Is fat really that bad for you? Survey reveals we are terrified of being overweight

Fat is often given a bad reputation. Many people wanting to lose weight will simply head straight to the fat content of any given food or drink product, disregarding all other nutritional values of said product. This is despite the fact that recently sugar has received more bad press as health experts continually warn against a diet high in sugar. Only last month UK cinema chains received fierce criticism for offering a glut of high-sugary treats to cinema goers in Britain.

According to a survey for Women’s Health magazine that quizzed over 4,000 people, over two-thirds of us believe we are fat, yet bizarrely a similar number of people from the same research say they aren’t overweight. It seems the nation has some self-esteem issues that need addressing.
Fat may get a bad rep and almost be a taboo subject, but we actually need fat to survive. “Science has shown us that a little fat both on our bodies and on our plates is actually healthy,” commented Women’s Health editor Farrah Storr.

“For years, fat has been seen as the enemy, but the tide is turning. As we become more nutritionally aware, many of us now realise fat could even be the secret to a longer life and a smaller waistline.”

So why do we need fats in our body? Firstly, fat is important as it provides the body with energy.  It is difficult to eat foods within a low fat diet to receive enough energy your body requires. Diets that are too low in fat (less than 20 – 25%) can trigger cravings and food binges. Fat aids the transportation, storage and absorption of fat-soluble vitamins A, D, E and K. A lack of fat could result in deficiencies of these particular vitamins. Fat also gives insulation under our skin from the cold and the heat, in addition to providing protection to organs and bones from shock.

However, this doesn’t mean you can start overloading on fat without worrying about the consequences. An average male should not consume over 30g of saturated fat per day, whilst it is just 20g of saturated fat per day for women. The NHS Choices website offer a fantastic guide into what fat we need and some of the foods it is advised to cut down on.

The Women’s Health survey showed a fascinating insight into the nation’s view of fat, with both sexes being afraid of it. Many who answered the questions would rather somebody viewed them as being stupid or old than fat and perhaps surprisingly, twice as many than women have contemplated using diet pills.

Women’s Views

. 76% go to the gym to lose weight.
. 72% think they are fat.
. 67% would prefer to be thought of as stupid than fat.
. 67% would prefer to look old than fat.
. 66% are aware they are not overweight.
. 63% look in the mirror and think they are fat at least once a day.
. 58% would prefer to be thin and unhealthy than overweight and healthy.
. 46% would not date a person they deem fat.
. 44% have thought about using diet pills.
. 36% think about their weight at least once a day.
. 20% have not gone on holiday because they felt fat.

Men’s Views

. 95% have thought about using diet pills.
. 77% would prefer to look old than fat.
. 74% go to the gym to lose weight.
. 71% would prefer to be thought of as stupid than fat.
. 65% think they are fat.
. 62% have not gone on holiday because they felt fat.
. 60% are aware they are not overweight.
. 57% would not date a person they deem fat.
. 48% think about their weight at least once a day.
. 47% would prefer to be thin and unhealthy than overweight and healthy.
. 35% look in the mirror and think they are fat at least once a day.

Great news for dieters as XLS-Medical becomes available

This month sees the release of the fat-binding weight loss aid, XLS-Medical. Many of us will have seen the advertising campaign on TV, however, is XLS-Medical worth considering. Previously XLS-Medical was only available from Boots and Lloyd’s pharmacy; however it has now been made available for general release. This can only be good news for the public because with more companies supplying it, the competition will be sure to bring the price down.

So what exactly is XLS-Medical? What does it contain? How does it work? Is it safe and most importantly does it work? XLS-Medical Fat Binder is a proven weight management aid which comes in tablet form. It can support weight loss efforts as it binds dietary fats in the stomach, preventing that fat from being absorbed by the body. XLS-Medical does this by absorbing the fat molecules to form a fat fibre complex. The fat fibre complex is too large to be absorbed and so is eliminated naturally in your stools when you go to the toilet.

XLS-Medical Fat Binder contains the clinically proven fat binder Litramine and essential fat soluble vitamins A, D and E. These added vitamins help compensate for the loss of fat soluble vitamins from the body. This loss can occur because you are reducing the amount of fat your body absorbs. XLS-Medical Fat Binder has been proven to bind up to 27.4% of fats from food before it replenishes the body with fat soluble vitamins.

The proven weight loss results are compelling in their own right, but it may also be useful to know that XLS-Medical Fat Binder is both gentle on the system, and also has an established safety profile, making it a very helpful weight management tool. It is unusual to experience any side effects. Eleven million packs of XLS-Medical have been sold to date in Europe, with no reported safety issues. Because of the way XLS-Medical works, it does not interfere with the body’s natural workings.

The recommendation for weight loss using XLS-Medical is to adopt a reduced calorie, lower fat diet in addition to regular exercise and to take 2 tablets 3 times a day after meals, with up to 6 tablets taken per day. The NHS suggests that people should aim for sensible weight loss, which is between one and two pounds (0.5 to 1 kilogram) per week. It is also recommended that people monitor their body mass index (BMI) and aim to remain within the healthy range of BMI, which is between 18.5 and 24.9.

XLS-Medical has been clinically proven to aid weight loss. If you consume 500 calories a day fewer than the recommended intake, exercise and take XLS-Medical according to the instructions, you should find that, after 12 weeks, you will have lost significantly more weight than you would have done through dropping calories and increasing exercise alone. This was the result shown in a recent clinical trial under strictly controlled conditions and involving 125 healthy volunteers.

In addition to this XLS-Medical provide an online support programme called ‘123 Hello Me’ which offers:  An interactive weight loss and BMI tracker, which will help you chart your progress and stay motivated, Regular reminders to take your tablets sent straight to your phone and daily hints, tips and encouragement from your personal virtual coach.

The information has been especially designed to be easy to understand and includes meal plans and simple exercise routines. The meal plans are based on those used in the clinical studies. They only contain everyday ingredients, so that they appeal and are useful to as many people as possible.

The 123 Hello Me programme was written by Dietician and Nutritionist Helen Bond who is a consultant dietician. She is the nutrition voice for BBC Radio Derby, a spokesperson for the British Dietetic Association and regularly contributes to the press. Helen is also fully registered with the British Dietetic Association, the Freelance Dieticians Group and the Health Professions Council.

The availability of XLS-Medical certainly looks like it is going to be an important tool in helping people lose weight. Here at Medical Specialists we have been already been helping people achieve weight loss through products such as Xenical and Alli, however now we are pleased to announce that we will be stocking XLS-Medical. Please feel free to ring or place an order online where we will be able to offer competitive prices.

Are foods labelled ‘lighter’ any healthier?

So called low fat foods can contain a similar number of calories to the standard versions and in some cases contain even more sugar, according to a study by consumer watchdog Which?

The investigation by Which? found that as many as six out of 10 consumers eat low fat and light foods several times a week, believing that they are a healthier option and can help them to lose weight. But its snapshot sample of 12 low fat, reduced and light products from supermarkets, compared with their standard counterparts found minimal differences in calorie content.

A standard McVitie’s chocolate digestive contained 85 calories and a light one had 77. A Tesco low fat yoghurt had more calories per pot at 130 than a standard Activia version at 123, while the Tesco option contained more sugar at 20.2g, more than four teaspoons than the 16.9g in the Activia pot. The high fat and saturated fat content of cheese, meant Cathedral City lighter cheddar still contained a fat content, higher than the governments recommended guidelines.

The problem appears to be the public’s general misconception of words such as: low fat, lighter, lite and lighter. Labelling regulations define low fat as containing less than 3% fat, which is great; however, what most people don’t realize is that there is a big difference between low fat foods and those labelled light, lite and lighter. A product labelled light, lite or lighter only has to contain 30% less fat than the standard version.

30% less fat than the standard product sounds very good, but not if the standard product contains far too much fat in the first place. In such cases even though the product contains 30% less fat than the standard product, it still contains a very high fat content.

Which? found misconceptions among consumers about the meaning of the terms reduced fat and light, with only 16% of people correctly stating that products carrying the label had to contain 30% less fat than the standard alternative. The Consumer Watchdog said, “While shoppers believe that words such as light and low fat are interchangeable, they have significantly different meanings.”

Richard Lloyd, executive director at the consumer group Which? warned consumers to read the labels carefully before they buy light, lite or lighter foods. He said, “Consumers are choosing low fat and light options believing them to be a healthier choice, but our research has found that in many cases they’re just not living up to their healthy image. Our advice to consumers is to read the nutritional labels carefully.”

This is a view backed up by Maya Monteiro, Senior Education Manager at the World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF), who said, “There is a troubling lack of understanding about the calorie content of everyday food, a fact that is not helped by products being labelled light, when in fact they have a very high calorie content.”

One positive development is the introduction of the traffic light labelling system, which many of the major Supermarkets are now adopting. Food sold pre packed is labelled with a traffic light label, showing at a glance the proportions of fat, saturated fats, sugar, and salt using traffic light signals for high (red), medium (amber) and low (green) percentages for each of these ingredients.

Ingredient	Green (low content)	Amber(medium content)	Red (high content)
Fat	less than 1,5 g	between 1,5 g and 10 g	more than 10 g
Saturated Fats	less than 0,75 g	between 0,75 g and 2,5 g	more than 2,5 g
Sugar	less than 2,5 g	between 2,5 g and 6,3 g	more than 6,3 g
Salt	less than 0,3 g	between 0,3 g and 1,5 g	more than 1,5

Foods with green indicators are healthier and to be preferred over those with red ones. The label is on the front of the package and easier to spot and interpret than Guideline Daily Amount (GDA) labelling, which will continue. The GDA is difficult to understand for many and does not lend itself to quick comparisons.

The use of traffic light labelling is supported by many physician groups, including the British Medical Association and welcomed by consumers. Despite worries from some in the food industry that red foods would be shunned, the British Medical Association, Food Standards Agency and others agree, that consumers interpret the labels sensibly, realise they can have red foods as a treat, and they are easier to understand than lists of percentages.

Which? has campaigned for clearer food labelling and is calling on Morrisons andIceland, the two remaining supermarkets yet to adopt the traffic light system, to do so as soon as possible.

Can new weight loss drugs rival Xenical

Recently, the American Food and Drug Administration (FDA), approved two new weight loss medications (Belviq and Qysmia), and America breathed a sigh of relief. While weight loss drugs have always been a topic of controversy, over the years it has become clear that their addition to the dieting efforts of many individuals, who struggle with obesity, is extremely beneficial. And with more than one third of Americans (35.7%) falling under the obese category, it is no surprise that medical alternatives to diet and exercise, are needed to counteract the issue.

New obesity treatments are needed to bridge the gap between diet and exercise and the more radical option of bariatric surgery. This is a view backed up by Dr Sue DeCotiis, New York City based Medical Internist and Weight Loss Management Specialist, who said, “While there are potential side effects with every medication, long term studies show that overweight patients do much better losing and keeping off weight, when they are prescribed a weight loss drug.”

“Weight loss medications work in conjunction with healthy eating and exercise, and offer individuals a chance at a real lifestyle change. Those who suffer from obesity often have a host of other health problems that come with the condition. These drugs can alleviate those symptoms, and the result is that many of these patients will live longer and avoid the consequences of medical problems, such as hypertension, stroke, and heart attack.”

Listed below is a description of current weight loss drugs and how they work. Previously the only option was Xenical, but now for the first time in 13 years, Doctors will have a choice of which weight loss drugs to prescribe to overweight or obese patients.

Belviq (Locaserin)

Approved by the FDA in late June of this year, this medication works by activating a receptor in the brain that helps a person to eat less and still feel full. By regulating the appetite, it lowers the likelihood of individuals overeating. It works best in patients who suffer from weight related conditions, such as high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, or high cholesterol. At least 47.5% of patients lost at least 5% of their body weight from the medication, as opposed to 20.3% who took a placebo during a trial study period.

Qsymia (Phentermine & Topirmate)

This combination of the drugs Phentermine (an appetite suppressant and stimulant) and Topirmate (an anticonvulsant with weight loss side effects) is the most recent of the crop of weight loss medications, that have been approved by the FDA. Drugs in this category are primarily considered appetite suppressants. With the medication producing dramatic weight loss in patients, this is one of the clearest signs of hope for those suffering from obesity related diseases. About half of the patients lost 10% of their body weight and four-fifths lost 5%.

Contrave (Bupropion & Naltrexone)

This drug that is still to be approved by the FDA, works by combining two active ingredients that have been used for over twenty years. With Bupropion initiating the weight loss, Naltrexone sustains it by preventing the body’s natural tendency to counteract efforts, to lose weight. The result of this combination is to reduce appetite and increase the body’s metabolism, giving those who are suffering from obesity related illnesses the ability to sustain continued weight loss, by addressing the portion of the brain that controls food cravings.

Xenical (Orlistat)

Xenical, which is the most established and proven of the weight loss drugs, is a lipase inhibitor. Xenical does not enter the patient’s blood stream, but works in the digestive system in the small intestine as a fat absorber. It blocks out a third of the fat in food eaten in a patient’s diet, leading to steady weight loss. Research involving 11,131 woman and 4,418 men, who had been over weight for an average of 14 years, showed that 87% lost at least 5% of total body weight, half lost at least 10%, around 20% lost more than 15% body weight and some patients lost more than 25%.

Only time will tell which of these weight loss drugs is the most successful. Unfortunately here in the UK Belviq is not expected to be released until 2013 and there has been no UK release date as yet for Qsymia and Contrave. However all is not lost as here in the UK we still have Xenical available, which has a proven track record for assisting weight loss. Here at Medical Specialists Pharmacy we can dispense Xenical after an online consultation with one of our doctors and as soon as these other weight loss drugs become available, we will be offering them. Check our news section for further updates.

Luxury ready meals contain twice as much fat, salt and sugar as budget versions

Supermarket luxury ranges of ready meals can contain more than twice as much fat and salt than the cheaper, value versions, according to a new academic study. Glasgow University academics said, “Some of the meals should be labelled damaging on their packaging after discovering that they contained shocking levels of saturated fat, the major cause of heart disease.

The high end meals come with shocking levels of saturated fat. Just one serving can contain an adult’s entire daily recommended fat intake, according to the study. Researchers from Glasgow University analysed a range of ready meals that are on sale in five of Britain’s largest supermarkets. They found that some meals contained substantially more of the guideline daily amount (GDA) of fat, that an adult should consume than their cheaper counterparts.

Mike Lean, chair of human nutrition at Glasgow University said, “Labelling food as extra special or finest can be misleading for consumers who might expect health benefits at a higher price point. This does not seem to be the case. Value lines are not nutritionally inferior and general represent good value for money.”

“Sainsbury’s taste the difference beef lasagne contains more than twice the saturated fat than its basics version”, the researchers said.The luxury meal has 77 per cent of the guideline daily amount (GDA) of fat, whereas its budget equivalent has 36 per cent.It also contains more salt with 34.5 per cent GDA, compared to the cheaper version’s 28.8 per cent.

How they compare:

. Asda smart price macaroni cheese – 48% GDA of saturated fat.

. Asda extra special macaroni cheese – 114% GDA of saturated fat.

. Asda smart price lasagne – 33% GDA of saturated fat.

. Asda extra special lasagne – 72% GDA of saturated fat.

. Morrisons savers macaroni cheese – 74% GDA of saturated fat.

. Morrisons kitchen macaroni cheese – 140% GDA of saturated fat.

. Morrisons savers beef lasagne – 40% GDA of saturated fat.

. Morrisons kitchen beef lasagne – 85% GDA of saturated fat.

. Sainsbury basics beef lasagne – 35% GDA of saturated fat.

. Sainsbury taste the difference beef lasagne – 77% GDA of saturated fat.

. Sainsbury basics shepherd’s pie – 22% GDA of saturated fat.

. Sainsbury taste the difference shepherd’s pie – 52.5% GDA of saturated fat.

. Tesco value cottage pie/shepherd’s pie meals - 18% GDA of saturated fat.

. Tesco finest cottage pie/shepherd’s pie meals – 39% GDA of saturated fat.

. Tesco value chicken tikka masala – 41% GDA of saturated fat.

. Tesco finest chicken tikka masala – 68% GDA of saturated fat.

Mr Lean said, “A meal that contains 140 per cent of GDA contains the amount that should be spread over at least five meals, more than a day’s food. That is shocking. Consumer organisations and politicians should demand that such meals are clearly labelled as damaging.”

But the supermarkets rejected the complaints, with Sainsbury’s saying, “It was committed to helping customers eat healthily and it was the first UK retailer, to introduce traffic light labelling on packaging, showing the salt and fat content.”

Tesco also said, “Its packaging displayed nutritional information on the front of the pack”, while Morrisons highlighted the larger portion sizes in its kitchen range. An Asda spokesman said, “Extra special is indulgent by definition and our customers love it.”

Is food addiction contributing to rising levels of obesity?

Food addiction could be one of the reasons behind the rising number of individuals, suffering from eating disorders and obesity, scientists claim. Food is not currently included in the official diagnostic manual of addictive substances, but scientists believe excessive eating shares many of the psychological characteristics, associated with other addictions, such as gambling and compulsive stealing.

Scientists believe around one in 200 people could be suffering from the condition and are investigating the possibility that in many cases, over eating is caused by behavioural addiction. Changes in the way psychiatrists view addiction, could in future see food abuse become a diagnosable condition.

A small proportion of people with binge eating disorders, maybe 0.5% of the general population fit most of the criteria for addiction, it is believed. Many experts think they suffer from a similar problem as individuals who compulsively gamble or steal. Currently such patterns of behaviour are categorised as impulse control disorders, rather than addictions. But this is set to change with publication of the latest version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder (DSM), which lays out diagnosis rules for psychiatrists.

Experts are now discussing whether compulsive eating can be classified as a behavioural addiction. A £5 million EU research project called NeuroFAST has been set up to examine the evidence, bringing together scientists from seven European countries.

Professor Julian Mercer, from the University of Aberdeen, said, “If we can reach a consensus on how over eating should be classified, this could lead to major changes in clinical treatment and public policy surrounding obesity. It would help firstly to clarify if food addiction is a route to binge eating or obesity.”

“Recognition of different routes to being overweight and obese could lead to more targeted treatments for defined groups, giving individuals clinical help which is specific and pertinent to their situation. In future, over eating could be recognised as the consequence of food addiction in a small group of individuals, and the treatment they are offered, may have convergence with that which is offered to drug/alcohol abusers.”

Dr Ozgur Albayrak, another NeuroFAST scientist from the University of Essen in Germany, said, “Food addiction possibly does not refer to a majority of over eaters, but only a small sub group with disordered eating behaviours. There may be a prevalence of half a per cent.”

Prof Mercer said, “About half the audience believed they were food addicts, or claimed to know someone who was one. The public out there are getting lots of messages saying food is just as addictive as some substances of abuse, so it’s a confusing picture.”

He concluded, “It might make more sense for eating behaviours to be classified into a kind of behavioural addiction rather than a chemical addiction. Most likely where this would fit in would be at the extreme end of people with binge eating disorders, where there appears to be a spectrum of behaviours, that do mimic some of the behaviours that would be used to classify other, chemical addictions.”

Enzyme research could help burn fat three times faster

Chemists at the University of Copenhagen have discovered that enzymes involved in breaking down fat, can now be manipulated to work three times harder by turning on a molecular switch. Being able to control this chemical on/off button could have massive implications for curing diseases related to obesity including diabetes, cardio vascular disease, stroke and even skin problems like acne. But the implications may be wider.

The results suggest that the switch may be a common characteristic of many more enzymes. Since enzymes are miniscule worker molecules, that control a vast variety of functions in cells, if the switches are standard, it may well be one of the most important discoveries in enzymology.

According to Professor Dimitrios Stamou, who heads a multidisciplinary team of scientists at the Nano Science Center, and Department of Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen: “If many enzymes turn out to be switched on in the same way as the ones we’ve studied, this opens a door to understanding and maybe curing, a wide range of diseases.”

The discovery of these enzyme switches contradicts previous ideas of how cells control the function of enzymes, such as the fat eating lipase used in the current study. Researchers used to think that these enzymes work continuously at varying levels of efficiency, but in fact they are quite lazy. They work at a fixed efficiency for a given amount of time (working hours), and then they rest. And that’s good news for enzyme designers. Using these new found enzyme switches resulted in tripling the working hours of fat eating lipase enzymes, from 15 percent of the time to 45 percent of the time.

Assistant Professor Nikos Hatzakis, who was deeply involved in the scrutiny of the enzymes explained: “In enzymes, function is decided by the shape of the molecule. So making them more efficient would have required a major reconstruction. In some cases so difficult that it is on the order of transforming a handsaw into a chainsaw. Changing the fundamental shape of a tool is always difficult, whether it’s a saw or an enzyme. But working longer hours with the same tool is infinitely easier. What we’ve achieved, is to make enzymes work longer hours.”

Observing that enzymes even have an on off switch may sound easy, but first the Bio Nano team had to devise a way to study individual enzyme molecules. These are so small, that there are trillions in just a drop of water. To perform their studies the researchers chose a fat degrading lipase enzyme. They used fat that would emit light each time the enzyme took a bite. This way they could monitor each and every single action of the enzyme.

Proffesor Dimitrios Stamou concluded by saying: “Now that we have understood how to switch enzymes on and off, we could use this knowledge in the future, for curing a wide range of diseases and conditions.”

Tea or Coffee: which is best for you?

We all like a good brew in the morning, whether it be a good old fashioned cup of tea or a latte from our favourite coffee shop on the way into work. In fact in Britain we spend over £2 billion a year on coffee, and the coffee shop industry is one of the fastest growing industries, and that’s despite the harsh financial times we live in. As regards tea according to the UK Tea Council we drink 60.2 billion cups a year.

Whilst which one we drink is a matter of preference, is it worth considering the pros and cons of tea and coffee? Well considering we drink so much of them it would seem to be a good idea.

Tea

According to several studies tea has more health benefits than coffee. A ­recent one from­Harvard University has ­discovered the immune cells of people who drink tea in the morning ­responded five times faster to germs than coffee drinkers.

The scientists there think tea ­reduces stress levels, whereas other caffeinated drinks, like coffee, can raise them and over time can weaken your immune system.

Another study ­published in the health journal ­Nutrition Bulletin discovered that ­regularly drinking tea can reduce your risk of heart disease and diabetes. It is also known that tea contributes to our daily fluid intake thus keeping us hydrated. However it is worth noting that whilst tea contains only half the caffeine content of coffee, it is recommended that we drink no more than five cups a day.

Coffee

Coffee contains double the caffeine found in tea and as we have reported in earlier articles, that can have positive or negative affects on our health depending on how much we drink. Interestingly coffee contains roughly the same amount of calories as tea (a tea or coffee with milk contains about 8 calories). The problem with coffee is the type of coffee we drink these days. As we mentioned at the beginning the meteoric rise of popular coffee shops such as Neros, Costa and Starbucks has led to us drinking a whole new kind of coffee, that brings with it a whole new set of health risks. Whilst at home we would drink maybe a black coffee with a small amount of milk added to it, the coffees we buy at coffee shops are usually milk based, are larger, and many of us add sugary syrups to them and add whipped cream to the top of them. Here is a list of the calorie content of the teas and coffee we drink.

Calories

Black tea with milk: 8 calories

Black coffee: 2 calories

Black coffee with milk: 8 calories

Starbucks medium sized latte: 223 calories

Costa medium sized latte: 206 calories

Starbucks medium sized (skinny) latte: 131 calories

Costa medium sized (skinny) latte: 115 calories

Whipped cream topping: 120 calories

One vanilla shot: 70 calories

Starbucks Strawberries & Cream Frappucino: 459 calories

Nero’s Double Chocolate Frappe: 483 calories

Clearly these coffees contain far more calories than a coffee we would drink at home, however it must also be noted that the skinny versions do contain just under half the calories. Another beverage that has started to grow in popularity is herbal or fruit teas which on average contain only 2 calories. According to Nutritionist and author of Health Eating Dr Carina Norris: “herbal teas are a fantastic addition to your diet, not only are they very low in calories they can also help improve your digestion, clear up your skin and help you sleep.”

Like many thing in life the advice from health professionals is to have such drinks in moderation. Dr Norris summed this up by saying: “a latte can contain between 200 and 300 calories, if you have two a day, that’s the equivalent of a full meal. Treat these drinks as you would a slice of cake, have them occasionally but don’t make a habit of them every day.”

Cereal bars lambasted by consumer group Which

If there was still anybody out there who believed that ‘healthy’ cereal bars were nutritional and a better option than say a chocolate bar, perhaps more research that has just been published on them will finally shatter that belief.

Cereal and granola bars are often seen as a quick meal replacement for people, especially schoolchildren, who don’t seem to have the time to sit down and eat a proper, healthy breakfast. As a general rule of thumb, some believe that if they taste ‘bad’ then they will ironically probably be better and healthier for you. On the other hand, the ‘nicer’ they taste will more than likely be attributed to the bad qualities contained in them such as the fat, sugar and chocolate.

The popular choice of snacks have taken a battering in recent years in the media, with studies emerging that have portrayed them in a poor light, unearthing them to be just as damaging as chocolate bars in terms on sugar content, with many even being more unhealthy than a typical bowl of sugary cereal in this aspect too.

The new research into them comes in the form of a detailed analysis conducted by the consumer group Which?, who closely looked at 30 of the top selling cereal bars. To their shock, they found that all but one of these actually contained an alarmingly high amount of sugar. In addition, 16 of them comprised of more than 30% sugar.

One of the shocking discoveries was regarding the widely popular Kellogg’s Nutri-Grain Elevenses Raisin Bake bar, which they found to be containing four teaspoons of sugar (18g). This is a higher sugar content than that of a small 150ml can of cola drink (15.9g) and is approximately 20% of the recommended daily intake.

Worryingly, it was found that six out of the seven cereal bars marketed for children that they studied, were high in saturated fat. A particularly unhealthy cereal bar was determined to be the Monster Puffs bar, advertised as ‘great for your lunchbox’. The evidence would suggest it is not so great however, with one bar containing a whopping 43.5% sugar, working out at around over two teaspoons of sugar.

Richard Lloyd, Executive Director of Which?, provided a scathing attack on the companies that are producing the worst offending cereal bars and he said, “People often choose cereal bars in the belief they’re healthier than chocolate or biscuits but our research shows this can be a myth. With high levels of sugar and saturated fat in some of these products they should be on the sweet counter not marketed as health foods. Manufacturers need to be much clearer about how much sugar, fat and calories are loaded in to each bar so people can make an informed choice. We want all foods to have traffic light colour coding system so people can see easily what they’re eating and giving to their children.”

A spokeswoman for Kellogg’s tried to deflect criticism however and argued that their Nutri-Grain Elevenses bars are not being viewed in their intended purpose. The spokeswoman said, “We’re confused as to why anyone would call a Nutri-Grain Elevenses snack a cereal bar. If you’ve eaten one you know it’s not. It’s a baked bar and looks and eats much more like a muffin or cake. We bake it like a cake and market it as a mid-morning snack. In fact, compared to other similar mid-morning snacks, it’s one of the choices that has slightly less sugar than the norm.”

Guilt free chocolate pleasure!

Well, almost, chemists from the University of Warwick have developed a new method of making chocolate that is sure to bring a smile to the faces of chocoholics everywhere.

Dr Stephan Bon from the Department of Chemistry at the University of Warwick, conducted the study which was published in the Journal of Materials Chemistry, and looked into ways of reducing the fat content of chocolate.

Dr Bon said “Everyone loves chocolate but unfortunately we all know that many chocolate bars are high in fat. However it’s the fat that gives chocolate all the indulgent sensations that people crave, the silky smooth texture and the way it melts in the mouth, but still has a snap to it when you break it in your hand."

This new healthier method of making chocolate replaces up to 50 per cent of the fat content in chocolate with fruit juice. However the chemists at the University of Warwick claim that “the new bar will still appeal to chocoholics after spending months perfecting it’s mouthfeel and say it even feels like chocolate.”

The researchers removed much of the cocoa butter and milk fats that go into chocolate bars, and then they substituted them with tiny droplets of juice measuring under 30 microns in diameter. They then infused orange and cranberry juice into milk, dark and white chocolate using what is known as the Pickering method.

Interestingly it was found during the research that the sugar or fat bloom, the white residue that sometimes appears on chocolate that has been stored for some time, did not present itself on the chocolate made with fruit juice.

Dr Bon went on to say “our study is just the starting point to healthier chocolate, we’ve established the chemistry behind this new technique, but now we’re hoping the food industry will take our method to make tasty, lower fat chocolate bars.”

Unfortunately the final product will have a fruity taste to it, however there is an option to use water and a small amount of ascorbic acid (vitamin C) instead of juice to maintain a chocolatey taste.
The really good news is that the team behind the research plan to allow the food industry to use the technique to create healthier chocolate bars, and for people who love chocolate but still want to watch their weight that has to be good news.