Fat Vs. Sugar

Both Have Been Demonised, Both Have Been Celebrated. So Which Macro Is the Real Villain Crushing All Our Health and Body Composition Goals?

- Hilary Simmons

HISTORICALLY EVIL

In the ’80s, low-fat diets reigned supreme. A dieter’s ideal breakfast consisted of half a grapefruit – thought to contain fat-dissolving enzymes – and a cup of black coffee. Full-fat milk was eschewed, supermarket shelves were stacked sky-high with low-fat yoghurts, spreads and desserts, and fat was commonly perceived as public enemy number one.

The hysteria surrounding fat began building in the 1950s, when cholesterol was declared the nemesis of good health, and reached fever pitch in 1977 when American health authorities encouraged low-fat diets. However, by the ’90s, research had debunked many of the ideas informing such guidelines and the healthy fats found in vegetables such as olives and in fish such as salmon were found to actually protect against heart disease. Fat began to make a comeback, while sugar was exposed as the real villain behind unwanted weight gain – particularly when consumed in processed foods containing refined sugars such as sucrose. Sugar has been indicted as the leading culprit in virtually all modern Western maladies.

But is sugar really the threat to our health it’s made out to be? And with so much ongoing debate about ‘good’ fat vs ‘bad’ fat, not to mention ‘good’ cholesterol vs ‘bad’ cholesterol, should we really feel confident about welcoming fat back into our diet? After all – it’s not so long ago that we were convinced fat made us fat and sugar was simply our sweet friend.

CUTTING THE FAT