Toxicity as a concept is entirely defined by dose. Bleach is not toxic if you take a small enough dose. Conversely, water is toxic if you drink too much of it.
Unfortunately toxic, like so many other of our perfectly good scientific words, has been hijacked by quacks trying to deprive the credulous of their money.
True enough, but people should know how much bleach and water is needed to hurt themselves; death and/or pain provides immediate feedback. The problem with sugar is that the benefits are so immediate and the drawbacks so distant that it requires a strong will to avoid.
The problem is that the question "Is sugar toxic?" is inherently meaningless. Bandying the word around like this in a publication like the NYT dilutes public understanding of the issue.
Scientifically responsible journalists would have chosen an accurate term to discuss the issue rather than shooting for maximum emotional impact.
Hmmmm. You're right. That is pretty obvious. I feel kinda silly now.
I tend to be on a bit of a hair trigger over the use of words like toxic by nutritionists, because so often they turn out to be graduates of degree mills, pedalling patent medicines via press release reprinting churnalists.
This guy seems to check out however, even if he is a bit absolutist.
That's cool; I actually appreciated your insight in the top comment. It is meaningless to say sugar is toxic or not toxic. The important question is at what level does it become toxic, which is almost certainly less than what we consume now but surely greater than zero (I hope so anyway -- zero strikes me as both impractical and not very tasty).
Technically, you don't even need a degree in anything relevant to nutrition to call yourself a nutritionist. Dietitian on the other hand comes with more accreditation. For that reason, dietitians often refer to themselves as dietitians rather than nutritionists because it's more distinguished. I err towards suspicion when someone refers to himself/herself as simply a "nutritionist".
The thesis being true or not is beside the point - yes, America eats too much sugar. Probably. But the problem about articles like this, and other campaigns to curb "bad eating habits" (like New York City's vendetta against salt and soda) is that it promotes a negative attitude towards food and eating, which feeds the cycle of abuse towards food and towards self esteem, instead of going deeper into the root of the problem itself. Any recovering food addict will tell you that the first thing you learn in rehab is to relearn your attitude towards food. What if, on the subway, people read signs that said "Eat well! Eat what you want! Thumbs Up!" instead of "You're going to die of diabetes if you don't stop eating sugar in toxic amounts"? Of course, that's an over reductive analogy - but my point is that it's not the American Diet that needs change, it is the American Attitude Towards Food that is desperately dysfunctional.
Humans have a problem with those sort of issues. Furthermore when surrounded by pretty much everything sugar, its kind of hard to avoid. Imagine if we were to find out tomorrow that people who use facebook are 60% likely to die of a seizure caused directly by facebook within the next 50 years. And we find out by a vague hard to prove no direct correlation study. Would be pretty hard to convince everyone you know to stop using facebook. What if it's too late? Etc.
You actually gain weight immediately, due to the conservation of mass. Eat an ounce of sugar (or anything else) and you gain an ounce, until you poop it out. You just don't feel it because the amounts involved at any given meal is small. But if you ate 10 lb of sugar at one meal... you'd definitely feel the consequences.
The dose is discussed in the article. The hypothesis is that 90 pounds of added sugars per person per year is toxic (current levels of consumption). 40 pounds per person per year is supposed to be ok.
Quacks selling books certainly want to take money from people wishing they could be thinner (but who are unwilling to eat less and exercise more).
(Another variant is selling books telling you "it's not your fault you are fat." I haven't read it, but the impression I get from people who have is that Gary Taubes book falls into this category.)
It's time you give in and read the primary materials. As someone who has read both the major Taubes books, I am yet to see you successfully characterize his arguments. Please note I did not say "successfully attack his arguments", because that is something else; characterizing them correctly is a necessary first step. You think you understand them, but when you try to explain them to someone else you are wrong about them. Again, I am not saying that the arguments Taubes makes are right or wrong, I am saying I have not yet seen you correctly explain them.
That is not an adequate summary of the latest Gary Taubes book, which is, well, exactly what the title says. If there is something you can "do" about it it's hardly "not your fault" now, is it?
He's not a quack. There are a lot of people who want you to think he's a quack, but he's not. He may not be right but he is certainly not a quack. For that matter if he's a quack in his latest book for suggesting that the science of endocrinology should be taken seriously on the topic of how fat works, then the entire science of endocrinology is quackery. (Incidentally, I mean literally "how fat works"; not "how one becomes obese" but the actual workings of what fat cells take for input, what they give as output, and what affects the two, all of it coming from endocrinology.)
I don't claim to know much about Taubes, nor did I claim to characterize his arguments. Perhaps you noticed that I explicitly disclaimed any direct knowledge of his book?
My only direct knowledge of him is reading one of his blog posts and finding it very misleading, attempting to make a reducto ad absurdum against the standard calories in/calories out theory while ignoring about 90% of the calories in. Not exactly a compelling reason to shell out $11 and hours of my time on his book.
Here's a reason: Based on reading your other posts, I think you may be very surprised and end up liking his writing. Taubes' science writing is the best I've ever encountered. (And no, that's not because it's the only science writing I've ever encountered, not by a long shot.) Whether he ends up right or wrong in the end, you can not accuse him of not having done his homework, especially in GCBC. I won't guarantee it will convince you, but I am asserting to you that you have misjudged him very badly and I have only rarely seen people show their work more thoroughly, and that only in PhD theses. (That said about the depth of GCBC, start with the latest one. It's shorter and sharper.)
Good Calories, Bad Calories (by Taubes) is none of those things. It is not a diet book, it is a book about diet. Any layman who picks it up to read it will almost immediately put it down due to the very dense text full of medical jargon. I thought it was a very thought provoking book. I really don't know how one is going to become insanely rich by pedaling a book like that.
This does not say "its not your fault" its more of "its not your fault for being ignorant to the harm of sugar, but its still up to you to watch what you eat".
Its like saying "its not your fault, smoking is addictive"... thats right, its addictive, and now that you know its killing you and has no benefit, you as a rational human being need to put yourself in a position where you can quit by destroying your cigs and forcing everyone you know to never permit you of smoking, and ensure you are not even if you try to hide it, and give you shit if they smell it, etc. there are ways, there is help, but its still the responsibility of the person no matter who's fault it is.
I'm guessing the gp was referring to the many "detox" programs, which claim to remove unnamed "toxins" from the body through fasting, eating raw food, lots of pooping, etc.
I was amused when I realized that any substance with nonzero mass is "toxic" in sufficiently large amounts (even if, say, it gets removed from your body as fast as you ingest it): enough of it will collapse into a black hole that swallows you up.
Lustig does a fantastic job explaining the cellular processes at work, which appealed to my engineering side. I'm not usually passionate about biochemistry and this lecture is definitely long, but if you make it through the first 15 minutes you will be hooked.
I came to say the same thing. I'm at Minute #50 of 90 - but my mind has been blown about six ways from Sunday right now. He's an excellent speaker and this stuff is phenomenally interesting.
I am one of those people who is hard to convince to watch something, so if there is anybody else out there reading this comment thread and wondering if you should watch that video - please do.
It is informative in parts, and his style is excellent, but watch if with an open mind and a pinch of skepticism
Thanks. I watched the video only after reading your comment. I found something new about fructose so it was worth it. I personally am turned off by his presentation style. He tries to hard to convince me of his conclusion, too rhetorically and indeed before he had presented his reasons. Nevertheless I feel that the theory of what he presented is pretty much right and the only question appears to be to what degree you agree with his conclusions.
"In Lustig’s view, sugar should be thought of, like cigarettes and alcohol, as something that’s killing us."
I don't smoke, but I do drink alcohol in moderated amounts, and I'd disagree that alcohol is "killing us" [1], and feel that even if it were proved beyond a doubt that alcohol monotonically decreases lifespan, it helps make life enjoyable enough to be worth it. The same is true for processed sugar, in moderate amounts (though I'd take a ripe honeycrisp apple over a twinkie any day).
He's not so much saying that sugar in general is killing us. He's arguing that the way we're consuming it now (both volume and generally isolated from fiber/other nutrients) is what's killing us.
I think all addictive drugs that decrease lifespan seem worth it to the person doing it. Ask a crackhead if crack is worth dying for and he'll say "hell yes" -- then rob you.
The same description applies to following a sedentary lifestyle, participating in risky sports (like skiing), living in a city, and being single. All the more reason to let adults with free will do what they want with their lives.
I can't find a link now, but I remember some research being done that had runners in a lab swish a sucrose solution in their mouths and then spit it out. They ran longer than the control group who got artificial sweetener. So something happens to your metabolism before the sugar is digested, and no one has studied how tasting sucrose might be different from tasting HFCS. It's just weird and complicated :)
Artificial sweetener doesn't strike me as solid enough for a control. How could you know the effect wasn't in fact the artificial sweetener negatively affecting the "control"? Or some combination of the two?
Your link doesn't actually mention what the placebo was, though.
A different study, but I think it's similar: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2683964/ "The placebo (PLA) mouth rinse solution was made from 150 ml of a commercially available non-caloric concentrate sweetened with aspartame and saccharin (Robinsons Soft Drinks Ltd, UK) diluted to 1000 ml with water. The GLU mouth rinse contained 64 g glucose (Roquette, France) per 1000 ml of the same solution. The MALT mouth rinse contained 64 g maltodextrin (Roquette, France) per 1000 ml of the same solution. The strong artificial sweetness reduced any sensory clues that subjects might use to consciously differentiate between the GLU, MALT and PLA mouth rinses."
I used to pop Rolaids for heartburn like crazy. I did this for years, until I was actually developing a toxic reaction to the Rolaids and I began trying other ways to control my heartburn.
I finally discovered that sugar (and alcohol) were my biggest contributors. So for me, sugar is definitely toxic. Now that I limit my sugar, I go weeks without heartburn, and when I do get it, it's usually because I had some beer or wine the previous day.
Based on this experience, I was interested that he talked about the fructose being removed by the liver (as alcohol is). I probably have some liver issue. This article has led me to a new avenue of research. In the meantime, I am a believer in limiting sugar intake.
You might be interested in Lustig's lecture on YouTube then. About 2/3 of the way through he goes into how HFCS is processed in the brain. In short, you get many of the disadvantages of alcohol, without the pleasant side-effects.
"Because each of these sugars ends up as glucose and fructose in our guts, our bodies react the same way to both, and the physiological effects are identical."
I find this statement, as written, to be almost willfully misleading. In sucrose, the glucose and fructose molecules are bound by an acetal bond, which must first be broken. The bond is broken with water, which donates a hydroxide to the fructose molecule (and a hydrogen to the glucose, of course).
With HFCS 55, the fructose and glucose are unbound, so the fructose molecule can be absorbed without first being "broken off" and slightly changed via hydrolysis.
This almost certainly affects the metabolization of the fructose.
I suspect Lustig knows that (notwithstanding the fact he says something similar in his lecture, and Taubes repeats it), but decided it's not important for his thesis. Or, at the very least, he doesn't want to wade into the sucrose/HFCS debate. Evidently, he thinks the fructose is sufficiently available in both to be problematic. I'd be super interested in your wife thought something different. I suspect Lustig would too.
Does this really matter? It's going to end up being essentially totally absorbed either way, I would think. Otherwise you'd be passing sweet candy poops every time you ate sucrose.
Anyone who has questions has the option of posing them directly to Gary himself. The NYT has a Q&A that's open for a few days. Looks like he has already started responding.
In animals, or at least in laboratory rats and mice, it’s clear that if the fructose hits the liver in sufficient quantity and with sufficient speed, the liver will convert much of it to fat. This apparently induces a condition known as insulin resistance, which is now considered the fundamental problem in obesity, and the underlying defect in heart disease and in the type of diabetes, type 2, that is common to obese and overweight individuals. It might also be the underlying defect in many cancers.
I've seen this liver-cancer connection in other places, such as Chinese Traditional Medicine and Italian folk medicine. Interesting to see it cropping up here.
Here's my (somewhat childish and Bioshock-ish) response along the lines of Shaw's "The reasonable man adapts ..." idea: Why are we still bound by our body mechanisms that were determined by our cavemen ancestors millions of years ago? Rather than cutting back sugar, maybe we should find a way to re-engineer our cellular structure to avoid the metabolic syndrome, mentioned in the article. Why work towards healthy, rather than bend "healthy" towards our will?
> Rather than cutting back sugar, maybe we should find a way to re-engineer our cellular structure to avoid the metabolic syndrome
We could also reengineer our taste buds to like sugar less, which would be a more optimal solution (no need for a sugar supply chain). Or we could just trick ourselves into eating less sugar for a while, and then after a few months we will find we don't crave it as much (believe me, it works).
There's a reason why bioshock is fantasy and not reality: This kind of research is hard, dangerous, and morally controversial... this takes a long time, and funding by a large organization.
Meanwhile, you can have an immediate impact yourself by changing your habits.
Which one is more accessible to the average person?
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic and pointing out that anything is "toxic" in high quantities. In case you aren't, or for people that did not catch it, 29g/kg is about 2.4kg of sugar for the average 80kg male, which comes out to about 12.5 cups or 3 liters. It should be obvious to most people that filling a two-liter bottle with pure granulated sugar and consuming it in one sitting would have severe health consequences (if you can even manage to get it all down).
What's probably toxic about it at this dosage is that it cannot be eliminated by your kidneys or stored in your liver quickly enough, so it accumulates in the blood and shifts the osmolality causing neurological symptoms, osmotic diuresis and cardiac arrhythmia.
I was being sarcastic. But I also wanted to post to point to the fact that scientists believe that 50% of the people who ate this much sugar would in fact survive!
I was severely depressed a month or two ago, and I went ahead and bought two 2 pound chocolate rich cakes in succession and ate them over a period of 24 hours. Though it didn't kill me, but it was definitely not too upsetting. I still have the urge to just eat huge quantities of sugar, and I am not sure how to control it, but yea it definitely did not kill me or make me sick.
I am otherwise an extremely fit individual (can run 5k in 16 minutes)
Incidentally there are some studies with rats showing that sugar/sweet addicted + cocaine addicted rats prefer their sugar hit over their cocaine hit, and plain sugar-addicted rats when removed from sugar/sweet had opiate-withdrawal like symptoms.
Eating sweets does improve mood. There are several known mechanisms. e.g., carbs facilitate amino acid transport across the blood-brain barrier [1], and wheat stimulates endogenous opiate receptors [2]. But, if you want to influence brain chemistry therapeutically, eating sweets is probably not the best approach. Good luck!
It surprises me that such a comparatively small amount of sugar could be fatal, or even have severe health consequences. I wouldn't have thought it would be healthy but I wouldn't have expected immediate death as a likely outcome.
I'm actually curious about what this says about consuming fruits in large amounts ... since they are pretty much all fructose.
Some folks I know (I did for a bit) consume fruits with gusto, erroneously thinking they don't have effects close to what refined sugars have on the body
According to the National Soft Drink Association, average daily consumption for U.S. males age 12 to 29 is about half a gallon of soda per day. There was no data on how much of that is diet soda, but even assuming half of the consumption is sugar-free that's about 66 grams of fructose (just the fructose, not all sugars) per day.
That person would have to eat 11 apples every single day to match the fructose intake in soda alone.
There is an argument to be made that modern fruits have been bred to be sweeter, which is worth examining. Also, it is well known in the "paleo" community that fruit should be avoided when trying to get lean (~10-11% body fat for men) - and this is related to fructose and/or its affect on blood sugar. Last point is a type 1 diabetic, now doctor, eats no fruit and this was a very important step for him to maintain healthy blood sugars and get healthy - Dr. Richard Bernstein (he runs a diabetes clinic in NY). I believe that modern fruit eaten is large quantities isn't so benign.
I wonder this as well. Lustig seems to say that fruit is fine - the sugar in fruit is nature's way of getting you to eat the healthy fibre or some such - but I've yet to see a scientific explanation of why sugar is bad but sugar in fruit is OK. Sure there are good things in fruit, but if sugar is bad then surely you'd be better off getting those good things from other sources, like vegetables.
Sugar isn't 'bad', too much sugar is bad. Lustig says that the sugar in fruit is fine, and is the same sugar found elsewhere. It's fine in fruit because it's wrapped up in a fiber package, that prevents your body from absorbing most of it.
Check the Wikipedia article for fructose for a breakdown of how much sugar is Glucose, Fructose and Sucrose in some common fruits. There's not as much fructose as you might have thought.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fructose
Maybe sugar is toxic. I don't know (and there seem to be some pretty reasonable opinions both ways). However, there is a line in the article that really stands out to me:
"If Lustig is right, it would mean that sugar is also the likely dietary cause of several other chronic ailments widely considered to be diseases of Western lifestyles — heart disease, hypertension and many common cancers among them."
I can't tell if this is the author of the article extrapolating sugar's toxicity to explain the root of all ills, or whether Lustig makes that assertion. Either way, there doesn't seem to be anything more than postulation on that front. I'm hoping the purported science behind this theory is actually sound and not just fluff so that we get into arguments about sugar based on incorrect assumptions.
So, according to the wiki, HFCS contains about 55% Fructose, 45% Glucose. Regular sucrose is at a 50-50 split. Given your stomach splits sucrose into the respective monosaccharide units anyway, you're going to end up with roughly the same amount of glucose and fructose floating around.
The big issue then is just having a large amount of fructose (from whatever source) in your diet. Since excess fructose is shunted off to be stored as fat, this is what's causing all the problems.
What would be kind of interesting is whether we can just go about engineering corn so that we block off the fructose pathway, and just produce glucose. This also has the nice side-effect that it's also much more delicious for bacteria to eat, meaning a greater yield of things like biofuels.
I see that this article cites "fatty liver = insulin resistance" and correlates that directly to sugar ingestion. Well and good - I don't want to be foie gras. But this article also suggests that going off sugar quickly causes the fatty liver to remediate itself - or at least so in lab animals, such problem "promptly goes away". How prompt is this effect in people? Failure rates on commonplace diets seems to make me think it isn't all that swift a process. Anyone have any good stats/links/refs?
Try Xylitol rather, my wife switched me over to this about a year ago, and I could barely tell the difference.
Possessing approximately 40% less food energy, xylitol is a low-calorie alternative to table sugar. Absorbed more slowly than sugar, it does not contribute to high blood sugar levels or the resulting hyperglycemia caused by insufficient insulin response. This characteristic has also proven beneficial for people suffering from metabolic syndrome, a common disorder that includes insulin resistance, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and an increased risk for blood clots.
My amateur understanding is that excess glucose still leads to high blood sugar and so the resulting insulin spikes and fat storage. So it may be a lesser evil than fructose, but is not a panacea by any means.
FWIW, I'm basing my current understanding on the book Body by Science. It has an explanation of metabolism similar to the Lustig video linked to in the NYT article. However, Body by Science wasn't as specifically anti-fructose, but more generally anti-blood sugar spikes.
Sure, but I'm still going to want to sweeten food in moderation, and it appears that tilting towards glucose in doing so is better. (Though glucose is less sweet, possibly meaning I'll use more, and that's worth watching out for.)
There are online food places where you can buy pure glucose (it has value in certain gourmet foods because of its different properties from sucrose). However, if you read more of Taubes than just this, you'll see that he presents evidence that too much pure glucose would also likely cause problems if I understand it correctly. Spiking your blood glucose to consistently high levels isn't good for you either, even if you avoid all fructose.
"Officially I’m not supposed to worry because the evidence isn’t conclusive, but I do."
Wow, that was a content-free article, borderline scare-mongering, eg. "when you bake your children a birthday cake or give them lemonade on a hot summer day, you may be doing them more harm than good". There's no information about what sort of doses are really bad at all, and so nothing useful to learn from it. I have 2 kids who will eat as much sugar as we give them, so this is a serious issue for me, and I'm disappointed by such articles.
Being tentative about drawing conclusions is not the same as being content free. Considering how often past dietary advice has been wrong, it seems like this topic could use a little more tentativeness.
"Considering how often past dietary advice has been wrong"... ...I would argue that writing news articles about things with no conclusive evidence is worse than irresponsible journalism. It's downright harmful, in the most literal sense of the term.
It's downright harmful, in the most literal sense of the term.
Supposing readership gets scared enough to eliminate these "added sugars" from their diet, like Soda and candy and cookies cease to exist. How is that harmful? Oh yeah, some companies would disappear and people would be, at least temporarily, out work. These "added sugars" didn't even exist not that long ago, so worst case we would be eating more like we did in the 1800's. Perhaps some new information I don't know about suggests that the added sugars are now indispensable for our well being?. "Downright harmful" is I think, a little exaggerated.
Gary says explicitly there is no conclusive evidence. He is making the appeal for the studies to be done. I find little that is harmful about the attempt. He just wants something that is potentially dangerous to be studied scientifically.
He explains this in his comments:
"Again, one common theme here is that because sugar has gotten more or a less free pass from the federal authorities for the past forty years, little meaningful research has been done."
There is conclusive evidence of a problem. The rise in diabetes, heart disease, and obesity are all out there and free to anyone with a web browser.
One might say that given a health crisis, sitting back not saying anything would be irresponsible. Ben Goldacre chronicles bad science journalism, and this is not an example of it.
1. We all agree there is conclusive evidence of a problem with diet and obesity.
2. Author inconclusively argues that sugar is the cause of the problem.
3. Someone says this is irresponsible journalism (scaremongering).
4. In response, you say that that this is not irresponsible journalism because doing nothing in a crisis is irresponsible, even if doing something involves a little bit of misdirection.
As someone that believes in accurate science and honest journalism, I would call that irresponsible.
"In response, you say that that this is not irresponsible journalism because doing nothing in a crisis is irresponsible, even if doing something involves a little bit of misdirection."
I guess the big issue I have with his advice is that obesity is really most strongly correlated with increased intake of calories, and less so with the macronutritional source of those calories.
In his books, Gary Taubes makes an argument that the causal relationship is reversed. It's not that eating too much causes your body to store the excess as fat. Rather it's that your body is storing necessary energy as fat before your body can use it, so you need to eat more to make up the deficit.
Fair point, and I didn't consider this rude at all. I am not offended by being misread (it happens) or by rudeness (within reason, if the content is good). The intersection, less so. Thanks for the links. All for reducing caloric intake, but I think a sibling post makes a good point about that. I have already taken more than my fair share of this thread, I'll let the rest to better minds than mine.
A rise in diabetes and other ailments is not conclusive evidence that sugar is toxic, and that you think it might be does a pretty good job of demonstrating my point (that this stuff should be kept in journals, to be read by people who understand how science works, and only thrown into newspapers when we have proof).
I spent half my undergrad in labs, writing up formal scientific results. I wrote and was graded on plenty of scientific papers. I have a fine understanding of scientific publishing, data analysis, and experimental methods.
The fact that you misread me is your problem. I did not write there was conclusive evidence that sucrose is toxic. I said _conclusive evidence of a problem_ - which is different thing and is clearly true.
Conclusive evidence of a problem is completely irrelevant.
Responding to a comment referring to a specific lack of evidence about sugar/toxicity by saying that there is conclusive evidence of "a problem" implies relevancy, which implies that you are confusing the two issues.
Well, I don't confuse the two issues. I'm glad that is out of the way.
Let me try a different tactic: what is your specific problem with this article? Do you object out of hand to non-peer reviewed science articles regardless of quality? Do you have specific objections to the quality of this article?
From my point of view, there has been a long standing public health problem in the US with obesity and related pathologies. The public has been understandably interested in the outcome, and so there is demand for press coverage. The scientific progress in identifying the cause of the problem has been uneven and there have been some incorrect conclusions about the root cause, even among experts in the field. As a result, the media coverage has also been incorrect. However, this article seems reasonable. It makes clear references to current scientific work, presents the subject evenly (barring the title), and the author makes efforts to explain to an educated but non-scientific audience.
"Do you object out of hand to non-peer reviewed science articles regardless of quality?"
In general? I find it distasteful but I don't really give that much of a shit.
Topics like nutrition or medicine have a large potential to cause bodily harm however, and I firmly believe that non-rigorous studies should not be shared with populations that don't have the capacity to understand the limitations present.
Example: Shoddy studies about vaccines and the general public mix with disastrous results.
All so this journalist can make a quick buck, instead of finding something more appropriate to "report" on.
I think he's saying that they weren't tentative enough — that is, either they have enough substance to write an article about how sugar is bad for you, or they shouldn't be writing an article about how sugar is bad for you.
This goes back to the rule about news articles with question headlines: The answer to the headline is "no." If it were "yes," they wouldn't couch it in a question.
Paul, do you see any role software could play in trying to resolve the dietary advice problem? There are lots of communities out there of diabetics and obese people improving their health through diet - in particular a low carb, medium protein, high fat diet. That's not proof on its own, but it's more compelling than looking at what people who have always been healthy eat (because it could just be good genes). Science and experiments still need to be a part of the solution, but it disturbs me how much bad science is out there.
You want a scientific conclusion to tell you unequivocally what to do, but in the absence of proof you don't want to be presented with any information? I'm not sure whether this is utopian thinking or just sticking your head in the sand, but I can tell you my course of action as a father in the face of an obesity epidemic and inconclusive evidence: I'm strongly limiting sugar and refined carbohydrate intake in my household, particularly in between meals. Some allowances for dessert after dinner, but no soda and juice ever.
I actually found it to be content dense. It was a bit unactionable, but a good amount of content. Of course he also gives you the names, so you can look up the studies, although he also pretty much tells you that its not applicable to your current diet.
Again, maybe not actionable, but definitely content. Especially for a mainstream newspaper article.
Well, yes and no. There is some good but as-yet not conclusive reasons to believe that sugar is far more dangerous than it appears. On the other hand, there is nobody I am aware of who has any argument in favor of consuming more sugars or more sugary foods. I am not aware of any argument against cutting back your sugar consumptions as a reasonable preventative step. A conventional dietitian will place much less emphasis on it than Dr. Lustig, but they won't try to talk you out of it.
This is as opposed to fats, where I have seen arguments made that cutting back on fats can be actively harmful. I'm not making it here, nor am I claiming it is true, I'm simply saying I have definitely seen that argument made.
You're absolutely right. I was thinking more about changing the diet for different ratios of glucose/fructose/lactose for some reason vs just reducing sugar intake.
Curious how sugar compares to artificial sweeteners in light of this data? Splenda vs sugar?
Do you mean actionable in the legal sense? I agree, there isn't enough evidence to sue anyone at this point. If you refer to action that an individual or family can take, how about this: eliminate sweet drinks, desserts and snacks from your diet.
The headline says "Is Sugar Toxic?" That's not just a hook to get you to read the article, it's a description of what the article is about. This article asks the question, "Is Sugar Toxic?". It helps you think about that question from chemical and physiological perspectives, gives an overview of research, describes political and economic interests of the major players (so you can consider how those might influence their actions), and so on.
If anyone's wondering what a liberal arts degree is good for, this article is an excellent example.
These articles are important because he makes a persuasive argument that this is a very important issue that badly needs more study. You can't learn very much from it, but the studies will not be funded unless a horde of concerned parents starts pressuring the FDA, the USDA, Universities and others who could fund such studies. Also pressure is needed to counter the very influential corn growers associations who will try and kill such studies.
That article wasn't content free. Read the part talking about how glucose and fructose are metabolized differently, how excessive sucrose intact overwhelms the liver (processing fructose) and leads it to produce fat, and how that ties into diabetes and heart disease.
It'd be good to follow up on this for you then. Def. see the talk it mentions, and read around on the studies. I think the last number I heard was ~50g/day (keep consumption under this.)
It's also worth noting that it's not -only- a volume issue but a rate issue. This is why -refined- sugars are particularly bad, because they are immediately available (unlike say, eating a fruit, where it takes time for your body to tear apart the fibers to get at the sugar).
Fructose metabolism is not rate-regulated, and a cell metabolizing fructose quickly uses up all its energy (ATP) and slows down. So it's not really safe to consume -refined- fructose in general because it will shut down the liver while it is being metabolized, and this can allow compounds that should -not- be in the bloodstream (such as fructose itself) to get into the bloodstream because the liver is tied up and can't take them on.
> Michael Pagliassotti, a Colorado State University biochemist who did many of the relevant animal studies in the late 1990s, says these changes can happen in as little as a week if the animals are fed sugar or fructose in huge amounts — 60 or 70 percent of the calories in their diets. They can take several months if the animals are fed something closer to what humans (in America) actually consume — around 20 percent of the calories in their diet. Stop feeding them the sugar, in either case, and the fatty liver promptly goes away, and with it the insulin resistance.
> Similar effects can be shown in humans, although the researchers doing this work typically did the studies with only fructose — as Luc Tappy did in Switzerland or Peter Havel and Kimber Stanhope did at the University of California, Davis — and pure fructose is not the same thing as sugar or high-fructose corn syrup. When Tappy fed his human subjects the equivalent of the fructose in 8 to 10 cans of Coke or Pepsi a day — a “pretty high dose,” he says —– their livers would start to become insulin-resistant, and their triglycerides would go up in just a few days. With lower doses, Tappy says, just as in the animal research, the same effects would appear, but it would take longer, a month or more.
The experts disagree on sugar's toxicity. The NYT is not going to come right out and say, "Don't let your kids eat sugar." But there is enough evidence presented and cited in the article to make this a reasonable conclusion.
I found this passage particularly compelling: "During the Korean War, pathologists doing autopsies on American soldiers killed in battle noticed that many had significant plaques in their arteries, even those who were still teenagers, while the Koreans killed in battle did not."
It's probably better to eat like a poor Korean farmer than like an "average" American teenager.
"the evidence isn't conclusive" also doesn't mean "there's no evidence". Watch the video lecture on youtube (already linked in the comments and the article)
You didn't read it all did you? It states a probably safe dose (40 pounds per year per person == ~25g per day of sugar added to what you'd get in a non-process diet), and gives both theoretical (metabolic), practical (controlled studies in animals and to some extent in humans) and historical (see below) compelling arguments.
Add to this that it has recently been demonstrated that junk food was addictive (demonstrated in rats, but it's quite obvious that it is also the case in humans) and you get the current metabolic syndrome epidemy.
FTA:
When Glinsmann and his F.D.A. co-authors decided no conclusive evidence demonstrated harm at the levels of sugar then being consumed, they estimated those levels at 40 pounds per person per year beyond what we might get naturally in fruits and vegetables — 40 pounds per person per year of “added sugars” as nutritionists now call them. This is 200 calories per day of sugar, which is less than the amount in a can and a half of Coca-Cola or two cups of apple juice. If that’s indeed all we consume, most nutritionists today would be delighted, including Lustig.
But 40 pounds per year happened to be 35 pounds less than what Department of Agriculture analysts said we were consuming at the time — 75 pounds per person per year — and the U.S.D.A. estimates are typically considered to be the most reliable. By the early 2000s, according to the U.S.D.A., we had increased our consumption to more than 90 pounds per person per year.
That this increase happened to coincide with the current epidemics of obesity and diabetes is one reason that it’s tempting to blame sugars — sucrose and high-fructose corn syrup — for the problem. In 1980, roughly one in seven Americans was obese, and almost six million were diabetic, and the obesity rates, at least, hadn’t changed significantly in the 20 years previously. By the early 2000s, when sugar consumption peaked, one in every three Americans was obese, and 14 million were diabetic.
This correlation between sugar consumption and diabetes is what defense attorneys call circumstantial evidence. It’s more compelling than it otherwise might be, though, because the last time sugar consumption jumped markedly in this country, it was also associated with a diabetes epidemic.
In the early 20th century, many of the leading authorities on diabetes in North America and Europe (including Frederick Banting, who shared the 1923 Nobel Prize for the discovery of insulin) suspected that sugar causes diabetes based on the observation that the disease was rare in populations that didn’t consume refined sugar and widespread in those that did. In 1924, Haven Emerson, director of the institute of public health at Columbia University, reported that diabetes deaths in New York City had increased as much as 15-fold since the Civil War years, and that deaths increased as much as fourfold in some U.S. cities between 1900 and 1920 alone. This coincided, he noted, with an equally significant increase in sugar consumption — almost doubling from 1890 to the early 1920s — with the birth and subsequent growth of the candy and soft-drink industries.
Dr. William Davis, a cardiologist who runs the "Track Your Plaque" program and the Heart Scan blog (http://www.heartscanblog.org/) has identified sugar as one of the primary factors contributing to heart disease. He advises his patients to generally eliminate all sugars, grains (they break down into glucose in the bloodstream), and anything else raises blood glucose levels.
But all the evidence presented in the article seems to point in the direction that glucose is mostly harmless (see the discussion of the Japanese diet that contained mostly rice). So Davis' recommanedation cannot be justified along these lines.
Davis absolutely hates wheat, on very justifiable grounds. And he strongly recommends anyone with heart problems get off it immediately. But I dont think he has anything against rice.
Actually, if you read his blog, you'll find lots of articles that, at least indirectly, indict rice (and basically anything that spikes your blood sugar, which includes all grains). For example:
Generally, he advocates close postprandial monitoring of blood sugar as a sort of proxy for triglicerides/ldl and often notes that some people may have higher tolerances for certain foods than others. If rice doesn't raise your postprandial blood sugar much, then I'd imagine he'd be ok with it.
I'm not a nutritionist, biologist, or doctor, but I have a huge sweet tooth, and I actually tried to answer this question on my humble little blog (http://foodconstrued.com/2011/02/sugar-cravings/) back in February.
My answer: It is not the sugar, but the empty calories leading to obesity and then to further health complications.
So, the article addresses that point, goes into extensive detail as to why it may not be true, with scientists, biochemistry, and all sorts of other stuff, and I'm supposed to believe your "Nuh-uh"? Why is this article wrong? Why is the conventional answer right? At least cite something that directly addresses these arguments and discusses why they are wrong, this makes it looks like you're taking the metaphorical ostrich approach to the argument.
Go to 57:00 and you should get to the bit where he explains why Fructose is a poison. Loses a bit in translation without the hour leading up to it, (which is absolutely fascinating).
However, that should cover your TL;DR.
Even shorter version: Fructose can only be processed by the liver. That means, by definition it is a poison.
Dr. Lustig is a nationally-recognized authority in the field of neuroendocrinology, with a specific emphasis on the regulation of energy balance by the central nervous system. He is currently investigating the contribution of biochemical, neural, hormonal, and genetic influences in the expression of the current obesity epidemic both in children and adults. He has defined a syndrome of vagally-mediated beta-cell hyperactivity which leads to insulin hypersecretion and obesity, and which is treatable by insulin suppression. This phenomenon may occur in up to 20% of the obese population. He is interested in the hypothalamic signal transduction of insulin and leptin, and how these two systems interact. He is studying the cardiovascular morbidity associated with hyperinsulinemia, and developing methods to evaluate and prevent this phenomenon in children. He is also analyzing the contribution of the autonomic nervous system to insulin secretion and insulin resistance in obese children, and the utility of assessing insulin dynamics in targeting obesity therapy.
Probably because the parent was a detailed, well-researched answer, and your request for clarification didn't explain what sort of clarification you were looking for.
The second one, on the other hand, was downvoted for asking why you were downvoted. ;)
This is pretty much the definition of an ad hominem argument. In the context of your post, calling Taubes a "journalist" is overly reductive and an attempt to discredit him without actually engaging his arguments. I would liken it to dismissing Bill Gates' thoughts on education by calling him a college dropout - it's a true statement but ignores the larger truth. According to his bio, Taubes studied applied physics at Harvard and has an MS in aerospace engineering from Stanford so I think he's capable of understanding scientific issues.
I’ve spent much of the last decade doing journalistic research on diet and chronic disease — some of the more contrarian findings, on dietary fat, appeared in this magazine
---------------
I think thats compelling enough to make it worth the read.
Gary Taubes also wrote Good Calories, Bad Calories, which is probably the most thoroughly researched book on the issue of diet and health ever written.
Unfortunately toxic, like so many other of our perfectly good scientific words, has been hijacked by quacks trying to deprive the credulous of their money.