Three authors of an editorial, "It is time to bust the myth of physical inactivity and obesity: you cannot outrun a bad diet", in the British Journal of Sports Medicine have condemned the food industry for a big lie. In short, they are conning the public by pretending that exercise will compensate for the effects of the products they peddle, especially obesity. Even those with body mass within normal limits are showing signs of metabolic changes associated with obesity. Calorie counting, without taking account of the foods these calories come from, is also rejected. The authors make comparisons between the publicity effort of the food industry to Big Tobacco in obfuscating the link between smoking and lung cancer (among other diseases).
In the past 30 years, as obesity has rocketed, there has been little change in physical activity levels in the Western population.2 This places the blame for our expanding waist lines directly on the type and amount of calories consumed. However, the obesity epidemic represents only the tip of a much larger iceberg of the adverse health consequences of poor diet. According to the Lancet global burden of disease reports, poor diet now generates more disease than physical inactivity, alcohol and smoking combined. Up to 40% of those with a normal body mass index will harbour metabolic abnormalities typically associated with obesity, which include hypertension, dyslipidaemia, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and cardiovascular disease.3 However, this is little appreciated by scientists, doctors, media writers and policymakers, despite the extensive scientific literature on the vulnerability of all ages and all sizes to lifestyle-related diseases.
Instead, members of the public are drowned by an unhelpful message about maintaining a ‘healthy weight’ through calorie counting, and many still wrongly believe that obesity is entirely due to lack of exercise. This false perception is rooted in the Food Industry's Public Relations machinery, which uses tactics chillingly similar to those of big tobacco. The tobacco industry successfully stalled government intervention for 50 years starting from when the first links between smoking and lung cancer were published. This sabotage was achieved using a ‘corporate playbook’ of denial, doubt, confusing the public and even buying the loyalty of bent scientists, at the cost of millions of lives.
Coca Cola, who spent $3.3 billion on advertising in 2013, pushes a message that ‘all calories count’; they associate their products with sport, suggesting it is ok to consume their drinks as long as you exercise. However science tells us this is misleading and wrong. It is where the calories come from that is crucial. Sugar calories promote fat storage and hunger. Fat calories induce fullness or ‘satiation’
The BBC reporting quotes one of the authors,
Dr Malhotra said: "An obese person does not need to do one iota of exercise to lose weight, they just need to eat less. My biggest concern is that the messaging that is coming to the public suggests you can eat what you like as long as you exercise.
"That is unscientific and wrong. You cannot outrun a bad diet."
The
BBC also asked for a comment from the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence and their spokesperson emphasized the need for a balanced diet combined with regular exercise for overall health, the authors of the editorial acknowledge these. They also asked the food industry's representatives who repeated the mantra:
Ian Wright, director general at Food and Drink Federation, said: "The benefits of physical activity aren't food industry hype or conspiracy, as suggested. A healthy lifestyle will include both a balanced diet and exercise."
He said the industry was encouraging a balanced diet by voluntarily providing clear on-pack nutrition information and offering products with extra nutrients and less salt, sugar and fat.
You will note neither of these "experts" addressed the question raised by the editorial which also charges that high fat rather than high carbohydrate diets are ideal for athletes, indeed high carbohydrate regimens are likely to cause more complications with type 2 diabetes later in life. Neither addressed was the question of the association by big food of high sugar products with sports. They have literally drunk the Gatorade!
The big lie of course is the claim that big food is promoting products that are part of that "balanced diet". Instead, at least in the UK, they are washing their hands of their responsibility by posting the nutritional details on their package in fairly simplistic forms and leaving it up to the consumer to deduce what to do and, indeed, to assess whether the package they are picking up in the store can form part of that "balanced diet".
Some of their information appears to be solely for the purpose of avoiding litigation. Packets of brazil nuts will carry an allergy warning "May contain nuts". It also does not help if, for example, you discover the information is given "per serving" and each pack of a ready to cook prepared food contains "2-3 servings". You will also find the nutritional values as "per 100 grams" and discover their "serving" consists of one oatcake (savory cracker) weighing 12.5 grams despite the picture on the pack showing a small piece of cheese on the top of two oatcakes. The crackers themselves are in plastic wrapped packs of 6, with 4 packs in a box.
Given the confusion these mixed messages give, it is hard to argue with the recommendations in the BJSM.
The public health messaging around diet and exercise, and their relationship to the epidemics of type 2 diabetes and obesity, has been corrupted by vested interests. Celebrity endorsements of sugary drinks, and the association of junk food and sport, must end. The ‘health halo’ legitimisation of nutritionally deficient products is misleading and unscientific. This manipulative marketing sabotages effective government interventions such as the introduction of sugary drink taxes or the banning of junk food advertising. Such marketing increases commercial profit at the cost of population health. The Centres of Disease Control health impact pyramid is clear. Changing the food environment—so that individuals’ choices about what to eat default to healthy options—will have a far greater impact on population health than counselling or education. Healthy choice must become the easy choice. Health clubs and gyms therefore also need to set an example by removing the sale of sugary drinks and junk food from their premises.