Sugar - the bitter truth

pcastagner

As to the Lustig naysayers - how many of you are biochemists?

*Raises hand* This isn't my area of expertise exactly, but I know enough about basic sugar metabolism to know that his claims that sugar is "toxic" are utter crap unless you are dosing a person with astronomically high amounts (note that water is also toxic at astronomical amounts). It's too bad he can't chill out with all of the yelling "TOXIC!" and "POISON!" because that nonsense completely overshadows all of the perfectly reasonable things he has to say about the potential dangers of sugar over-consumption.

I went to the links that were provided earlier and read through all of the comments. Rather than seeing Lustig getting "owned" as was described, what I saw was a small group of folks who frequented a blog written by somebody who disagreed with Lustig's findings, and who honed in on one mistake and one misinterpretation in one particular Lustig lecture.

I'm assuming you didn't take the time to read the Huffington Post article I posted yesterday. It does a good job of explaining many of the reasons that Lustig's theories don't make sense and goes into detail describing studies that refute him.

Lustig isn't God - far from it - but his points about avoiding processed foods in general and HFCS in particular ring true.

He may have a good point about avoiding processed foods, sure. But his theories are not valid and it robs his calls to avoid processed foods and excess sugar of their credibility. There are plenty of experts who agree with him about processed foods and excess sugar but still think his theory that sugar is poison and fruit is evil is full of crap. As for HFCS, I think the jury's still out on that one. It's possible that he'll turn out to be right (for completely different reasons possibly), but it's equally possible that he will be wrong.

Those foods' contributions to this country's obesity epidemic can't be denied. His points about the politics of food in this country are right on.

You won't find many educated people who would argue that a lot of processed food and sugar is actually good for your body. But that's not really the issue at hand here. If you read the thread carefully, you will find that most people are simply stating that they find Dr. Lustig's specific theories to be invalid, but that they agree that eating a lot of processed food and sugar isn't good for a person. There are innumerable physiological and biochemical reasons why this is probably so. However, none of those reasons involve sugar being toxic or consumption of fruit being bad for a person.

An article about this debate from the New York Times, for those interested:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Thanks for sharing. This is a good read, but it never addresses the question at hand -- the "toxicity" of sugar. The author is arguing that excessive sugar consumption may be part of the etiology of diseases like diabetes and heart disease -- which is possibly true and deserves being investigated by well designed studies. Unfortunately that keeps getting overshadowed because Dr. Lustig's can't stop himself from running around shouting that sugar is a poison. Sugar is not poison. It is metabolized as a nutrient, used for energy, and fructose has actually been shown to have many benefits for the body (http://co2factor.blogspot.com/2012/04/benefits-of-fructose.html).

If you'd like to see a detailed and fair discussion of Dr. Lustig's theories and related studies, including some of the basic biochemistry of why his theories are inaccurate, you can look back through the thread and find the Huffington Post article I mentioned.

Well done!

Sarauk2sf

Addition and clarification to my above post (sorry, had to feed my husband and get him off to work) -

He's obviously not the only one involved with this research, and while he's not a biochemist he clearly is working with researchers who are. He's the tip of that spearhead, as it were - the guy in public making the statements. Research like that doesn't happen overnight and it involves more than one person and/or specialty. If people want to rebut the research, IMHO they should have the credentials to do it if they are to be taken seriously.

They do.

Sarauk2sf

As to the Lustig naysayers - how many of you are biochemists?

*Raises hand* This isn't my area of expertise exactly, but I know enough about basic sugar metabolism to know that his claims that sugar is "toxic" are utter crap unless you are dosing a person with astronomically high amounts (note that water is also toxic at astronomical amounts). It's too bad he can't chill out with all of the yelling "TOXIC!" and "POISON!" because that nonsense completely overshadows all of the perfectly reasonable things he has to say about the potential dangers of sugar over-consumption.

I went to the links that were provided earlier and read through all of the comments. Rather than seeing Lustig getting "owned" as was described, what I saw was a small group of folks who frequented a blog written by somebody who disagreed with Lustig's findings, and who honed in on one mistake and one misinterpretation in one particular Lustig lecture.

I'm assuming you didn't take the time to read the Huffington Post article I posted yesterday. It does a good job of explaining many of the reasons that Lustig's theories don't make sense and goes into detail describing studies that refute him.

Lustig isn't God - far from it - but his points about avoiding processed foods in general and HFCS in particular ring true.

He may have a good point about avoiding processed foods, sure. But his theories are not valid and it robs his calls to avoid processed foods and excess sugar of their credibility. There are plenty of experts who agree with him about processed foods and excess sugar but still think his theory that sugar is poison and fruit is evil is full of crap. As for HFCS, I think the jury's still out on that one. It's possible that he'll turn out to be right (for completely different reasons possibly), but it's equally possible that he will be wrong.

Those foods' contributions to this country's obesity epidemic can't be denied. His points about the politics of food in this country are right on.

You won't find many educated people who would argue that a lot of processed food and sugar is actually good for your body. But that's not really the issue at hand here. If you read the thread carefully, you will find that most people are simply stating that they find Dr. Lustig's specific theories to be invalid, but that they agree that eating a lot of processed food and sugar isn't good for a person. There are innumerable physiological and biochemical reasons why this is probably so. However, none of those reasons involve sugar being toxic or consumption of fruit being bad for a person.

An article about this debate from the New York Times, for those interested:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Thanks for sharing. This is a good read, but it never addresses the question at hand -- the "toxicity" of sugar. The author is arguing that excessive sugar consumption may be part of the etiology of diseases like diabetes and heart disease -- which is possibly true and deserves being investigated by well designed studies. Unfortunately that keeps getting overshadowed because Dr. Lustig's can't stop himself from running around shouting that sugar is a poison. Sugar is not poison. It is metabolized as a nutrient, used for energy, and fructose has actually been shown to have many benefits for the body (http://co2factor.blogspot.com/2012/04/benefits-of-fructose.html).

If you'd like to see a detailed and fair discussion of Dr. Lustig's theories and related studies, including some of the basic biochemistry of why his theories are inaccurate, you can look back through the thread and find the Huffington Post article I mentioned.

Excellent post.

pcastagner

Addition and clarification to my above post (sorry, had to feed my husband and get him off to work) -

He's obviously not the only one involved with this research, and while he's not a biochemist he clearly is working with researchers who are. He's the tip of that spearhead, as it were - the guy in public making the statements. Research like that doesn't happen overnight and it involves more than one person and/or specialty. If people want to rebut the research, IMHO they should have the credentials to do it if they are to be taken seriously.

Nice backpedaling.

This is why logical fallacies suck. If you remove the "authority" from "argument from authority", you are left with "argument from left field".

silken555

Good morning!

Re my above comment about Stevia tasting bitter. I tried it mixed in a hot drink a while back - I think it was hot tea. It tasted bitter. So why if it supposed to be a natural sugar why does it have that nasty bitter chemical taste? Compared to real sugar, it has that fake chemical taste and that is why I question if it is so good.(compared to the sweet taste of real sugar)

What I am saying is that it "might" be ok for you to eat, but my tastebuds are detecting a fake chemically taste.

I thought about this just now, and I could taste that fake sweetener in diet Coke. Not sure but they might use Equal. I also used a few Equal packets on cold food and I detected that fake chemical taste. So compared to sugar, I dont think a bit of real sugar will kill you, unless you are diabetic or something, however, why would i want to put some nasty chemical tasting fake food in my mouth? blech!

I did try some rather bitter tasting greens - arugula for one, and yes it does taste bitter, but that is a raw vegetable, so any bitterness is from the thing that makes it green - celery is bitter the darker green it is. (chorophyll).

I must have sensitive taste buds as I can tell when food has things in it, like when they put whiskey in bbq sauce, the waitress said you cant taste it, but blech, i could.

so for me, I would ratehr eat natural foods, and not some fake chemical ingredient which taste is terrible, I'd rather not eat any of it. why bother? why make your food full of fake chemical stuff when you can have sweet tasting other food choices?

thats just my opinion of course. Telling me to eat that nasty stuff and saying you enjoy it is like telling me to get a kiss from a cold dead stone statue!

by the way have you read about that Frankenstein food - they have created a hamburger in a petri dish. Now, thats appetizing haha NOT! Guess who wont be standing in line for a taste!

You answered your own question above. Stevia is a plant. It's ground up to powder the same way sugar is. The plant leaves themselves are also bitter...similar to dandelion shoots or kale, but they have that sweetness as well. How much of the bitter people taste is based on their taste buds. I personally taste the sweet more than the bitter.

Edited to add that you can eat whatever you want, my post was just to correct your assumption that Stevia is a chemical when it isn't.

pcastagner

Oxytocin is a chemical, and my brain keeps getting flooded with it when I meet pretty girls, then I get crazy withdrawal when they reject me.

Freaking chemicals. They are evil!

mountaingirl1961

Addition and clarification to my above post (sorry, had to feed my husband and get him off to work) -

He's obviously not the only one involved with this research, and while he's not a biochemist he clearly is working with researchers who are. He's the tip of that spearhead, as it were - the guy in public making the statements. Research like that doesn't happen overnight and it involves more than one person and/or specialty. If people want to rebut the research, IMHO they should have the credentials to do it if they are to be taken seriously.

Nice backpedaling.

This is why logical fallacies suck. If you remove the "authority" from "argument from authority", you are left with "argument from left field".

I went back through every post I've made in this thread, and not one time I have I referred to Lustig as a biochemist. He's not. He's spent a career researching and treating childhood obesity, and he's part of a large department at a very prestigious medical school working on just that.

Now - why don't YOU do a little looking on your own and show me where Lustig is working solo on this? That there are no biochemists either at UCSF or anywhere else involved in his research? I think you're going to have a damned hard time demonstrating that I was "backpedaling" and not just stating the obvious.

vim_n_vigor

LOLustig

rml_16

Changing my diet and my relationship with food has actually made me realise that sugar is not a big scary booggie monster, and that eating it in sane and well-planned portions is perfectly healthy. It was actually a pretty awesome discovery.

Begone with your sanity and logic. There is no place for you here!

mountaingirl1961

As to the Lustig naysayers - how many of you are biochemists?

*Raises hand* This isn't my area of expertise exactly, but I know enough about basic sugar metabolism to know that his claims that sugar is "toxic" are utter crap unless you are dosing a person with astronomically high amounts (note that water is also toxic at astronomical amounts). It's too bad he can't chill out with all of the yelling "TOXIC!" and "POISON!" because that nonsense completely overshadows all of the perfectly reasonable things he has to say about the potential dangers of sugar over-consumption.

I went to the links that were provided earlier and read through all of the comments. Rather than seeing Lustig getting "owned" as was described, what I saw was a small group of folks who frequented a blog written by somebody who disagreed with Lustig's findings, and who honed in on one mistake and one misinterpretation in one particular Lustig lecture.

I'm assuming you didn't take the time to read the Huffington Post article I posted yesterday. It does a good job of explaining many of the reasons that Lustig's theories don't make sense and goes into detail describing studies that refute him.

Lustig isn't God - far from it - but his points about avoiding processed foods in general and HFCS in particular ring true.

He may have a good point about avoiding processed foods, sure. But his theories are not valid and it robs his calls to avoid processed foods and excess sugar of their credibility. There are plenty of experts who agree with him about processed foods and excess sugar but still think his theory that sugar is poison and fruit is evil is full of crap. As for HFCS, I think the jury's still out on that one. It's possible that he'll turn out to be right (for completely different reasons possibly), but it's equally possible that he will be wrong.

Those foods' contributions to this country's obesity epidemic can't be denied. His points about the politics of food in this country are right on.

You won't find many educated people who would argue that a lot of processed food and sugar is actually good for your body. But that's not really the issue at hand here. If you read the thread carefully, you will find that most people are simply stating that they find Dr. Lustig's specific theories to be invalid, but that they agree that eating a lot of processed food and sugar isn't good for a person. There are innumerable physiological and biochemical reasons why this is probably so. However, none of those reasons involve sugar being toxic or consumption of fruit being bad for a person.

An article about this debate from the New York Times, for those interested:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Thanks for sharing. This is a good read, but it never addresses the question at hand -- the "toxicity" of sugar. The author is arguing that excessive sugar consumption may be part of the etiology of diseases like diabetes and heart disease -- which is possibly true and deserves being investigated by well designed studies. Unfortunately that keeps getting overshadowed because Dr. Lustig's can't stop himself from running around shouting that sugar is a poison. Sugar is not poison. It is metabolized as a nutrient, used for energy, and fructose has actually been shown to have many benefits for the body (http://co2factor.blogspot.com/2012/04/benefits-of-fructose.html).

If you'd like to see a detailed and fair discussion of Dr. Lustig's theories and related studies, including some of the basic biochemistry of why his theories are inaccurate, you can look back through the thread and find the Huffington Post article I mentioned.

Thanks for the respectful reply. They've been few and far between in this thread. It's annoying that you can't have a conversation with people online without drawing the jerks out of the woodwork.

I missed your HuffPo reference, and will go online and read it. Thanks.

As to the sugar is toxic claim - describe "astronomically high" amounts. From what I remember of the video and from other stuff that I've been reading on the subject... we're there if we're eating a diet composed largely of processed food and sugared beverages.

And maybe I need to re-watch the video, but my takeaway on his stance re: fruit was that eating fruit was fine because it came complete with the fiber and other elements necessary for safe metabolism, as contrasted with pop and processed foods that contained little or none of those elements.

And as to the repetition of the "toxic" claim - if that's what his team's research is showing and his career's work is showing, why should he bury the lead? The fact that we're even talking about this shows that there's some validity to his approach whether you agree with his findings or not. I'll go back and read your HuffPo link and see why people think that he has the biochemistry wrong, but as I said in a post upthread - this video is just like everything else out there on this subject. Take away what makes sense for you, leave the rest and move on. A big chunk of what he's saying not only makes sense to me but jives with a lot of other reading I've been doing. I found it valuable and I posted it because I thought other people would find it valuable, too.


EDIT: Boy, would I be interested in reading a discussion between Lustig and the guy who wrote that article. Thanks for that.

I need to read it again more closely (time limited at the moment) but I'll make a couple of quick comments right now:

1. Re: amount of HFCS we're consuming these days - 8 cans of Coke = two Big Gulps (or whatever they are... you know what I"m talking about.) Combine that with the added sugar in processed foods and, again, we're there.

2. The last two paragraphs of that article are kind of the point of the whole deal.

I honestly don't think the genpop has any idea how much sugar they eat. Those numbers at the beginning of the article about the increases in sugar consumption are not only sobering but should be shouted from rooftops. If nothing else, Lustig has shown a big spotlight on the added sugar in processed foods and beverages.

Thanks again for the link.

LiftAllThePizzas

Good morning!

Re my above comment about Stevia tasting bitter. I tried it mixed in a hot drink a while back - I think it was hot tea. It tasted bitter. So why if it supposed to be a natural sugar why does it have that nasty bitter chemical taste? Compared to real sugar, it has that fake chemical taste and that is why I question if it is so good.(compared to the sweet taste of real sugar)

What I am saying is that it "might" be ok for you to eat, but my tastebuds are detecting a fake chemically taste.

I thought about this just now, and I could taste that fake sweetener in diet Coke. Not sure but they might use Equal. I also used a few Equal packets on cold food and I detected that fake chemical taste. So compared to sugar, I dont think a bit of real sugar will kill you, unless you are diabetic or something, however, why would i want to put some nasty chemical tasting fake food in my mouth? blech!

I did try some rather bitter tasting greens - arugula for one, and yes it does taste bitter, but that is a raw vegetable, so any bitterness is from the thing that makes it green - celery is bitter the darker green it is. (chorophyll).

I must have sensitive taste buds as I can tell when food has things in it, like when they put whiskey in bbq sauce, the waitress said you cant taste it, but blech, i could.

so for me, I would ratehr eat natural foods, and not some fake chemical ingredient which taste is terrible, I'd rather not eat any of it. why bother? why make your food full of fake chemical stuff when you can have sweet tasting other food choices?

thats just my opinion of course. Telling me to eat that nasty stuff and saying you enjoy it is like telling me to get a kiss from a cold dead stone statue!

by the way have you read about that Frankenstein food - they have created a hamburger in a petri dish. Now, thats appetizing haha NOT! Guess who wont be standing in line for a taste!

Your logic confuses me.

Nobody is telling you to eat things that you don't enjoy, just that simply because you don't enjoy them doesn't mean that they are "bad" or unhealthy. Figuring that out is what peer reviewed studies are for.

Humans are amazing animals. Collectively we've come up with so many innovations through the years. Some have been good, some bad, but to say that something is harmful simply because it's new (artificial sweeteners, hamburger in a petri dish) or manmade doesn't make a lot of sense.

Sadly, many people don't seem to understand that Frankenstein is a fictional story, and/or that one author's irrational fear of technology does not make technology evil.

LiftAllThePizzas

I have been avoiding sugars and carbs for a while now and I have to say I have never felt better. So, personally, I couldn't give a **** who is right. Low carb works for me. And, in the end, that's all that counts as far as I'm concerned.

I can't help but notice that people seem more keen to prove themselves right than to help other members on these boards. Sad, really.

Did you intend for that to apply to your own post as well, or was that just a coincidence?

Doesn't make a difference to me. Pick which ever one makes you feel better about yourself.

Nice comeback. I'm sure that made you feel better about yourself.

pcastagner

Good morning!

Re my above comment about Stevia tasting bitter. I tried it mixed in a hot drink a while back - I think it was hot tea. It tasted bitter. So why if it supposed to be a natural sugar why does it have that nasty bitter chemical taste? Compared to real sugar, it has that fake chemical taste and that is why I question if it is so good.(compared to the sweet taste of real sugar)

What I am saying is that it "might" be ok for you to eat, but my tastebuds are detecting a fake chemically taste.

I thought about this just now, and I could taste that fake sweetener in diet Coke. Not sure but they might use Equal. I also used a few Equal packets on cold food and I detected that fake chemical taste. So compared to sugar, I dont think a bit of real sugar will kill you, unless you are diabetic or something, however, why would i want to put some nasty chemical tasting fake food in my mouth? blech!

I did try some rather bitter tasting greens - arugula for one, and yes it does taste bitter, but that is a raw vegetable, so any bitterness is from the thing that makes it green - celery is bitter the darker green it is. (chorophyll).

I must have sensitive taste buds as I can tell when food has things in it, like when they put whiskey in bbq sauce, the waitress said you cant taste it, but blech, i could.

so for me, I would ratehr eat natural foods, and not some fake chemical ingredient which taste is terrible, I'd rather not eat any of it. why bother? why make your food full of fake chemical stuff when you can have sweet tasting other food choices?

thats just my opinion of course. Telling me to eat that nasty stuff and saying you enjoy it is like telling me to get a kiss from a cold dead stone statue!

by the way have you read about that Frankenstein food - they have created a hamburger in a petri dish. Now, thats appetizing haha NOT! Guess who wont be standing in line for a taste!

Your logic confuses me.

Nobody is telling you to eat things that you don't enjoy, just that simply because you don't enjoy them doesn't mean that they are "bad" or unhealthy. Figuring that out is what peer reviewed studies are for.

Humans are amazing animals. Collectively we've come up with so many innovations through the years. Some have been good, some bad, but to say that something is harmful simply because it's new (artificial sweeteners, hamburger in a petri dish) or manmade doesn't make a lot of sense.

Sadly, many people don't seem to understand that Frankenstein is a fictional story, and/or that one author's irrational fear of technology does not make technology evil.

Hmmm... Novels can me more true than reality sometimes.

But I digress...

BeachIron

LOLustig

^ This.

I'm sorry, but there just comes a time when you have to tune out the Chicken Littles of the world. He's on my BSC list with Dr. Oz and Mercola.

LiftAllThePizzas

Hmmm... Novels can me more true than reality sometimes.

Say what?

pcastagner

Hmmm... Novels can me more true than reality sometimes.

Say what?

Wow I have to explain this?

In reality, things don't always fit "the rules". For instance quantum physics and "regular" physics seem to contradict each other.

In a work of fiction, the world presented is often much more consistent and "true".


I remember hearing this concept on day one of a beginner lit class in school. Sort of makes your gif a little bit anti-intellectual.

LiftAllThePizzas

Hmmm... Novels can me more true than reality sometimes.

Say what?

Wow I have to explain this?

In reality, things don't always fit "the rules". For instance quantum physics and "regular" physics seem to contradict each other.

In a work of fiction, the world presented is often much more consistent and "true".


I remember hearing this concept on day one of a beginner lit class in school. Sort of makes your gif a little bit anti-intellectual.

Did they teach the concept that throwing in a second logical fallacy doesn't undo the first one?

LiftAllThePizzas

Wrong + ad hominem + appeal to authority = still wrong.

pcastagner

Appeal to authority is when you depend on the authority itself rather than making the point. You a free to argue with Hemingway but I think he put it well

"“From things that have happened and from things as they exist and from all things that you know and all those you cannot know, you make something through your invention that is not a representation but a whole new thing truer than anything true and alive, and you make it alive, and if you make it well enough, you give it immortality.”

- in an interview, 1958 (The Paris Review Interview Vol. 1)


Further, it's clear you miss the point of Art completely when you confuse it with logic 101.

Let me then say that while you are obviously oh so clever and intelligent, in this instance you seem to perhaps have more fight than sense, which is troglodytic. Why you couldn't just let the comment go about fiction being sometimes truer than reality, I can't say. It's repeated so often and so NOT original to me, nor is it a point to debate really unless you are interested in talking of literary theory rather than the topic at hand. I made that comment in an offhand way.


Better?

pcastagner

Ooh this guy does a pretty good job explaining this rather-well-discussed-since-the-renaissance idea. From
http://philipnewey.blogspot.jp/2012/12/fiction-is-truer-than-fact.html

Again, this is not appeal to authority, unless you only count my use of authority to get your attention (which is in fact a valid probabilistic argument that the position is worthy of consideration). The substance of this, as in the Hemingway quote, is not based on who spoke, but on what has been said.

“Things need not have happened to be true. Tales and dreams are the shadow-truths that will endure when mere facts are dust and ashes, and forgot.”
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 3: Dream Country



I wish Neil Gaiman had written “forgotten” rather than “forgot”; but the point is well taken. Indeed, I would claim that tales are truer than fact, at least potentially. I make this claim, because life in general is very messy. As a research biologist, one of the things I would attempt to do is design an experiment that removes some of the messiness and noise from the world. Conditions are created in which it is possible to focus, preferably, on the results of changing a single variable. Of course, such a perfect system is not attainable, and there always remains some unwanted variation due to other, uncontrolled factors. Fiction writing is something like this. In fiction, we concentrate on one or a few themes and explore them in detail, excluding extraneous material. One of the simplest and clearest examples of this is the form of the parable, as seen in the gospels. Here a simple story is told that usually highlights a single, important point. This reveals a “truth” that could otherwise be obscured by the noise in the real world. I put “truth” in inverted commas, because I find myself somewhat on the side of Pontius Pilate here: “What is truth?” Truth, I believe, is time, place and context dependent. A parable never contains the whole truth and nothing but the truth; but it is a partial truth that might otherwise be overlooked in the clutter of the real world. A parable is, at the same time, untruth, because it ignores other important factors or pieces of information.

The same is true of more complex forms of fiction. They are abstractions from the real world, and are, therefore, able to reveal truths that might otherwise be overlooked. Of course, they are also untruths, as implied by the very word “fiction” itself.

Here is a theme that recurs frequently in my thinking, and probably, therefore, in my writing here. It is the idea of “the coincidence of opposites”. This is a concept that goes back to early Greek philosophy, but also gained currency in the Late Middle Ages, and is also evident in the psychology of Carl Jung. It is the idea that something can be simultaneously its own opposite. The road up, is also the road down. A story can be true and untrue at the same time; and, in being so, is somehow more “true” than it would otherwise be. This reflects the complexity of whatever this thing is in which we live, this “universe”, this “world”; and, even more so, this thing that we are: human beings.

Of course, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and a story is just a story. (And/or not.)

I await your next brilliant use of snarky gif. I will thank you though, because the Neil Gaiman quote was not known to me. Loves me some sandman!