Should I limit how much fruit my child eats because it contains sugar?
This message has been fuelled by the 'sugar-free" movement, which demonises sugar with claims it's fattening and causes diabetes. The movement promotes arbitrary lists of foods to avoid, which often include kids' favourites such as bananas and berries.
But like many claims made by the diet industry, this one isn't backed by evidence.
Naturally occurring versus added sugars Sugar itself isn't inherently harmful, but the type of sugar kids eat can be.
The good news is whole fruits contain naturally occurring sugars that are healthy and provide kids with energy. Whole fruits are packed with vitamins and minerals needed for good health. This includes vitamins A, C, E, magnesium, zinc and folic acid. All fruits are suitable – bananas, berries, mandarins, apples and mangoes, to name just a few.
The insoluble fibre in fruit skins also helps kids stay regular, and the soluble fibre in fruit flesh helps keep their cholesterol in a healthy range, absorbing 'bad" cholesterol to reduce their long-term risk of stroke and heart disease.
Added sugars – which add calories but no nutritional value to kids' diets – are the 'bad" sugars and the ones to avoid. They're found in processed and ultra-processed foods kids crave, such as lollies, chocolates, cakes and soft drinks.
Added sugars are often added to seemingly healthy packaged foods, such as muesli bars. They're also hidden under 60-plus different names in ingredient lists, making them hard to spot.
Sugar, weight and diabetes risk There's no evidence backing claims that sugar directly causes diabetes.
Type 1 diabetes is an autoimmune disease that can't be prevented or cured and has no connection to sugar consumption. Type 2 diabetes is typically caused when we carry excess body weight, which stops the body from working efficiently, not sugar intake.
However, a diet high in added sugars – found in many processed, ultra-processed foods (for example, sweet and savoury packaged snacks) – can mean kids consume excess calories and gain unnecessary weight, which may increase their chance of developing type 2 diabetes as they get older.
On the other hand, research shows that kids who eat more fruit have less abdominal fat.
Research also shows fruit can reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes, with one study finding kids who ate 1.5 servings of fruit daily had a 36% lower risk of developing the disease.
Nutritional deficiencies A diet high in added sugars can also result in nutritional deficiencies.
Many processed foods offer low-to-no nutrition, which is why dietary guidelines recommend limiting them.
Kids filling up on these foods are less likely to eat vegetables, fruits, whole grains and lean meats, producing a diet lacking in fibre and other key nutrients needed for growth and development.
But these 'discretionary foods" make up one-third of Aussie kids' daily energy intake.
My advice? Give kids fruit in abundance There's no need to limit how much whole fruit kids eat – it's nutritious, filling and can protect their health. It's also going to fill them up and reduce their desire to scream out for the processed, packet food that is low in nutrition, and calorie-rich.
Just go easy on juiced and dried fruits because juicing leaves the goodness (the fibre) behind in the juicer, and drying strips fruits of their water content, making them easy to overconsume.
The nutritional guidelines recommend just two serves of fruit a day for those nine years of age and older, 1.5 serves from 4-8, one serve from 2–3, and half a serve from 1–2 years. But these guidelines are dated and need to be changed.
We do need to reduce kids' sugar consumption. But this needs to be achieved by reducing their intake of processed foods that contain added sugars, rather than fruit.
Added sugars aren't always easy to spot, so we should focus on reducing kids' consumption of processed and packet foods and teaching them to rely on fruit – 'nature's treats" – as a way to keep unhealthy sugars out of their diets. (The Conversation) NSA NSA
(This story has not been edited by News18 staff and is published from a syndicated news agency feed - PTI) view comments
First Published:
Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
15 hours ago
- News18
Contagion scale: which diseases spread fastest?
Agency: Bristol (UK), Aug 3 (The Conversation) When the COVID pandemic hit, many people turned to the eerily prescient film Contagion (2011) for answers – or at least for catharsis. Suddenly, its hypothetical plot felt all too real. Applauded for its scientific accuracy, the film offered more than suspense – it offered lessons. One scene in particular stands out. Kate Winslet's character delivers a concise lesson on the infectious power of various pathogens – explaining how they can be spread from our hands to the many objects we encounter each day – 'door knobs, water fountains, elevator buttons and each other". These everyday objects, known as fomites, can become silent vehicles for infection. She also considered how each infection is given a value called R0 (or R-nought) based on how many other people are likely to become infected from another. So, for an R0 of two, each infected patient will spread the disease to two others. Who will collectively then give it to four more. And so a breakout unfolds. The R0 measure indicates how an infection will spread in a population. If it's greater than one (as seen above), the outcome is disease spread. An R0 of one means the level of people being infected will remain stable, and if it's less than one, the disease will often die out with time. Circulating infections spread through a variety of routes and differ widely in how contagious they are. Some are transmitted via droplets or aerosols – such as those released through coughing or sneezing – while others spread through blood, insects (like ticks and mosquitoes), or contaminated food and water. But if we step back to think about how we can protect ourselves from developing an infectious disease, one important lesson is in understanding how they spread. And as we'll see, it's also a lesson in protecting others, not just ourselves. Here is a rundown of some of the most and least infectious diseases on the planet. In first place for most contagious is measles. Measles has made a resurgence globally in recent years, including in high-income countries like the UK and US. While several factors contribute to this trend, the primary cause is a decline in childhood vaccination rates. This drop has been driven by disruptions such as the COVID pandemic and global conflict, as well as the spread of misinformation about vaccine safety. The R0 number for measles is between 12 and 18. If you do the maths, two cycles of transmission from that first infected person could lead to 342 people catching the illness. That's a staggering number from just one patient – but luckily, the protective power of vaccination helps reduce the actual spread by lowering the number of people susceptible to infection. Measles is extraordinarily virulent, spreading through tiny airborne particles released during coughing or sneezing. It doesn't even require direct contact. It's so infectious that an unvaccinated person can catch the virus just by entering a room where an infected person was present two hours earlier. People can also be infectious and spread the virus before they develop symptoms or have any reason to isolate. Other infectious diseases with high R0 values include pertussis, or whooping cough (12 to 17), chickenpox (ten to 12), and COVID, which varies by subtype but generally falls between eight and 12. While many patients recover fully from these conditions, they can still lead to serious complications, including pneumonia, seizures, meningitis, blindness, and, in some cases, death. Low spread, high stakes At the other end of the spectrum, a lower infectivity rate doesn't mean a disease is any less dangerous. Take tuberculosis (TB), for example, which has an R0 ranging from less than one up to four. This range varies depending on local factors like living conditions and the quality of available healthcare. Caused by the bacterium] Mycobacterium tuberculosis, TB is also airborne but spreads more slowly, usually requiring prolonged close contact with someone with the active disease. Outbreaks tend to occur among people who share living spaces – such as families, households, and in shelters or prisons. The real danger with TB lies in how difficult it is to treat. Once established, it requires a combination of four antibiotics taken over a minimum of six months. Standard antibiotics like penicillin are ineffective, and the infection can spread beyond the lungs to other parts of the body, including the brain, bones, liver and joints. What's more, cases of drug-resistant TB are on the rise, where the bacteria no longer respond to one or more of the antibiotics used in treatment. Other diseases with lower infectivity include Ebola – which is highly fatal but spreads through close physical contact with bodily fluids. Its R0 ranges from 1.5 to 2.5. Diseases with the lowest R0 values – below one – include Middle East respiratory syndrome (Mers), bird flu and leprosy. While these infections are less contagious, their severity and potential complications should not be underestimated. The threat posed by any infectious disease depends not only on how it affects the body, but also on how easily it spreads. Preventative measures like immunisation play a vital role – not just in protecting people, but also in limiting transmission to those who cannot receive some vaccinations – such as infants, pregnant women and people with severe allergies or weakened immune systems. These individuals are also more vulnerable to infection in general. This is where herd immunity becomes essential. By achieving widespread immunity within the population, we help protect people who are most susceptible. (The Conversation) NSA NSA (This story has not been edited by News18 staff and is published from a syndicated news agency feed - PTI) view comments First Published: August 03, 2025, 09:45 IST News agency-feeds Contagion scale: which diseases spread fastest? Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
News18
15 hours ago
- News18
Peptides: performance-boosting, anti-ageing drugs or dangerous snake oil?
Lancaster (UK), Aug 3 (The Conversation) For a growing number of middle-aged men, ageing no longer means surrendering to sagging skin, sore joints or slowing metabolism. Instead, it's becoming a science experiment. The new frontier? Injectable peptides – experimental compounds that promise rapid recovery, fat loss and muscle gains with the ease of a twice-daily to weekly jab. Once confined to elite labs and obscure bodybuilding forums, these amino acid chains are now flooding wellness spaces, social media feeds and online marketplaces. Although they are marketed as 'next-generation biohacks" and 'research chemicals", many peptides are not approved for human use and lack basic clinical testing. Still, their popularity is growing – fuelled by testimonials, influencer hype and the seductive promise of turning back time. But beneath the surface of glossy marketing and fitness fantasies lies a far more sobering truth: many of these substances operate in a medical grey zone, with unknown long-term risks, questionable manufacturing standards, and in some cases, life-threatening side-effects. Peptides aren't entirely new to medicine. The first peptide drug – insulin – was isolated in 1921 and became commercially available in 1923. Today over 100 peptide medications are approved, including semaglutide – better known as Ozempic and Wegovy. The 'Wolverine stack' One such compound, first discovered in human gastric juice, that is attracting lots of attention is BPC-157. Early animal studies suggest it may help repair damaged tissue throughout the body. Researchers tested it on mice, rats, rabbits and dogs without finding serious side-effects. The compound appears to support healing of the tendons, teeth and digestive organs, including the stomach, intestines, liver and pancreas. Scientists don't yet fully understand how BPC-157 works, but animal studies suggest it triggers several biological processes essential for healing. The compound appears to help cells move to damaged areas and encourages the growth of new blood vessels, bringing nutrients and oxygen to tissues in need of repair. Another compound gaining attention is TB500. It is a synthetic version of thymosin beta-4, a naturally occurring protein fragment that plays an important role in repairing and regenerating damaged cells and tissues. It also helps protect cells from further harm by reducing inflammation and defending against microbes. The combination of BPC-157 and TB500 has earned the nickname 'the Wolverine stack", named after the Marvel superhero famous for his rapid healing. Then there's IGF-1 LR3, a modified version of a natural protein (IGF-1) linked to muscle growth. This synthetic compound was shown to increase muscle mass by 2.5 times in animal studies, though it has never been studied in humans. The limited human research that does exist for these compounds offers inconclusive results. For example, a study showed that over 90% of patients experienced reduced knee pain after BPC-157 injections. However, the study had no control group and several methodological issues, so the results should be viewed with caution. Hidden dangers Even though the early results seem exciting, these experimental compounds can be dangerous. Making them involves special chemicals called coupling agents, which can trigger serious allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis – a life-threatening condition. The health consequences extend well beyond allergic reactions. Long-term injection of performance-enhancing substances can lead to heart failure that can occur rapidly with little warning, as documented in recent medical case studies of young bodybuilders. Injection-related injuries pose another significant threat. 'Compartment syndrome" can develop at injection sites in leg muscles, causing numbness, blood clots and muscle spasms that result in permanent loss of function. In severe cases, skin and underlying tissue can suffer necrosis (tissue death), requiring antibiotics or surgery to treat. More alarming still are reports of users contracting HIV, hepatitis B and C, and serious eye infections from contaminated injections. These compounds don't just target muscles – they affect the entire body in ways scientists are only beginning to understand. Some interfere with natural insulin production, while others activate biological pathways that healthy cells use for growth and repair. The concern is that these same pathways are exploited by cancer cells. The VEGF pathway, which promotes blood vessel growth, is active in about half of all human cancers, including melanoma and ovarian cancer. Laboratory studies suggest that thymosin beta-4 may play a role in helping colorectal and pancreatic cancers spread. While there's no direct evidence linking compounds like BPC-157 or TB500 to cancer, researchers emphasise that the long-term effects remain unknown because these substances have never undergone proper human trials. The World Anti-Doping Agency has banned these compounds, noting they lack approval from any health regulatory authority and are intended only as research tools. A growing problem Yet their use appears to be spreading rapidly. A 2014 study found that 8.2% of gym members used performance-enhancing drugs. By 2024, a comprehensive review suggested the figure could be as high as 29%. Perhaps most concerning: only 38% of users recognised the health risks involved. These experimental compounds represent a dangerous gamble with long-term health. Unlike approved drugs, they haven't undergone the rigorous testing required to understand their safety profile in humans. While they may promise enhanced performance and healing, they deliver it at a cost that users may not fully understand until it's too late. The appeal is understandable – who wouldn't want faster healing and better muscle tone? But the reality is these substances remain experimental for good reason. Until proper human trials are conducted, users are essentially volunteering as test subjects in an uncontrolled experiment with their own bodies. (The Conversation) NSA NSA (This story has not been edited by News18 staff and is published from a syndicated news agency feed - PTI) view comments First Published: August 03, 2025, 09:30 IST News agency-feeds Peptides: performance-boosting, anti-ageing drugs or dangerous snake oil? Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
News18
5 days ago
- News18
Should I limit how much fruit my child eats because it contains sugar?
Sydney, Jul 30 (The Conversation) Parents are often told fruit is 'bad" because it contains sugar, prompting concerns about how much fruit they should allow their child to eat. This message has been fuelled by the 'sugar-free" movement, which demonises sugar with claims it's fattening and causes diabetes. The movement promotes arbitrary lists of foods to avoid, which often include kids' favourites such as bananas and berries. But like many claims made by the diet industry, this one isn't backed by evidence. Naturally occurring versus added sugars Sugar itself isn't inherently harmful, but the type of sugar kids eat can be. The good news is whole fruits contain naturally occurring sugars that are healthy and provide kids with energy. Whole fruits are packed with vitamins and minerals needed for good health. This includes vitamins A, C, E, magnesium, zinc and folic acid. All fruits are suitable – bananas, berries, mandarins, apples and mangoes, to name just a few. The insoluble fibre in fruit skins also helps kids stay regular, and the soluble fibre in fruit flesh helps keep their cholesterol in a healthy range, absorbing 'bad" cholesterol to reduce their long-term risk of stroke and heart disease. Added sugars – which add calories but no nutritional value to kids' diets – are the 'bad" sugars and the ones to avoid. They're found in processed and ultra-processed foods kids crave, such as lollies, chocolates, cakes and soft drinks. Added sugars are often added to seemingly healthy packaged foods, such as muesli bars. They're also hidden under 60-plus different names in ingredient lists, making them hard to spot. Sugar, weight and diabetes risk There's no evidence backing claims that sugar directly causes diabetes. Type 1 diabetes is an autoimmune disease that can't be prevented or cured and has no connection to sugar consumption. Type 2 diabetes is typically caused when we carry excess body weight, which stops the body from working efficiently, not sugar intake. However, a diet high in added sugars – found in many processed, ultra-processed foods (for example, sweet and savoury packaged snacks) – can mean kids consume excess calories and gain unnecessary weight, which may increase their chance of developing type 2 diabetes as they get older. On the other hand, research shows that kids who eat more fruit have less abdominal fat. Research also shows fruit can reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes, with one study finding kids who ate 1.5 servings of fruit daily had a 36% lower risk of developing the disease. Nutritional deficiencies A diet high in added sugars can also result in nutritional deficiencies. Many processed foods offer low-to-no nutrition, which is why dietary guidelines recommend limiting them. Kids filling up on these foods are less likely to eat vegetables, fruits, whole grains and lean meats, producing a diet lacking in fibre and other key nutrients needed for growth and development. But these 'discretionary foods" make up one-third of Aussie kids' daily energy intake. My advice? Give kids fruit in abundance There's no need to limit how much whole fruit kids eat – it's nutritious, filling and can protect their health. It's also going to fill them up and reduce their desire to scream out for the processed, packet food that is low in nutrition, and calorie-rich. Just go easy on juiced and dried fruits because juicing leaves the goodness (the fibre) behind in the juicer, and drying strips fruits of their water content, making them easy to overconsume. The nutritional guidelines recommend just two serves of fruit a day for those nine years of age and older, 1.5 serves from 4-8, one serve from 2–3, and half a serve from 1–2 years. But these guidelines are dated and need to be changed. We do need to reduce kids' sugar consumption. But this needs to be achieved by reducing their intake of processed foods that contain added sugars, rather than fruit. Added sugars aren't always easy to spot, so we should focus on reducing kids' consumption of processed and packet foods and teaching them to rely on fruit – 'nature's treats" – as a way to keep unhealthy sugars out of their diets. (The Conversation) NSA NSA (This story has not been edited by News18 staff and is published from a syndicated news agency feed - PTI) view comments First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
