As we celebrate the 100th anniversary of the landing at Gallipoli, we not only think about that one day, but what the spirit of that day, the embodiment of the Anzac legend has meant through these 100 years, and still means today.
Allied forces from Australia and New Zealand didn't enter the war on that April morning 100 years ago. Our troops had been engaged earlier, both in training, planning and in other theatres. But it was this April morning that still lives in our memories. Anzac day is not a day to celebrate war. War isn't anything to celebrate. It is the last and least desired outcome. Anzac day celebrates the spirit of coming to the aid of a friend, of mateship, of wanting to do the right thing, even when no rewards will be given, when suffering may result, when loss may occur.
History tells us that April morning had no chance of success. Landing on that beach, with gun fire raining down, and problems with coordination of multiple landings, meant that many didn't survive getting to dry land. Those that did, bunkered down and were then engaged in charges of futility against a native enemy. And against the odds, the beach head was taken and defended and a brutal phase of trench warfare took place.
But yet, 100 years later, the enemy is the friend, the names given to those places by the Allied forces remain, protected by Turkey. Why? The Turkish forces gave credence to a foe that never gave up, that was resilient, that fought hard. The ultimate respect to a foe. And wherever these forces fought across WW1, the same respect was earned and given. Australians and New Zealanders can move around northern Europe thanked for their contributions and joined in mourning for the common losses, and towns are still teaching about the sacrifices made to protect their homes, when the soldiers were so many, many miles from their own.
How does the spirit of that morning pervade though history? It is of the same desire to help out when WW2 came and the world again descended into war. It is of the committment to fight in lands not our own, to protect those who are in need when our own country was under threat. Of fighting and dying to protect Great Britain, to liberate Europe, to draw a line and die fighting to protect our own shores, in Papua New Guinea, and fight to liberate the oppression in the Pacific, in Singapore, Malay, Philippines and many other countries. A legend that was upheld in the Malay conflict, Korea, Vietnam and other times of war.
Throughout history, not just in the Anzac spirit for fighting but I see it in many ways. Thinking of organisations such as the State Emergency Services (SES), the Rural Fire Service (RFS), the Surf Life Saving Association - all volunteer organisations staffed by people who are often out when the worst of nature, or the worst in people, affects so many others. Of all the volunteers who give freely of themselves to ensure others get help. Of people who are out helping you and I save our homes, when their own is under threat, or being lost. Of that desire to help without benefit, and often impact to their own livelihood. Where the thanks may just be a smile, a hug from relieved residents, and a cup of tea. But that thanks is enough. The spirit of wanting to help out a stranger, of giving of oneself to work with others. Of mateship forged in a helping hand. Where status in life, race or religion are ignored and only the chance to help is recognised.
So when I celebrate Anzac Day, I celebrate and am thankful for the embodiment of this spirit not just on that fateful shore, but how it has been the inspiration for the generations that followed. The spirit that unites Australian's and New Zealander's.
So when you bite into an Anzac biscuit, you may just enjoy the great taste of oats, coconut and sweet, golden syrup. But when I make them, I am grateful for the reason they exist.
What does it mean to others? As the world joins in celebrating our day, some of their views articulated are below:
http://www.theguardian.com/news/2015/apr/24/the-many-faces-of-anzac-day-how-grief-became-a-national-rallying-point
The movie scene that captured the fruitlessness and desperation of that campaign, and the birth of the legend - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eeijbtbnjQ
Bella's Bites
Friday, 24 April 2015
Tuesday, 17 March 2015
Effects of high sugar intake
In the previous post I wrote about what calories look like and what is required for your day.
In this post I will go a little into what excess sugar intake can do for your health.
The first point to make is that this is on excess sugar. That is, eating beyond moderation or balance for your lifestyle and activity. It is also about the consumption of sugar rather than the consumption of calories. Remember, calories are in different forms in different foods, so calories are more than just sugar.
Everyone associates lots of sugar intake with obesity. What is less understood is the actual contributions of sugar intake on health. If few experts can agree beyond "it makes you fat" then it is hard to accurately state the side effects. This is partly why so many government health agencies and other independent research is still reviewing the data. However there are numerous studies on sugar intake and the results. The only question is whether the effect is directly attributable to sugar intake or partly attributable with other factors also involved.
The World Health Organisation (WHO) is currently reviewing its sugar intake guideline. This means that it is looking at the emerging data to provide a global recommendation for sugar intake. Its current guideline is from 2002. The draft is available from their website for viewing. (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/notes/2014/consultation-sugar-guideline/en/). Whilst the draft guideline advocates less than 10% of total energy intake per day be by sugar (ie: 50g or 12 teaspoons), with a statement that achieving 5% offers additional health benefits. The draft guideline was formulated based on analyses of all published scientific studies on the consumption of sugars and how that relates to excess weight gain and tooth decay in adults and children.
So, 12 teaspoons a day doesn't sound too bad. I know I don't add that much when I think about what I eat and drink during the day. But.....
The hard thing is that all of us think only of the sugars we see. The added sugar from a sugar container. The sachet with the coffee. One of the key findings that are commonly understood is the amount of hidden sugars - those sugars added to processed foods. These are unseen and therefore hard for us to even recognise as part of our daily sugar intake. Much of the sugars consumed today are “hidden” in processed foods that are not usually seen as sweets. For example, 1 tablespoon of ketchup contains around 4 grams (around 1 teaspoon) of sugars. A single can of sugar-sweetened soda contains up to 40 grams (around 10 teaspoons) of sugar.
An ABC Catalyst science program "Is Sugar Making Us Sick" reviewed sugar (http://www.abc.net.au/health/features/stories/2015/01/08/4159335.htm). In it is some interesting data collated and reviewed. However it still notes that the scientific conclusion is not clear. Some of the studies showed:
But these studies alone aren't enough to prove that sugar causes heart disease, as it's not clear that the link is directly attributable to sugar and not another confounding factor. That is, is sugar the only contributor to this effect or is there other contributors or common factors. Eg: are people who are more likely to eat more sugar also less likely to perform regular exercise, which is known to have a positive effect on heart disease. Or are there other factors that may lead to increased heart disease such as smoking. The ongoing reviews of the data are required to provide that clear link. However, even with this finding as it is, the evidence would indicate enough basis to examine your sugar intake and reduce.
But how to review your intake? All products bought should have ingredients and nutrition labels.
With the ingredients label, the ingredients are all in volume order - from the most to the least. So if a product such as tomato sauce (ketchup) has sugar before tomatoes, it means there is more sugar in the sauce than tomatoes. So be guided by the location of sugar in the ingredients.
One recent action in Australia has been to also provide a star rating guide to food to show the actual nutritional quality of a product - across energy, fat, sugar and salt. This provides an easy way to judge a product. Some of the largest cereal manufacturers are yet to use it, and a recent review shows why.
(http://ow.ly/KqqkI) The manufacturers talk about the benefits of their product such as "contains wholegrains" and "no artificial flavours" but play down the contribution of sugars in the same product. The star rating system quicly shows the actual benefits so it can be simply understood and compared.
The cereals with the most sugar were Kellogg’s Frosties (41.3g per 100g), Kellogg’s Froot Loops (38g) and Kellogg’s Coco Pops (36.5g) – all of which are heavily promoted to children. So this means that for all these cereals, out of every 3 mouthfuls, you are eating more than 1 mouthful of sugar. Try for yourself to review the sugar content of cereals and see what they contain. Not all cereals are the same!
A star rating system would be very useful in other countries as it is a simple but effective communication tool, especially where nutrition aspects is less discussed in the media and classroom. And the benefits will be large. Western countries are already counting the costs of obesity, heart disease, diabetes and other diseases. How well can a country like the Philippines handle this epidemic? Prevention, education and reduction are better to be implemented now to reduce the long term effects and provide positive benefits for life.
In this post I will go a little into what excess sugar intake can do for your health.
The first point to make is that this is on excess sugar. That is, eating beyond moderation or balance for your lifestyle and activity. It is also about the consumption of sugar rather than the consumption of calories. Remember, calories are in different forms in different foods, so calories are more than just sugar.
Everyone associates lots of sugar intake with obesity. What is less understood is the actual contributions of sugar intake on health. If few experts can agree beyond "it makes you fat" then it is hard to accurately state the side effects. This is partly why so many government health agencies and other independent research is still reviewing the data. However there are numerous studies on sugar intake and the results. The only question is whether the effect is directly attributable to sugar intake or partly attributable with other factors also involved.
The World Health Organisation (WHO) is currently reviewing its sugar intake guideline. This means that it is looking at the emerging data to provide a global recommendation for sugar intake. Its current guideline is from 2002. The draft is available from their website for viewing. (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/notes/2014/consultation-sugar-guideline/en/). Whilst the draft guideline advocates less than 10% of total energy intake per day be by sugar (ie: 50g or 12 teaspoons), with a statement that achieving 5% offers additional health benefits. The draft guideline was formulated based on analyses of all published scientific studies on the consumption of sugars and how that relates to excess weight gain and tooth decay in adults and children.
So, 12 teaspoons a day doesn't sound too bad. I know I don't add that much when I think about what I eat and drink during the day. But.....
The hard thing is that all of us think only of the sugars we see. The added sugar from a sugar container. The sachet with the coffee. One of the key findings that are commonly understood is the amount of hidden sugars - those sugars added to processed foods. These are unseen and therefore hard for us to even recognise as part of our daily sugar intake. Much of the sugars consumed today are “hidden” in processed foods that are not usually seen as sweets. For example, 1 tablespoon of ketchup contains around 4 grams (around 1 teaspoon) of sugars. A single can of sugar-sweetened soda contains up to 40 grams (around 10 teaspoons) of sugar.
An ABC Catalyst science program "Is Sugar Making Us Sick" reviewed sugar (http://www.abc.net.au/health/features/stories/2015/01/08/4159335.htm). In it is some interesting data collated and reviewed. However it still notes that the scientific conclusion is not clear. Some of the studies showed:
- In a study of more than 90,000 women, those who had one or more sugar-sweetened soft drinks a day were twice as likely to have developed type 2 diabetes during the study compared with those who did not consume sweetened drinks. But many of these women had also gained weight.
- For every additional 150 calories of sugar per person per day, the prevalence of diabetes in the population rose by 1 per cent, even after taking into account obesity, physical activity, and other types of calories.
- A recent US paper, based on a study that followed a large number of adults for over 14 years, found that consuming added sugars significantly increased the risk of death from heart disease. Over the course of the study, participants who consumed 25 per cent or more of their daily calories as sugar were more than twice as likely to die from heart disease as those whose diets included less than 10 per cent added sugar.
- Other research showed that women with diets that had a high glycemic load (increased blood glucose associated with sugar intake) had an increased risk of coronary heart disease, with those in the highest bracket of consumption having a more than two-fold increased risk over 10 years of follow-up.
- And a study that followed 40,000 men for two decades found that those who had one can of sugary drink per day had a 20 per cent higher risk of having a heart attack or dying from a heart attack than men who rarely consumed sugary drinks.
But these studies alone aren't enough to prove that sugar causes heart disease, as it's not clear that the link is directly attributable to sugar and not another confounding factor. That is, is sugar the only contributor to this effect or is there other contributors or common factors. Eg: are people who are more likely to eat more sugar also less likely to perform regular exercise, which is known to have a positive effect on heart disease. Or are there other factors that may lead to increased heart disease such as smoking. The ongoing reviews of the data are required to provide that clear link. However, even with this finding as it is, the evidence would indicate enough basis to examine your sugar intake and reduce.
But how to review your intake? All products bought should have ingredients and nutrition labels.
With the ingredients label, the ingredients are all in volume order - from the most to the least. So if a product such as tomato sauce (ketchup) has sugar before tomatoes, it means there is more sugar in the sauce than tomatoes. So be guided by the location of sugar in the ingredients.
One recent action in Australia has been to also provide a star rating guide to food to show the actual nutritional quality of a product - across energy, fat, sugar and salt. This provides an easy way to judge a product. Some of the largest cereal manufacturers are yet to use it, and a recent review shows why.
(http://ow.ly/KqqkI) The manufacturers talk about the benefits of their product such as "contains wholegrains" and "no artificial flavours" but play down the contribution of sugars in the same product. The star rating system quicly shows the actual benefits so it can be simply understood and compared.
The cereals with the most sugar were Kellogg’s Frosties (41.3g per 100g), Kellogg’s Froot Loops (38g) and Kellogg’s Coco Pops (36.5g) – all of which are heavily promoted to children. So this means that for all these cereals, out of every 3 mouthfuls, you are eating more than 1 mouthful of sugar. Try for yourself to review the sugar content of cereals and see what they contain. Not all cereals are the same!
A star rating system would be very useful in other countries as it is a simple but effective communication tool, especially where nutrition aspects is less discussed in the media and classroom. And the benefits will be large. Western countries are already counting the costs of obesity, heart disease, diabetes and other diseases. How well can a country like the Philippines handle this epidemic? Prevention, education and reduction are better to be implemented now to reduce the long term effects and provide positive benefits for life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)