing journal. What a disgrace.

And from a Group of Eight university. You can almost hear scientists at second-rate universities across the world snickering at the University of Sydney. Awkwardly, the University's Vice-Chancellor Dr Michael Spence unwisely vouched for the veracity of
the hopelessly flawed Australian Paradox paper (Slide 28 in http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/AUSTRALIAN-PARADOX-101-SLIDESHOW.pdf ), while a Deputy Vice Chancellor claimed that quality control involved "internationally accepted standard practice" despite the influential lead author and the Guest
Editor being the same person!

More disturbing that the actual publication of the paper has been the increasingly deliberate misrepresentations of facts in support of the original false conclusion: http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/Update-AustralianParadox-Dec2012-27.pdf

Chris, David, Sue, Rosemary, anyone: whatever happened to quality control and integrity in science at the University of Sydney?

Well done on exposing my dyslexia, Sue, and apologies on mis-spelling your surname maybe a dozen or more times since June. You have been so enthusiastic about (mistakenly) correcting my work over the past 6-8 months, I'm surprised you took all that time to (correctly) correct my routine accidental mis-spelling of your surname via my L/I mis-recognition. On your other correction, Sue, let's see if what I wrote is as clueless as you - and David D. (below) - say it is:

~For starters, my strong sense is that added fructose - 50% of added sugar and a slightly higher portion of HFCS - is by far the dominant source of "sweetness" in - and "sweetening" of - the global food supply (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14627752 and chart at http://www.australianparadox.com/part-2 ).
~If I am correct on that, Sue, and I think I am, then - whether you realise it, or like it, or not - when you cite Qing Yang of Yale saying "Unsweetening the world’s diet may be the key to reversing the obesity epidemic", you are talking about removing added fructose, and you are sounding like David Gillespie.
~As you wrote, Qing Yang of Yale - the scientist from whose paper you were quoting - was worried about increased consumption of sweet diet drinks because it tends to "encourage sugar craving and sugar dependence".
~That is, Qing Yang worried that the sweetness in diet drinks would encourage consumers to continue to eat/drink excessive quantities of sugar and HFCS.
~But Qing Yang didn't worry about ongoing excessive consumption of sugar and HFCS because added sugar/fructose is really yummy but basically harmless.
~No, Qing Yang worried because: "Sugar [50% or more of which is fructose] provides a large amount of rapidly absorbable carbohydrates, leading to excessive energy intake, weight gain, and metabolic syndrome [15,16,17]" (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892765/ ).
~Sue, if Qing Yang didn't worry that modern doses of added sugar/fructose are a disaster for public health, the Yale scientist wouldn't be worried that diet drinks promote "sugar craving and sugar dependence".
~If Qing Yang thought modern does of added sugar/fructose were yummy but basically harmless, Sue, as you seem to be saying, the paper you quoted from wouldn't have been written.

No need to apologise, Sue. Readers will make their own judgement about whether or not I fumbled the ball in the way you claimed. All I can tell you - and David D. - is that the above series of points seems to me a reasonable interpretation of the facts in that disputed matter. If I have just revealed myself to be as clueless as you say, then so be it. I suspect, however, that you might be feeling a bit "awkward" at this point.

On your view that "Sydney University will not hinge its prestige on one single published paper", it is a matter of fact that public reputations tend to be a function of the observed integrity of the entity in question. The problem for the University of Sydney is that, in this Australian Paradox scandal, it has not been at all protective of its reputation for academic and scientific credibility and integrity. After all:

~the publication of the extraordinary faulty Australian Paradox paper revealed that the University has no credible quality control over its research output;
~the senior management of the University's defence of that extraordinary faulty paper as perfectly acceptable - despite it being used far and wide to seriously misinform the public debate on the origins of obesity and diabetes, together the biggest public-health issue of our times - demonstrated that the University has no unswerving commitment to scientific integrity or public health;
~the fact that the University's ongoing refusal to correct its "shonky sugar study" continues to support the lucrative business revenues of its pro-sugar low-GI operation - overseen by its unreliable but high-profile nutritionist authors - simply puts an even darker cloud over the University's integrity.

Yes, Sue, the University of Sydney seems to be struggling to find a proper balance between its desire for scientific integrity, its desire to support its underperforming nutritionists and food-industry service providers, and its desire to protect lucrative revenues from its pro-sugar low-GI operation.

Whether you like me talking about it or not Sue (and David D.), it's not a good look. And growing numbers of serious people increasingly are concerned that it is not a good look - not for a Group of Eight University, not for a publicly funded research facility. After all, taxpayers tend to prefer their tax dollars to fund credible research that does prioritise the marketing needs of private-sector sugary businesses over public health (http://www.smh.com.au/national/health/research-causes-stir-over-sugars-role-in-obesity-20120330-1w3e5.html ).

Finally, Sue, you say that "fructose will not be proven to be 'toxic'. If that is your view, I suggest you stop quoting from papers by scientists like Qing Yang, who seems to be happy to argue, as above, that in modern doses ""Sugar [50% or more of which is fructose] provides a large amount of rapidly absorbable carbohydrates, leading to excessive energy intake, weight gain, and metabolic syndrome".

More column inches, more of the same argument. Sigh.

Mr Robertson, I have never heard of Qing Yang, and I don't agree with David Gillespie. But I have studied physiology for several years, and applied it for over thirty. All of physiology - from cellular to macro, endocrine, digestive, enzymes, pathways, the lot. I suggest you do the same, and then come back to us.

Sue, I'm not sure how I should say this. You may "never [have] heard of Qing Yang", but just last week you DID quote the concluding paragraph from her/his paper with enthusiasm (see reproduced post below, from https://theconversation.edu.au/coca-cola-part-of-the-solution-to-obesity-yeah-right-11662 ).

And in doing so, Sue, you did sound a bit like David Gillespie's echo, echo: "Unsweetening the world’s diet [15] may be the key to reversing the obesity epidemic".

Again, Sue, as I outlined very clearly in my response above to your (also mistaken) previous post, your chosen researcher's - Qing Yang's - conclusion that "Unsweetening the world’s diet [15] may be the key to reversing the obesity epidemic" followed his/her observation that "Sugar provides a large amount of rapidly absorbable carbohydrates, leading to excessive energy intake, weight gain, and metabolic syndrome [15,16,17]" (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892765/ ).

It would be nice if you had the good grace to admit your series of tangles on this issue, Sue. I'd like to think there are readers who now think you might owe me a small apology. It's up to you: I'm relaxed, given the fabulous Australia Day long weekend ahead.

SUE'S POST FROM LAST WEEK (from https://theconversation.edu.au/coca-cola-part-of-the-solution-to-obesity-yeah-right-11662 ):

"Sue Ieraci
Public hospital clinician
One good way for the Coca Cola company to contribute to a reduction in obesity might be for them to cease production of all "diet" lines (artificially sweetened).

While this seems counter-intuitive, the popularity of diet and "zero" calorie drinks only serves to maintain a sweet palate and ongoing cravings for sweetness.

Here is an extract from a relevant paper:
"Gain weight by “going diet?” Artificial sweeteners and the neurobiology of sugar cravings" Neuroscience 2010

"Lastly, artificial sweeteners, precisely because they are sweet, encourage sugar craving and sugar dependence. Repeated exposure trains flavor preference [54]. A strong correlation exists between a person’s customary intake of a flavor and his preferred intensity for that flavor. Systematic reduction of dietary salt [55] or fat [56] without any flavorful substitution over the course of several weeks led to a preference for lower levels of those nutrients in the research subjects. In light of these findings, a similar approach might be used to reduce sugar intake. Unsweetening the world’s diet [15] may be the key to reversing the obesity epidemic."

Yale J Biol Med. 2010 June; 83(2): 101–108. PMCID: PMC2892765"

Mr Robertson - let me put this simply for you:

Fructose is part of a normal healthy diet, when derived from food sources.

Small amounts of added sugar - whether sucrose, fructose or glucose - are fine to use, so long as a balance of nutrients and energy is maintained.

High amounts of added sugar, without other nutrients (so-called empty calories), when NOT balanced with nutirent and energy intake, can lead to weight gain.

Sugars are not "toxic".

I do not agree with David Gillespie.

My point about sweetened drinks referred only to the ARTIFICIALLY sweetened. Paradoxically, it may be better to drink sugar-sweetened drinks, while remaining cautious about excess, than to consume large amounts of sickly-sweet "free calories", without restraint, and maintaining habituation to sweetness. I am talking about flavour habituation, not physiological addiction.

Please spend the long weekend reading up on physiology and get back to us with your dissertation on carbohydrate metabolism.

Sue, an apology for your carelessness would have been fine. Another snippy, misplaced lecture was a poor substitute.

Perhaps you might like to pull your head in a little: you roam up and down the pages of TheConversation correcting the plebs but it turns out that your knowledge and understanding of the relevant material sometimes is rather thinner than you realise.

In this particular case, Sue, the "back and forth" is documented clearly above for readers to enjoy: strikingly, you were unaware of the name of the scientist whose research you were citing - Qing Yang of Yale - and you failed to realise that Qing Yang was concerned about artificial sweeteners in diet drinks not because they are a problem per se, but because "artificial sweeteners, precisely because they are sweet, encourage sugar craving and sugar dependence".

That is, Qing Yang worries that artificial sweeteners in diet drinks tend to promote the consumption of sugar. Qing Yang - the scientist Sue chose to quote - worries because: "Sugar provides a large amount of rapidly absorbable carbohydrates, leading to excessive energy intake, weight gain, and metabolic syndrome".

Qing Yang's conclusion that "Unsweetening the world’s diet [15] may be the key to reversing the obesity epidemic" - the line Sue cited that made her sound much like David Gillespie - was, in turn, partly a response to the paper "The sweetening of the world's diet" (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14627752 ).

As readers can see, neither "The sweetening of the world's diet" nor the ballooning of global obesity was driven by the artificial sweeteners in diet softdrinks that Sue warns against.

Nor should we expect any contribution of "Unsweetening the world's diet" towards reversing global obesity to be driven by a reversal of diet drink sales.

Sue has argued that "One good way for the Coca Cola company to contribute to a reduction in obesity might be for them to cease production of all "diet" lines (artificially sweetened)".

A much more effective - and obvious - way would be via a reduction in global sugar consumption via reduced sales and consumption of sugary softdrinks.

After all, most nutritionists and scientists - and even the Heart Foundation - now seem to agree that sugar consumption in modern doses represents a major global health hazard: http://www.heartfoundation.org.au/news-media/Media-Releases-2013/Pages/time-rethink-sugary-drinks.aspx

Those concerned that the excessive consumption of sugar - via softdrinks and other sugary junkfoods - is a serious health hazard should also be concerned about the false information on this matter being promoted in the public debate by the University of Sydney: http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/JBM-AWB-AustralianParadox.pdf

It's the dosage Rory, something that doesn't seem to register in your black and white world. Not sure how to get through your head that this is why over 35g of sugar in a soft drink is different from 9g in a breakfast cereal, not to mention that one also delivers fibre and other micronutrients.

As stated to you previously (after which you answered with your usual lack of response!) there is also evidence that liquid calories make people eat more vs solid. Hence targeting soft drinks (since they are also the major source of sugar!)

Over to you to ignore the inconvenient facts and make this about the Australian Paradox to somehow 'prove' your personal experience should be the basis of public policy!

Yes, David D., it is indeed the dosage. So researchers now have found measurable damage to health - increased risk of obesity, diabetes, etc - from the consumption of sugary softdrinks, the biggest sugary food category. Assuming you are comfortable with me saying the damage to health from sugary softdrinks flows from the added sugar - not the added water or the added bubbles - then as a matter of logic, David, surely it's the aggregate intake - dosage - of ALL added sugar in our diets that matters, not just that from sugary softdrinks, as some want to pretend.

And once you accept that the added sugar in softdrinks is a serious health hazard - as many nutritionists and health entities now are doing - then one can only pretend, David, that added sugar in (milky) breakfast cereals is healthy, and deserving of a "Heart healthy" Tick from the Heart Foundation.

In terms of identifying damage to health, obviously it's been easier for researchers to document damage done by the LARGEST subset of sugar consumption – sugary softdrinks – than by any one of the MANY SMALLER subsets, including (say) sugary BBQ sauce, (plus) sugary breakfast cereals, (plus) sugary confectionery, (plus) sugary bakery items, (plus) sugary yoghurts and milks, and (plus) other sugary processed foods, etc.

Sugary BBQ sauce is less of a problem than sugary softdrinks, David, for the reason you highlight, but the damage from sugary BBQ sauce and sugary softdrinks surely is cumulative. As with tobacco and public health, now that it is clear that added sugar is a key driver of obesity and diabetes, then the "right" dosage to be consumed by everyday people trending in that direction is zero.

To promote improved health across society, David, it makes sense to minimise the dosage of tobacco, alcohol and added sugar, as well as other things like trans fats. Sure it's hard to do, because sugar is yummy. But the clear tradeoff between yummy sugary food and good health is unavoidable.

"Minimise the consumption of tobacco, alcohol, trans fats and added sugar" is the obvious message that should be delivered loud and clear to everyday people, to maximise the chances of promoting an improvement in public health.

I'm sure you have your own views on all this, David, but that's my take on the matter.

David D., I also liked your argument that a Cherry Ripe provides satiety in a way that a can of Coke cannot. Yes, "liquid calories make people eat more vs solid". Not to mention the extra "fibre and other micronutrients" in a Cherry Ripe. Nice one, David.

It's Friday evening: are you in a pub? If so, it might be best to limit your alcohol consumption before providing public commentary on the important matter of public health.

Of course, readers could be forgiven for thinking this sugary-softdrink debate is a bit of a "storm in a tea cup". After all, two of the University of Sydney's high-profile low-GI nutrition scientists - both with real PhDs - have documented a "consistent and substantial" decline in the consumption of sugary softdrinks between 1980 to 2010: Slides 11-20 in http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/22Slideshowaustraliangoestoparadoxcanberrafinal.pdf

>David D., I also liked your argument that a Cherry Ripe provides satiety in a way that a can of Coke cannot<

I didn't say that (surprise, surprise), but why not with the protein and fat in the product. Weren't we talking about breakfast cereal? Are you comparing 9g from a breakfast cereal to 26g from a cherry ripe or do you think a cherry ripe is a breakfast cereal.

Is there a word for this kind of stupidity or dishonesty in suggesting this. I'm not a drinker, not sure what you are on though!

And back to the worst segue to the AP to date - dumb and dumber!

David,

Your dismissive tone is rather unbecoming. Are you sure you want to talk to me like that. After all, I'm the nobody who solved the Australian Paradox!! Not that it was hard: it fell over at the slightest scrutiny of basic facts. It turns out that the overconfident University of Sydney authors were unaware that the key ABS sugar series on which their silly "finding" was based had been discontinued as unreliable by the ABS after 1998-99, over a decade before their embarrassing paper was (self) published. Moreover, the unreliable authors somehow failed to notice that their four - 4 - valid measures of per-capita sugar consumption - in their own published charts - trended up not down. What a shocker! Check out the charts at http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/TimeforNeweditor24052012.pdf

After I kicked up a stink, the University of Sydney's champion nutritionists defended their embarrassing paper by claiming that cars not humans had been consuming a big chunk of the available sugar via ethanol production. Oops, wrong again. Ouch. David, these are professional scientists? http://www.smh.com.au/business/pesky-economist-wont-let-big-sugar-lie-20120725-22pru.html

The University's high-profile low-GI nutritionists' latest false claim is that the sugar-industry-commissioned-funded-and-"framed" Green Pool sugar series is "independent" and reliable. Ironically, this "shonky sugar series" - like everything else - shreds the credibility of the "shonky sugar study". That is, the unreliable authors claim that "a new independent review of Australian's [sic] sugar consumption indicates that it is still continuing to decline", when in fact the Green Pool series itself clearly suggests that sugar consumption has increased over the past quarter-century: http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/JBM-AWB-AustralianParadox.pdf

David, you are wise in the ways of science. Perhaps you can tell me this: When exactly does a determined misrepresentation of the facts in the defence of a false scientific "finding" published in an obscure pay-as-you-publish E-journal morph from being an academic disgrace to being simple scientific fraud?

Nothing else here Rory, not even a correction on your cherry ripe misquote?

Cherry Ripe misquote? There was no misquote, David D. I think I said we can agree that sugary softdrinks are a particular health hazard because of the added sugar/fructose, not the added water or the added bubbles. The evidence for that is very strong, as you may now concede.

And while you choose to highlight the satiety of solids versus liquids, I said that I'm not sure my old Cherry Ripes were any more "filling" than my old cans of sugary softdrink. The former certainly helped me want to eat more of everything else I could get my hands on.

In my opinion, David D., the important fact in this particular aspect of the debate is that sugary softdrinks are the LARGEST SUBSET of added sugar/fructose consumption in Australia and globally. In terms of identifying damage to health, obviously it has been easier for researchers to document damage caused by the largest subset than the damage caused by ANY ONE OF THE SMALLER SUBSETS.

Accordingly, the evidence that (say) sugary BBQ sauce is a particular problem is not strong! As a matter of logic, however, once one accepts that added sugar/fructose is a problem in sugary softdrinks, then it is the aggregate intake of ALL added sugar/fructose that matters, in my opinion. And, appropriately, the official advice is "Limit intake of foods and drinks containing added sugars...[examples]".

Again, David D., the problem is aggregate consumption: the added sugar/fructose in sugary drinks, plus the added/fructose sugar in sugary breakfast cereals, plus the added sugar/fructose in sugary confectionery, plus the added sugar/fructose in sugary bakery items, plus the added/fructose sugar in sugary yoghurts, plus the added/fructose sugar in other sugary manufactured/processed foods - not just the sugar/fructose in sugary softdrinks, as some still like to pretend.

And once one accepts that the added/fructose sugar in softdrinks is a serious health hazard, it is hard to argue that sugary breakfast cereals - some 30% added sugar! (15% added fructose) - are deserving of a "Heart healthy" Tick from the Heart Foundation.

Awkwardly, not only were your friends at the University of Sydney utterly wrong on added sugar/fructose in modern doses being harmless, but their "shonky sugar study" - "The Australian Paradox" paper, which formally exonerated added sugar as a key driver of obesity - was used as an intellectual spearhead by the sugar and sugary food industries to attack the NHMRC's tougher (Draft) advice against added sugar. How's that for fighting the good fight for better public health! (http://www.smh.com.au/national/health/research-causes-stir-over-sugars-role-in-obesity-20120330-1w3e5.html )

As I have documented on this site, David D., the NHMRC on Monday shredded the credibility of the University of Sydney's highest-profile participants in the debate on nutrition and public health.

Interestingly, the NHMRC went out of its way to take an an axe to the credibility of the pro-sugar University of Sydney's low-GI diet as a useful approach to prevent/limit obesity:
"Glycaemic index: The US review found strong and consistent evidence that glycaemic index and/or glycaemic load are not associated with body weight and that modifying either of these does not lead to greater weight loss or better weight management. (footnote 198) There is considerable variability in these indices, depending on inter-and intra-individual factors and the form of food (including the degree of processing, stage of ripeness, cooking and cooling times), which may limit practical application.(footnote 199) These factors were not included in the literature review to inform the revision of these Guidelines". (p. 20 of Monday's Australian Dietary Guidelines) http://www.nutritionevidencelibrary.com/evidence.cfm?evidence_summary_id=250378

In my opinion, while the the pro-sugar University of Sydney - having had its scientific credibility shredded by the NHMRC - is in the Thinking Chair - in the process of revamping its thinking on real-world nutrition issues - it should do the right thing and correct the public record on its faulty Australian Paradox paper.

For those interested, the NHMRC's Professor Warwick Anderson has explained very clearly on ABC TV the reasons for the new, tougher official advice on added sugar/fructose: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-02-19/sugar-re-think-an-evidence-based-decision/4527312?section=business

Wow, you're almost up to speed, sugar intakes add up - what a revelation!

Glad to see that you are so happy about the word 'limit' being added into the conversation. Maybe you could duck over to the National Heart Foundation website and see what word these have been using in association with sugar?

What word Rory?