What cream biscuits do to your body: Trans fats, additives, and more
But beneath their sweet, comforting flavour lies a mix of ultra-processed ingredients that could be doing more harm than good. Loaded with refined flour, artificial flavours, trans fats, and added sugars, cream biscuits offer little to no nutrition and yet they're widely consumed across age groups. Regular snacking on them may feel harmless at the moment, but over time, it can take a toll on your heart, metabolism, and overall health.
So what exactly do cream biscuits do to your body? Let's break it down.
Cream biscuits contain hidden trans fats and hydrogenated oils
Most cream biscuits use hydrogenated vegetable oils or vanaspati in the cream layer. These ingredients often contain trans fats, which are linked to heart disease. According to
Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
, trans fats not only raise LDL (bad) cholesterol but also lower HDL (good) cholesterol, increasing the risk of heart attacks and strokes. Even when the label says 'zero trans fat,' small amounts may still be present and can build up quickly if eaten regularly.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
We Have No Words For Dog The Bounty Hunter's Transformation
Cash Roadster
Undo
Cream biscuits are ultra-processed and nutritionally empty
Cream biscuits are classic ultra‑processed foods, designed more for convenience and indulgence than nourishment. They're typically loaded with additives, refined sugars, and artificial flavours, and completely lack real fiber, protein, or vitamins. In essence, they deliver empty calories without keeping you full or fueling your body well. According to a 2025 study in
BMC Public Health
, higher intake of ultra-processed foods (including items like cream biscuits or prepackaged sweet snacks) is significantly linked to major health risks, including obesity and type 2 diabetes. The study estimates that for every 10% increase in energy from ultra-processed foods, the risk of developing type 2 diabetes rises by about 13%, while the obesity risk increases by around 5%
Cream biscuits are high in sugar and artificial additives
That sweet filling isn't just sugar, it's often a mix of refined sugar, palm oil, stabilisers, and flavouring agents. The
American Heart Association
warns that added sugars can contribute to insulin resistance, chronic inflammation, and liver stress.
Some cream biscuits also include artificial colours and flavours that may be linked to hyperactivity in children and poor metabolic health when consumed regularly.
Cream biscuits cause blood sugar spikes and energy crashes
Because they're made with refined flour and sugar, cream biscuits digest rapidly and spike your blood sugar. This leads to a short burst of energy, followed by a sharp crash making you feel tired, irritable, and hungry soon after. Over time, these spikes can stress your insulin response and increase the risk of prediabetes or fatigue-related issues.
Cream biscuits contribute to long-term health risks
Eating cream biscuits regularly may increase your chances of:
Weight gain and belly fat
Poor cholesterol profile
Insulin resistance
Fatty liver
Hormonal imbalances
Increased cravings for more processed snacks
While the occasional biscuit won't harm you, daily or frequent intake adds up quickly, especially when combined with a sedentary lifestyle or other processed foods.
Should you stop eating cream biscuits entirely?
Not necessarily. You don't have to cut them out forever but moderation is essential. If you crave something sweet, try these healthier swaps:
Whole grain crackers with nut butter
Dark chocolate (70% or more)
Fruits with yogurt
Homemade granola bites
These options give you the taste, texture, and satisfaction, without the long-term risks.
Also read|
Fruits the world can't stop eating- Top 7 most consumed fruits globally
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
17 minutes ago
- Time of India
The best time to take omega-3s to support brain, heart, and joint health
Are there any 'good fats' that might be essential to our bodies, instead of causing a ruckus? Enter, omega-3 fatty acids! Omega-3 fatty acids are known as 'good fats' for a reason; found in foods like fish, flaxseeds, and walnuts, and are also widely available as supplements, they play a big role in keeping your brain sharp, heart healthy, and joints flexible. But one question many people ask is: When is the best time to take omega-3 supplements for maximum benefits? Morning? Night? With food or on an empty stomach? It's important that we know the answer to this frequently asked question, because the timing can affect how your body absorbs these healthy fats and how well they work. What are omega-3 fatty acids? Omega-3 fatty acids are a type of polyunsaturated fat that is essential for human health. The body can't produce them on its own, so they must be obtained through diet. They play crucial roles in various bodily functions, particularly in brain and heart health. The three main types of omega-3s are: ALA (Alpha-linolenic acid): Found in plant foods like flaxseeds and walnuts EPA (Eicosapentaenoic acid): Found in fatty fish, helps with heart and joint health DHA (Docosahexaenoic acid): Also found in fish, supports brain and eye health Together, these fats help reduce inflammation, lower blood pressure, improve mood, and support memory and mobility. So… When's the best time to take omega-3s ? Technically, there's no one 'perfect' time for everyone, but studies and expert recommendations suggest a few helpful guidelines. First things first: always take omega-3s with food, preferably with fats. Omega-3s are fat-soluble, which means they are best absorbed when taken with food that contains fat. A study found that omega-3 absorption doubled when taken with a high-fat meal compared to a low-fat one. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like This new air conditioner cools down a room in just seconds News of the Discovery Undo Best practice: Take omega-3 supplements with breakfast, lunch, or dinner, whichever includes healthy fats like avocado, nuts, eggs, or olive oil. Morning vs. night: Does it matter (and if so, how)? While no major study says you must take omega-3s at a specific time of day, your personal goals can help guide you: For general health: Morning or lunch works well, especially if that's when you eat your biggest, most balanced meal. For joint pain or stiffness: Taking it at night may reduce overnight inflammation and help you wake up with less stiffness. For heart health and cholesterol: Some research suggests that evening dosing may help improve lipid profiles better since cholesterol production in the liver peaks at night. Best practice: Choose the time of day you're most likely to take it consistently with a proper meal. Evening dosing may offer additional benefits for joint and heart health. Split your dose Why? For better absorption and fewer side effects. If you're taking a higher dose of omega-3s (such as 1000–2000 mg or more per day), experts often recommend splitting the total into two smaller doses: one in the morning and one in the evening. This improves absorption and may reduce common side effects like fishy burps or mild digestive discomfort. Best practice: Take half your omega-3 dose with breakfast, and the other half with dinner. Consistency > perfect timing When it comes to omega-3 fatty acids, consistency is just as important as timing. The benefits of omega-3s, like reducing inflammation or improving cognitive health, build up over time. Taking your omega-3 at the same time each day: Helps create a healthy habit Keeps omega-3 levels stable in your blood Improves long-term heart and brain health Reduces inflammation more effectively Think of omega-3s like brushing your teeth. It doesn't matter as much when you do it—just that you do it regularly. Best practice: Choose a time that's easy to remember, like breakfast or dinner, and make it part of your daily routine. Get the best of omega-3s What to boost your omega-3 absorption? Choose high-quality supplements: Look for omega-3s that come as triglycerides or re-esterified triglycerides, which are more bioavailable than cheaper ethyl ester forms. Choose a supplement with high EPA + DHA content and tested for purity (look for IFOS or USP certification). Store properly: Omega-3 oils can go bad if exposed to light and heat. Keep them in a cool, dark place, or even the refrigerator. Check for added vitamin E: This helps prevent oxidation and keeps the oil fresh. Try odor-free or enteric-coated options if you dislike the aftertaste or experience reflux. Talk to your doctor: Especially if you're taking blood thinners or other medications. Whether you're taking omega-3s to protect your heart, sharpen your mind, or ease joint pain, how and when you take them can make a big difference over time. Build the habit, eat healthy fats, and give your body the boost it needs to stay strong and balanced. This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a healthcare professional or your doctor before starting any new supplement, including omega-3s, especially if you have existing medical conditions or are taking medication. Individual needs and responses may vary. Surprising health benefits of eating fish for overall well-being
Time of India
33 minutes ago
- Time of India
Promising HIV cure could be achieved through children: Decade long tests reveal
New evidence from global HIV research suggests that the first widespread cure for HIV may be possible in children who receive antiretroviral therapy (ART) early in life. Pediatrician and immunologist Philip Goulder from the University of Oxford , working with researchers in South Africa, found that a small subset of HIV-infected infants treated soon after birth can suppress the virus to undetectable levels and maintain remission without ongoing medication for extended periods. After tracking several hundred children infected through mother-to-child transmission , Goulder's team was astonished to find five children who had stopped ART yet showed no viral rebound even after months off medicine, defying the typical two to three weeks it takes for HIV to return when treatment is interrupted. One child maintained remission for an unprecedented 17 months. These children's immune systems appear uniquely capable of controlling HIV independently, a phenomenon not seen in adults despite decades of research. Productivity Tool Zero to Hero in Microsoft Excel: Complete Excel guide By Metla Sudha Sekhar View Program Finance Introduction to Technical Analysis & Candlestick Theory By Dinesh Nagpal View Program Finance Financial Literacy i e Lets Crack the Billionaire Code By CA Rahul Gupta View Program Digital Marketing Digital Marketing Masterclass by Neil Patel By Neil Patel View Program Finance Technical Analysis Demystified- A Complete Guide to Trading By Kunal Patel View Program Productivity Tool Excel Essentials to Expert: Your Complete Guide By Study at home View Program Artificial Intelligence AI For Business Professionals Batch 2 By Ansh Mehra View Program According to Alfredo Tagarro, a pediatrician at the Infanta Sofia University Hospital in Madrid, children living with HIV have often been overlooked in the effort to develop treatments that can achieve permanent remission. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Villas For Sale in Dubai Might Surprise You Villas In Dubai | Search Ads Get Quote Undo Since 2007, about 10 adults are believed to have been cured of HIV through stem cell transplants intended to treat life-threatening blood cancers. While these procedures successfully eradicated the virus, their complexity and significant risks—including several patient deaths—make them an impractical approach for targeting HIV specifically. At the 2025 International AIDS Society conference in Kigali, additional data showed approximately 5% of HIV-positive children initiating ART within six months of birth could reduce the viral reservoir—genetic material of the virus hidden in cells—to negligible levels. Pediatric experts attribute children's more dynamic immune systems and fewer health complications as factors that may enable this early cure. Mark Cotton of the University of Stellenbosch emphasized children's suitability for curative therapies compared to adults with comorbidities. Live Events Building on these insights, Goulder has launched a new study involving 19 South African children who have suppressed HIV reservoirs under ART. He plans to carefully discontinue treatment and monitor how many keep the virus suppressed long-term. Early results show six children maintaining remission for more than 18 months without drugs. Boys may have an immunological advantage in controlling HIV due to innate immune system differences. Cutting-edge experimental treatments are also being explored in children, including gene therapy designed to make muscle cells continuously produce broadly neutralizing antibodies (bNAbs). This one-time therapy could protect infants in high-prevalence regions by preventing HIV transmission from birth or breastfeeding. Research in newborn monkeys highlights a critical early window post-birth when gene therapy is most effective, potentially revolutionizing pediatric HIV care in resource-limited settings. Despite recent funding setbacks, researchers remain optimistic. Combining ART with bNAbs, vaccines, and gene therapies may jointly corner and eliminate the virus, similar to successful pediatric leukemia treatments. While children represent a minority of global HIV cases, a cure in this group could provide the blueprint for universal HIV eradication strategies. The global impact could be profound: about 1.7 million children worldwide live with HIV, many in low-income countries where lifelong ART adherence is challenging. An effective cure would drastically reduce the health and social burdens of pediatric HIV and pave the way for transforming HIV from a chronic condition into a curable disease. This breakthrough marks a historic turning point in the decades-long fight against HIV, with children potentially leading the route to a cure and offering hope for millions affected worldwide.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Explained: Presidential Fitness Test, why Obama scrapped it and Trump brought it back to schools
(AP Photo/John McDonnell) In the storied annals of American school life, few memories are as unifying or divisive as the Presidential Fitness Test. For decades, it was the gym class rite of passage: Mile runs timed to the second, push-ups counted with unwavering scrutiny, sit-and-reach stretches measuring flexibility like a litmus test of youth. But by 2012, the very programme that once symbolised national strength had quietly disappeared from schools across the country. Now, more than a decade later, President Donald Trump has revived it, and with it, a cultural debate over health, discipline, and the meaning of fitness in America. The rise and fall of a national ritual Introduced under President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1956, the Presidential Fitness Test was born out of Cold War anxieties. A government-sponsored study had revealed that American children were falling behind their European peers in basic physical competency, a revelation so startling that Sports Illustrated called it 'The Report That Shocked the President.' Eisenhower responded by launching the President's Council on Youth Fitness, positioning physical readiness as a matter of national pride and preparedness. Later, under President John F. Kennedy, the programme took on moral and even patriotic dimensions. In his now-famous Sports Illustrated essay, 'The Soft American,' Kennedy warned that the nation's declining physical standards were a threat to its very fabric. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 20 Unforgettable Cars from the Past Undo Successive presidents followed suit, and the test became a nationwide benchmark, awarding badges, patches, and certificates to students who performed in the top percentiles. By the early 2000s, however, the test had become increasingly controversial. Though it was designed to inspire excellence, many educators and child health experts began to see it as a flawed, outdated measure, one that privileged athleticism over wellness and often shamed students who struggled to meet its rigid standards. Why Obama phased it out In 2012, the Obama administration made a decisive break with the past. The Presidential Fitness Test was formally retired and replaced by the Presidential Youth Fitness Program, a reimagined, data-driven model focused on personal growth rather than competition. The shift reflected a broader evolution in public health thinking. Rather than spotlighting top performers, the new programme emphasised 'personal bests' and long-term well-being. Using the FitnessGram assessment, it evaluated students on metrics like aerobic capacity, body composition, and muscular endurance — but in a way designed to reduce peer comparison and performance pressure. 'The new program has moved away from recognizing athletic performance to providing a barometer on student's health,' the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) noted at the time. It was a deliberate move toward inclusivity, particularly for students with disabilities, varying body types, or low baseline fitness. In Obama's vision, the goal was not to cultivate elite athletes, but to instill lifelong habits of physical activity. Health experts widely supported the change, citing research that early exposure to high-pressure physical tests could contribute to anxiety, body image issues, and disengagement from exercise altogether. At a time when mental health and inclusivity were gaining currency in education policy, the Obama administration's decision appeared both timely and humane. Trump's revival : A new battle for the body But in 2025, President Trump has brought the Presidential Fitness Test back, with all its original rigour, symbolism, and competitive edge. The decision, delivered via executive order, is part of the Trump administration's broader campaign to address what it calls 'crisis levels' of obesity, inactivity, and poor nutrition among American youth. The move follows a blistering report released in May by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., which warned that rates of childhood chronic diseases, from diabetes to depression, are accelerating at an alarming pace due to sedentary lifestyles. 'This was a wonderful tradition, and we're bringing it back,' Trump said at the signing ceremony. His new order revives the test's iconic components, the mile run, push-ups, sit-ups, and flexibility tests, and reinstates the Presidential Physical Fitness Award for top performers. In addition, the President's Council on Sports, Fitness, and Nutrition, now chaired by professional golfer Bryson DeChambeau, has been tasked with designing new award criteria and school programmes to incentivize excellence in physical education. For Trump, the decision is not just about health, it's about national character. By reviving a programme steeped in Cold War ethos and competitive spirit, the administration aims to instill discipline, resilience, and what Vice President J.D. Vance called a 'culture of strength.' A divided response The move has drawn mixed reactions. Supporters see it as a long-overdue wake-up call. They argue that a standardized national test can restore accountability in physical education, motivate students, and promote a shared benchmark of health excellence. Secretary Kennedy, who called the award 'a huge item of pride' in his own youth, believes the revived programme can reawaken a culture of active living. But critics warn that the return to percentile rankings and fixed physical benchmarks could alienate students who don't, or physically can't, meet the standards. Mental health advocates caution that such public assessments can heighten performance anxiety and fuel body image issues in increasingly vulnerable age groups. Educators, too, are concerned about implementation logistics and the risk of fostering a punitive environment in the name of fitness. A question of ideology At its core, the debate over the Presidential Fitness Test is about more than push-ups. It's about what America expects from its children, and what it believes schools should teach them. The Obama-era programme privileged equity, customization, and well-being. The Trump revival favors discipline, measurable excellence, and the revival of a competitive, athletic ethos. In many ways, this tug-of-war reflects a deeper philosophical divide, one between public health as empowerment and public health as personal responsibility. And as with so many debates in modern America, the gymnasium has become yet another battlefield in a wider cultural war. Whether this revival will succeed in changing health outcomes, or simply reignite old debates remains to be seen. But one thing is certain: the Presidential Fitness Test is no longer just a measure of physical ability. It's a symbol of who we were, who we are, and who we hope to be. Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!
