The Sugar Conspiracy

masterwilde

So firstly here is the link for you to read yourselves:-

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/07/the-sugar-conspiracy-robert-lustig-john-yudkin

Its definitely interesting reading, let me have your thoughts please

StealthHealth

Quack.

+ I wonder what or which food will be next on the vilification list? It seems that we always need a big bad wolf.

rainbowbow

This guy is full of crap. He's a known nut.

stevencloser

There is indeed a sugar conspiracy. That is, there's a handful of people who make a lot of money by telling desperate dieters that sugar is the root of their obesity instead of longterm overeating.
They abuse the fact that many people try to look for an outside reason for why they're not successful instead of looking within themselves. It's the perfect scapegoat. A nutrient that tastes good, that we're evolutionarily inclined to seek out, often found in "bad/ junk" foods. It's easy making people who don't know all facts about how weight gain and loss works believe it somehow is addictive or making them fat regardless of overall diet.

sijomial

Have a read of a counter-point to Lustig's nonsense....

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/

lemurcat12

masterwilde wrote: »

So firstly here is the link for you to read yourselves:-

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/07/the-sugar-conspiracy-robert-lustig-john-yudkin

Its definitely interesting reading, let me have your thoughts please

I thought this was better: http://www.thenutritionwonk.com/#!Ancel-Keys-and-the-Seven-Country-Study-A-Response-to-The-Sugar-Conspiracy/cmbz/570ed1910cf20b4e25a4d9f2

lemurcat12

stevencloser wrote: »

There is indeed a sugar conspiracy. That is, there's a handful of people who make a lot of money by telling desperate dieters that sugar is the root of their obesity instead of longterm overeating.
They abuse the fact that many people try to look for an outside reason for why they're not successful instead of looking within themselves. It's the perfect scapegoat. A nutrient that tastes good, that we're evolutionarily inclined to seek out, often found in "bad/ junk" foods. It's easy making people who don't know all facts about how weight gain and loss works believe it somehow is addictive or making them fat regardless of overall diet.

So much this.

ReaderGirl3

stevencloser wrote: »

There is indeed a sugar conspiracy. That is, there's a handful of people who make a lot of money by telling desperate dieters that sugar is the root of their obesity instead of longterm overeating.
They abuse the fact that many people try to look for an outside reason for why they're not successful instead of looking within themselves. It's the perfect scapegoat. A nutrient that tastes good, that we're evolutionarily inclined to seek out, often found in "bad/ junk" foods. It's easy making people who don't know all facts about how weight gain and loss works believe it somehow is addictive or making them fat regardless of overall diet.

This.

queenliz99

stevencloser wrote: »

There is indeed a sugar conspiracy. That is, there's a handful of people who make a lot of money by telling desperate dieters that sugar is the root of their obesity instead of longterm overeating.
They abuse the fact that many people try to look for an outside reason for why they're not successful instead of looking within themselves. It's the perfect scapegoat. A nutrient that tastes good, that we're evolutionarily inclined to seek out, often found in "bad/ junk" foods. It's easy making people who don't know all facts about how weight gain and loss works believe it somehow is addictive or making them fat regardless of overall diet.

Nailed it!!

BrianSharpe

It's not often one sees the word "humbug' used.....

huffingtonpost.com/david-katz-md/sugar-health-evil-toxic_b_850032.html

ninerbuff

Lol at conspiracy. How about................"damn, am I eating too many calories?"
Here's a conspiracy: The oil companies paying contract developers and urban cities money to build homes further away from industries of work so that people pay more money for gas commuting.
Not saying it's true, just something that people who believe in conspiracies bring up.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

Hornsby

stevencloser wrote: »

There is indeed a sugar conspiracy. That is, there's a handful of people who make a lot of money by telling desperate dieters that sugar is the root of their obesity instead of longterm overeating.
They abuse the fact that many people try to look for an outside reason for why they're not successful instead of looking within themselves. It's the perfect scapegoat. A nutrient that tastes good, that we're evolutionarily inclined to seek out, often found in "bad/ junk" foods. It's easy making people who don't know all facts about how weight gain and loss works believe it somehow is addictive or making them fat regardless of overall diet.

ninerbuff

stevencloser wrote: »

There is indeed a sugar conspiracy. That is, there's a handful of people who make a lot of money by telling desperate dieters that sugar is the root of their obesity instead of longterm overeating.
They abuse the fact that many people try to look for an outside reason for why they're not successful instead of looking within themselves. It's the perfect scapegoat. A nutrient that tastes good, that we're evolutionarily inclined to seek out, often found in "bad/ junk" foods. It's easy making people who don't know all facts about how weight gain and loss works believe it somehow is addictive or making them fat regardless of overall diet.

Sugar tastes good. Ask monkeys
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KSryJXDpZo

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

nvmomketo

The people who seem to be against the idea that sugar can be a problem for people seem to be those for whom sugar has never been a problem. It didn't happen to me so I don't believe it, and that's where Lustig exaggerated: Sugar is not a problem for everybody, but it is a problem for many. Just because the nutrition powers of yesteryear had fat labelled as the nutritional problem child in the 80s, it does not mean that sugar has been mislabelled as a problem nutrient ( or as the scapegoat) today. It IS a problem for some.

Looking within myself did not help me lose weight. The minute I dropped sugar and reduced my carbs I lost weight. Easily and lots of it. You bet I was eating too many calories but I was eating too much because of sugar (and partially due to those carbs which are readily converted to sugar). I didn't have to do any soul searching or suddenly develop great will power in order to lose weight; all I had to do was cut sugar out of my diet and I was much less hungry, I lost my cravings, and the slight thermogenic poperties of a very LCHF diet helped a bit too.

I also love cheese and nuts and overeat those pretty regularly but that's not what made me fat either. Candy, soda, muffins, and unneeded carby plate fillers made me fat. I cut those and replaced them with other macro nutrients (at a slight caloric deficit) and lost weight. Simply cutting calories was not sustainable for more that a week or two for me. Cut sugar too? Suddenly it was easy to lose. It may not be true for all, but it was for me and it is true for many, especially those of us with IR issues (known and undiagnosed). I am not a special snowflake here.

Sure, many people are fine with eating sugar but many aren't. I was fine with sugar until I approached 40, when suddenly I was not. Stating sugar is a problem for all is wrong, and Lustig should stop it. Staing that sugar is NOT a problem for all is just as wrong - claiming it is a scapegoat is incorrect. A better statement might be that sugar is not a problem for some people, although it may become a problem for some of them later, and that it is indeed a problem for some people right now (somewhere between 1/3 to 1/2 it appears to me based on those affected with IR issues like NAFLD, T2D, PCOS, prediabetes, Alzheimer's, as well as some of those who find weight loss difficult without sugar reduction - not a tiny group).

... This thread should probably be moved to the debate section.

lemurcat12

I think as soon as one posits a conspiracy one has lost the debate.

Serah87

paulgads82

Eat sugar. It's amazing.

psuLemon

nvmomketo wrote: »

The people who seem to be against the idea that sugar can be a problem for people seem to be those for whom sugar has never been a problem. It didn't happen to me so I don't believe it, and that's where Lustig exaggerated: Sugar is not a problem for everybody, but it is a problem for many. Just because the nutrition powers of yesteryear had fat labelled as the nutritional problem child in the 80s, it does not mean that sugar has been mislabelled as a problem nutrient ( or as the scapegoat) today. It IS a problem for some.

Looking within myself did not help me lose weight. The minute I dropped sugar and reduced my carbs I lost weight. Easily and lots of it. You bet I was eating too many calories but I was eating too much because of sugar (and partially due to those carbs which are readily converted to sugar). I didn't have to do any soul searching or suddenly develop great will power in order to lose weight; all I had to do was cut sugar out of my diet and I was much less hungry, I lost my cravings, and the slight thermogenic poperties of a very LCHF diet helped a bit too.

I also love cheese and nuts and overeat those pretty regularly but that's not what made me fat either. Candy, soda, muffins, and unneeded carby plate fillers made me fat. I cut those and replaced them with other macro nutrients (at a slight caloric deficit) and lost weight. Simply cutting calories was not sustainable for more that a week or two for me. Cut sugar too? Suddenly it was easy to lose. It may not be true for all, but it was for me and it is true for many, especially those of us with IR issues (known and undiagnosed). I am not a special snowflake here.

Sure, many people are fine with eating sugar but many aren't. I was fine with sugar until I approached 40, when suddenly I was not. Stating sugar is a problem for all is wrong, and Lustig should stop it. Staing that sugar is NOT a problem for all is just as wrong - claiming it is a scapegoat is incorrect. A better statement might be that sugar is not a problem for some people, although it may become a problem for some of them later, and that it is indeed a problem for some people right now (somewhere between 1/3 to 1/2 it appears to me based on those affected with IR issues like NAFLD, T2D, PCOS, prediabetes, Alzheimer's, as well as some of those who find weight loss difficult without sugar reduction - not a tiny group).

... This thread should probably be moved to the debate section.

The problem is not just sugar. Its when you combine high amounts of sugar with fats and salt. Its sad that we identify one part of the issue. And while drinks are all sugar, the majority of people i know that over ate had a plethora of food combinations to lead to that. I got fat on burgers, pizza, cheese steaks and much more fatty and salty items as opposed to sugar. Not to say that sugar wasnt a component, but it wasnt the largest.

ndj1979

bahahahahahaha and the sugar wars rage on...never change MFP, never change....

ndj1979

stevencloser wrote: »

There is indeed a sugar conspiracy. That is, there's a handful of people who make a lot of money by telling desperate dieters that sugar is the root of their obesity instead of longterm overeating.
They abuse the fact that many people try to look for an outside reason for why they're not successful instead of looking within themselves. It's the perfect scapegoat. A nutrient that tastes good, that we're evolutionarily inclined to seek out, often found in "bad/ junk" foods. It's easy making people who don't know all facts about how weight gain and loss works believe it somehow is addictive or making them fat regardless of overall diet.

+ 1000..

you can't make millions of dollars telling people sugar is OK, so instead fear monger them to death into buying books about ridiculous topics like sugar addiction, sugar is satan, etc, etc...

stevencloser

nvmomketo wrote: »

The people who seem to be against the idea that sugar can be a problem for people seem to be those for whom sugar has never been a problem. It didn't happen to me so I don't believe it, and that's where Lustig exaggerated: Sugar is not a problem for everybody, but it is a problem for many. Just because the nutrition powers of yesteryear had fat labelled as the nutritional problem child in the 80s, it does not mean that sugar has been mislabelled as a problem nutrient ( or as the scapegoat) today. It IS a problem for some.

Looking within myself did not help me lose weight. The minute I dropped sugar and reduced my carbs I lost weight. Easily and lots of it. You bet I was eating too many calories but I was eating too much because of sugar (and partially due to those carbs which are readily converted to sugar). I didn't have to do any soul searching or suddenly develop great will power in order to lose weight; all I had to do was cut sugar out of my diet and I was much less hungry, I lost my cravings, and the slight thermogenic poperties of a very LCHF diet helped a bit too.

I also love cheese and nuts and overeat those pretty regularly but that's not what made me fat either. Candy, soda, muffins, and unneeded carby plate fillers made me fat. I cut those and replaced them with other macro nutrients (at a slight caloric deficit) and lost weight. Simply cutting calories was not sustainable for more that a week or two for me. Cut sugar too? Suddenly it was easy to lose. It may not be true for all, but it was for me and it is true for many, especially those of us with IR issues (known and undiagnosed). I am not a special snowflake here.

Sure, many people are fine with eating sugar but many aren't. I was fine with sugar until I approached 40, when suddenly I was not. Stating sugar is a problem for all is wrong, and Lustig should stop it. Staing that sugar is NOT a problem for all is just as wrong - claiming it is a scapegoat is incorrect. A better statement might be that sugar is not a problem for some people, although it may become a problem for some of them later, and that it is indeed a problem for some people right now (somewhere between 1/3 to 1/2 it appears to me based on those affected with IR issues like NAFLD, T2D, PCOS, prediabetes, Alzheimer's, as well as some of those who find weight loss difficult without sugar reduction - not a tiny group).

... This thread should probably be moved to the debate section.

"Readily converted to sugar" is another of those phrases that is used to fear monger against it, as if that makes it bad somehow.

You're outright denying in your post that things apart from carbs made you fat. "Oh, I've been overeating this and that and X and Y and Z regularly too but that wasn't the problem, no.". I call BS. If you've been overeating you've been overeating them and they were part of the problem.

I used to eat lots of sugar.
And lots of fat.
And probably protein too.
Like 4+ ham and cheese sandwiches as a single meal? Check.
Wieners with a bunch of fries? Yeah, did that.
Pizza and whatnot? Yup. All lots of it and not a single gram of added sugar. Cutting out sugar would have changed nothing at all, because I like eating. I would have just eaten something else instead.