Calling all sugar addicts!
Options
Replies
-
P.S. Here are some primary source articles and peer-reviewed scientific articles for all the anger going on in this post.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763407000589
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261561409002398
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/139/3/623.short
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2002.66/full
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/pha/15/5/481/
You'd be SO surprised what a quick search on google scholar can do.
You'd be SO surprised that humans =/= rodents
do you ever add anything of value to a discussion? she provides tons of research pertaining to the topic and still you can't have a legitimate conversation.
Acg, question for you: Why do we do ANY tests on non-humans if that factor is enough to dismiss the results?0 -
P.S. Here are some primary source articles and peer-reviewed scientific articles for all the anger going on in this post.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763407000589
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261561409002398
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/139/3/623.short
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2002.66/full
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/pha/15/5/481/
You'd be SO surprised what a quick search on google scholar can do.
You'd be SO surprised that humans =/= rodents
do you ever add anything of value to a discussion? she provides tons of research pertaining to the topic and still you can't have a legitimate conversation.
Acg, question for you: Why do we do ANY tests on non-humans if that factor is enough to dismiss the results?
From one of her linksThere is no support from the human literature for the hypothesis that sucrose may be physically addictive or that addiction to sugar plays a role in eating disorders.
Animal studies are a starting point, you cannot not simply extrapolate results from animal studies to humans.0 -
-
P.S. Here are some primary source articles and peer-reviewed scientific articles for all the anger going on in this post.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763407000589
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261561409002398
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/139/3/623.short
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2002.66/full
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/pha/15/5/481/
You'd be SO surprised what a quick search on google scholar can do.
You'd be SO surprised that humans =/= rodents
do you ever add anything of value to a discussion? she provides tons of research pertaining to the topic and still you can't have a legitimate conversation.
Acg, question for you: Why do we do ANY tests on non-humans if that factor is enough to dismiss the results?
From one of her linksThere is no support from the human literature for the hypothesis that sucrose may be physically addictive or that addiction to sugar plays a role in eating disorders.
Animal studies are a starting point, you cannot not simply extrapolate results from animal studies to humans.
but you admit they're a starting point, and that from the evidence gathered, human studies may be warranted? In other words, it's entirely valid to hypothesize that sugar may also be addictive in humans?0 -
P.S. Here are some primary source articles and peer-reviewed scientific articles for all the anger going on in this post.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763407000589
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261561409002398
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/139/3/623.short
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2002.66/full
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/pha/15/5/481/
You'd be SO surprised what a quick search on google scholar can do.
You'd be SO surprised that humans =/= rodents
do you ever add anything of value to a discussion? she provides tons of research pertaining to the topic and still you can't have a legitimate conversation.
Acg, question for you: Why do we do ANY tests on non-humans if that factor is enough to dismiss the results?
From one of her linksThere is no support from the human literature for the hypothesis that sucrose may be physically addictive or that addiction to sugar plays a role in eating disorders.
Animal studies are a starting point, you cannot not simply extrapolate results from animal studies to humans.
but you admit they're a starting point, and that from the evidence gathered, human studies may be warranted? In other words, it's entirely valid to hypothesize that sugar may also be addictive in humans?
"Another reason rodents are used as models in medical testing is that their genetic, biological and behavior characteristics closely resemble those of humans, and many symptoms of human conditions can be replicated in mice and rats. "Rats and mice are mammals that share many processes with humans and are appropriate for use to answer many research questions," said Jenny Haliski, a representative for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare."
Source http://www.livescience.com/32860-why-do-medical-researchers-use-mice.html0 -
P.S. Here are some primary source articles and peer-reviewed scientific articles for all the anger going on in this post.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763407000589
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261561409002398
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/139/3/623.short
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2002.66/full
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/pha/15/5/481/
You'd be SO surprised what a quick search on google scholar can do.
You'd be SO surprised that humans =/= rodents
do you ever add anything of value to a discussion? she provides tons of research pertaining to the topic and still you can't have a legitimate conversation.
Acg, question for you: Why do we do ANY tests on non-humans if that factor is enough to dismiss the results?
From one of her linksThere is no support from the human literature for the hypothesis that sucrose may be physically addictive or that addiction to sugar plays a role in eating disorders.
Animal studies are a starting point, you cannot not simply extrapolate results from animal studies to humans.
but you admit they're a starting point, and that from the evidence gathered, human studies may be warranted? In other words, it's entirely valid to hypothesize that sugar may also be addictive in humans?
Depends on how much stock you put in rodent studies that deprive the rodents of food for 12 hrs, which when thought of in human terms is somewhere in the range of 3-5days. How realistic is that scenario? So yes under certain conditions, it may be entirely possible sucrose could be addictive in humans0 -
The outcomes in most of these mouse studies are predetermined and dosage is then adjusted for that outcome.....no point in feeding them normally we have human studies that show those results. All these mice also have altered DNA to facilitate quicker results or to enhance effect for those study purposes.......google knockout mice. But lets face it, this generally gets in the way of really good story telling.P.S. Here are some primary source articles and peer-reviewed scientific articles for all the anger going on in this post.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763407000589
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261561409002398
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/139/3/623.short
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2002.66/full
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/pha/15/5/481/
You'd be SO surprised what a quick search on google scholar can do.
You'd be SO surprised that humans =/= rodents
do you ever add anything of value to a discussion? she provides tons of research pertaining to the topic and still you can't have a legitimate conversation.
Acg, question for you: Why do we do ANY tests on non-humans if that factor is enough to dismiss the results?
From one of her linksThere is no support from the human literature for the hypothesis that sucrose may be physically addictive or that addiction to sugar plays a role in eating disorders.
Animal studies are a starting point, you cannot not simply extrapolate results from animal studies to humans.
but you admit they're a starting point, and that from the evidence gathered, human studies may be warranted? In other words, it's entirely valid to hypothesize that sugar may also be addictive in humans?
Depends on how much stock you put in rodent studies that deprive the rodents of food for 12 hrs, which when thought of in human terms is somewhere in the range of 3-5days. How realistic is that scenario? So yes under certain conditions, it may be entirely possible sucrose could be addictive in humans
this is also good reading regarding mouse models.
https://www.genome.gov/100058340 -
Agree that we live in the land of plenty... and it's not just sugar.. it's all food. This is where the second link i posted mentioned. If you look at statics, it's not sugar that has increase, it's overall caloric availability. So blaming a specific micronutient for our health issues is the problem.i would argue that it's not sugar.. it's hyperpalatable foods. Again, no one in this thread has suggested they have an addiction to high sugar fruits, but rather donuts, chocolate, cake, cheese and for me it's wings. As niner point out, our addiction isn't sugar, it's extremely yummy foods. Heck, I will take a Burrito bowl from Chipotle, Steak or Wings over dessert any day of the week. When I binge, it's not on sweets, its on meat because it's yummy.
Do you eat wings until you throw up, and then keep eating? Do you deceive your family so you can hoard Chipotle? Do you steal steak from your housemates? Do you eat food from the garbage? What you have is not addiction but that doesn't mean other people don't have it worse than you. Don't try to compare your lack of self-control over foods you like to people who actually have disorders
You actually make good points... I don't see anyone on this board that claims a sugar addiction stating they are picking pieces of cake out of the trash, or picking up chocolate off the street for a "fix". This is why many of us don't believe it's a addiction but rather a binging disorder.
We live in the land of plenty. Any convenience store has sugar, and sugar is cheap. No need to go through the trash.0 -
Someone somewhere likely has an addiction - from all the shots they've consumed playing a drinking game with the phrase "sugar addict"0
-
Lustig unfortunately has quite a bit of baggage, Zealots often do. Because of your overall beliefs which are also in line with his, maybe doing research that contradicts that premise might be a good starting point to be more balanced in this overall complicated subject as opposed to falling to the appeal to authority flaw."Which brings us to sugar. Another fun substance, full of energy, made up of two molecules linked together: glucose (kind of sweet, and not that much fun), and fructose (very sweet, and a whole lot of fun). Glucose is a nutrient, although not essential—it’s so important, that if you don’t eat it, your liver will make it. But what about fructose? Is fructose a nutrient? As it turns out, there’s no biochemical reaction that requires dietary fructose. A rare genetic disease called Hereditary Fructose Intolerance afflicts 1 in 100,000 babies, who drop their blood sugar to almost zero and have a seizure upon their first exposure to juice from a bottle at age six months. Doctors perform a liver biopsy to confirm the diagnosis. From that moment on, they’re fructose-free for the rest of their lives. And they’re among the healthiest people on the planet. Alcohol and fructose both supply energy. They’re fun—but they are not nutrients. Strike two."
Source http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/01/the-sugar-addiction-taboo/282699/
My thoughts: Not everyone who drinks alcohol is an alcoholic. But alcoholics exist.
No everyone who eats sugar is addicted to it. But some people react to sugar, behaviorally and biochemically, in a very similar way as an addict.
You love posting junky stuff, an article from Lolstig?
Robert H. Lolstig is a pediatric neuroendocrinologist and a professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco. He is former chairman of the obesity task force of the Lawson Wilkins Pediatric Endocrine Society
What are your credentials, Acg67?
Lolstig hardly sounds like a radical zealot. He even quotes the AHA recommendation of reducing sugar (perhaps why many on MFP complain about the low sugar recommendations here and the need to "delete sugar tracking" or "ignore sugar" from their diaries.
Here's the last paragraph from his article above:
"The concept of sugar addiction will continue to evoke visceral responses on both sides of the aisle. One thing most agree on is that sugar should be safe—and rare. That means “real” food. In the short term, Americans must watch out for ourselves, and that means cooking for ourselves. The American Heart Association recommends a reduction in consumption from our current 22 teaspoons per day to six for women and nine for men; a reduction by two-thirds to three-quarters. Our current consumption is over our limit and our “processed” food supply is designed to keep it that way. Food should confer wellness, not illness. The industry feeds our sugar habit to the detriment of our society. We need food purveyors, not food pushers."
Source http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/01/the-sugar-addiction-taboo/282699/
So how is treating sugar as an addictive substance working out for you?0 -
Then my question would be: Why aren't vegetarians showing up in large numbers with health issues if the majority of their diet is fructose laden?
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
aw come on man you respond to the Lustig wall-o-text but ignore my actual study depicting actual sugar addiction in rats?
sadface.
You posted a study? Do you not know what a study is? And what was the study design, 12hrs food deprivation?
feel free to read it yourself.
I've read it. It is quite interesting. However, rats are not humans. I am looking forward to more research.0 -
So how is treating sugar as an addictive substance working out for you?
This wasn't addressed to me, but as someone that often refers to myself as a former sugar addict, I'm answering anyway. It worked well for me. I gave up sugar for several months many years ago. Not all carbs or all foods that eventually break down into glucose. Sugar. Sweets. Desserts. Candy, cake, pie, soda, juice, etc.
After a few months I allowed myself to sugary treats once in a while. I found by breaking what I refered to as my addiction (without giving a ****e about whether my word usage was correct) I could eat sweets without wanting to eat every sweet within a 50 mile radius.
But, every now and then, I find I need to rein it in again. So, I do.0 -
[quote
Sugar Showdown: Science Responds to "Fructophobia"
The scientific community lashed out against "sugar is toxic" sensationalism on Sunday, April 22, identifying it as a distraction from more meaningful areas of research and debate on the causes of obesity and disease.
In a highly attended debate at Experimental Biology 2012 in San Diego sponsored by the Corn Refiners Association, scientists expressed clear frustration about the repeated assaults on sugar both in recent news reports and in the scientific literature.
"You don't often see this at a meeting," said John White, Ph.D., of White Technical Research, to me after the event, referring to what he said was "the groundswell of researchers pushing back" against inflammatory remarks and overstatements.
The symposium organized by the American Society for Nutrition showcased both sides of the controversy surrounding the metabolic effects and health implications of sugar—fructose, sucrose, and high-fructose corn syrup—using latest available and emerging scientific findings.
As the first presenter, White presented data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys showing that no correlation existed between total fructose and the prevalence of obesity and that total added sugars and intake of sugar-sweetened beverages have declined for more than a decade.
"The support for fructose as a metabolic threat at current levels of intake is weak," White affirmed.
White also made the point that high-fructose corn syrup and sucrose are not different, suggesting the former might've been more appropriately called "medium-fructose corn syrup" because of its similarity to table sugar and other sugars.
Presenting a contrasting view, George Bray, M.D., chief division of clinical obesity and metabolism, showed data that soft drink consumption had increased from 1950 to 2000. Sugar-sweetened beverages, he argued, provide add-on calories that lead to weight gain, particularly from intra-abdominal fat.
In what promised to be a highly charged attack on sugar, characteristic of his appearance in media reports, Robert Lustig, M.D., began with a title slide displaying: "Fructose: alcohol without the 'buzz'". He argued that fructose metabolism was similar to that of ethanol's and that a "beer belly" was not far off from a "soda belly."
In his limited time, fast-talking Dr. Lustig quickly explained metabolic pathways and repeated remarks that fructose may be addicting to the brain like ethanol, based on animal research, and that fructose may be several times more likely than glucose to form advanced-glycation end products (a hallmark feature of uncontrolled diabetes).
Next to speak was cardiologist James Rippe, M.D., who presented a convincing argument that while fructose alone may have "qualitative differences," they were not "quantitative differences." He argued that research comparing pure fructose to pure glucose was not relevant to human nutrition.
Sharing White's viewpoint, Dr. Rippe added that there were no metabolic differences between the sugars or fructose by itself—that is, there are no clinically meaningful effects on blood lipids at levels consumed by people normally, and no effects on uric acid or blood pressure.
He said the hot topic was an emotional issue creating a "perfect storm" for mistaken identity.
Dr. Rippe said afterward that Dr. Lustig's logic about fructose being uniquely responsible for disease was like going into "an alternate universe" that just did not stand up to scientific scrutiny. Yet it garners attention because of the public's habit of playing "the blame game" mixed with misconceptions about high-fructose corn syrup.
"People called him on it today," Rippe told me. By going to the media directly, he said, Dr. Lustig didn't have to have the same standards of proof that scientists usually must have.
The last presenter was David Klurfeld, Ph.D., of the United States Department of Agriculture, who rounded out the debate again affirming that there was no evidence suggesting that sugar presented a unique metabolic danger.
"Is there a metabolic difference between sugars? Of course," Klurfeld said, "Is it biologically meaningful?" The answer was that it wasn't, according to the available evidence.
"The dose makes the poison," Klurfeld added. Should there be sugar regulation or taxation? There is insufficient data to justify any decision, Klurfeld said, quipping that whole milk would be next.
A question-and-answer period followed the debate giving a voice to disgruntled attendees who called Dr. Lustig out for suggesting that sugar was a metabolic danger. Dr. Lustig agreed that "everything can be toxic" at a dose, but sugar is abused and addictive.
One commenter (later identified as Richard Black, Ph.D., of Kraft Foods) responded saying that media should stop comparing sugar to cocaine by showing images where the brain lights up in the same areas. "The brain is supposed to light up in response to food," he said.
In an amusing but perhaps humbling moment for Dr. Lustig, he singled out the commenter asking if he had children. The commenter responded that he did. Dr. Lustig then asked him if as infants his children more easily liked sweet foods. The commenter said that, yes, of course they did because breast milk was sweet. Dr. Lustig replied that it was not. His reply caused an immediate reaction (notably, from mostly women) in the room who voiced in unison, "Yes, it is!"
John Sievenpiper, M.D., of St. Michael's Hospital told me after the event he was pleased that the speakers framed their arguments in a way that put the controversy in perspective. As shown in recent meta-analyses of which he co-authored, fructose demonstrated no significant effect on body weight or blood pressure in calorie-controlled trials. Fructose also demonstrated improvement of glycemic control at levels comparable to that obtained in fruit.
"It's hard to change people's minds," Dr. Sievenpiper said, stating concern that people would reduce intake of fruit in response to fears about the metabolic effects of fructose.
Don't miss this Storify story from folks on Twitter using the #sugarshowdown hashtag during the debate. Also, check out video blogger Emily Tomayko's recap on the ASN blog here.
Update 24-May-12: As a follow-up to this report, I've posted an interview with Dr. Sievenpiper here. Hopefully, it will help bring more clarity to the issues and answer several questions people have. If you wish to comment, please do so after reading that post. I've now closed comments on this blog post.
Update 8-June-12: Check out videos (just published) of each of the talks. Here they are: White, Lustig, Bray, Rippe, and Klurfeld. Oh, and there is a video of the Q&A too. [/quote]
http://evolvinghealthscience.blogspot.com/2012/04/sugar-showdown-science-responds-to.html?spref=tw0 -
So how is treating sugar as an addictive substance working out for you?
This wasn't addressed to me, but as someone that often refers to myself as a former sugar addict, I'm answering anyway. It worked well for me. I gave up sugar for several months many years ago. Not all carbs or all foods that eventually break down into glucose. Sugar. Sweets. Desserts. Candy, cake, pie, soda, juice, etc.
After a few months I allowed myself to sugary treats once in a while. I found by breaking what I refered to as my addiction (without giving a ****e about whether my word usage was correct) I could eat sweets without wanting to eat every sweet within a 50 mile radius.
But, every now and then, I find I need to rein it in again. So, I do.
You do recognize then that it's not a physical addiction so much as a propensity to like sweets? Maybe even a binge eating disorder? That's really all anyone here is saying unless I'm severely misinterpreting. If you want to call it an "addiction" tongue and cheek, cool, I think we all get it. Some of the sugar addiction claims here though are really ludicrous.0 -
So how is treating sugar as an addictive substance working out for you?
This wasn't addressed to me, but as someone that often refers to myself as a former sugar addict, I'm answering anyway. It worked well for me. I gave up sugar for several months many years ago. Not all carbs or all foods that eventually break down into glucose. Sugar. Sweets. Desserts. Candy, cake, pie, soda, juice, etc.
After a few months I allowed myself to sugary treats once in a while. I found by breaking what I refered to as my addiction (without giving a ****e about whether my word usage was correct) I could eat sweets without wanting to eat every sweet within a 50 mile radius.
But, every now and then, I find I need to rein it in again. So, I do.
That's an awful narrow definition of sugar0 -
So how is treating sugar as an addictive substance working out for you?
This wasn't addressed to me, but as someone that often refers to myself as a former sugar addict, I'm answering anyway. It worked well for me. I gave up sugar for several months many years ago. Not all carbs or all foods that eventually break down into glucose. Sugar. Sweets. Desserts. Candy, cake, pie, soda, juice, etc.
After a few months I allowed myself to sugary treats once in a while. I found by breaking what I refered to as my addiction (without giving a ****e about whether my word usage was correct) I could eat sweets without wanting to eat every sweet within a 50 mile radius.
But, every now and then, I find I need to rein it in again. So, I do.
You do recognize then that it's not a physical addiction so much as a propensity to like sweets? Maybe even a binge eating disorder? That's really all anyone here is saying unless I'm severely misinterpreting. If you want to call it an "addiction" tongue and cheek, cool, I think we all get it. Some of the sugar addiction claims here though are really ludicrous.
No doubt. Every long forum thread is full of some nonsense. According to dictionary.com:
ad·dic·tion [uh-dik-shuhn] Show IPA
noun
the state of being enslaved to a habit or practice or to something that is psychologically or physically habit-forming, as narcotics, to such an extent that its cessation causes severe trauma.
I'm not convinced that sugar doesn't fit that description for many. But even if it doesn't technically meet the definition, so what? Even if you convinced them it didn't, so what? What would it change or prove?0 -
So how is treating sugar as an addictive substance working out for you?
This wasn't addressed to me, but as someone that often refers to myself as a former sugar addict, I'm answering anyway. It worked well for me. I gave up sugar for several months many years ago. Not all carbs or all foods that eventually break down into glucose. Sugar. Sweets. Desserts. Candy, cake, pie, soda, juice, etc.
After a few months I allowed myself to sugary treats once in a while. I found by breaking what I refered to as my addiction (without giving a ****e about whether my word usage was correct) I could eat sweets without wanting to eat every sweet within a 50 mile radius.
But, every now and then, I find I need to rein it in again. So, I do.
You do recognize then that it's not a physical addiction so much as a propensity to like sweets? Maybe even a binge eating disorder? That's really all anyone here is saying unless I'm severely misinterpreting. If you want to call it an "addiction" tongue and cheek, cool, I think we all get it. Some of the sugar addiction claims here though are really ludicrous.
No doubt. Every long forum thread is full of some nonsense. According to dictionary.com:
ad·dic·tion [uh-dik-shuhn] Show IPA
noun
the state of being enslaved to a habit or practice or to something that is psychologically or physically habit-forming, as narcotics, to such an extent that its cessation causes severe trauma.
I'm not convinced that sugar doesn't fit that description for many. But even if it doesn't technically meet the definition, so what? Even if you convinced them it didn't, so what? What would it change or prove?
The solution to physical addictions has been to completely and permanently cease consuming or using the addictive substance. You yourself mention above that this is not the case for you with sugar. My point is simply that the treatment/solution is different. It's also better for the individual, as hey you get to have a treat once in a while. That, and simple intellectually curiosity and honesty.0 -
I'd say 'food' gits that description.ad·dic·tion [uh-dik-shuhn] Show IPA
noun
the state of being enslaved to a habit or practice or to something that is psychologically or physically habit-forming, as narcotics, to such an extent that its cessation causes severe trauma.
I'm not convinced that sugar doesn't fit that description for many. But even if it doesn't technically meet the definition, so what? Even if you convinced them it didn't, so what? What would it change or prove?
Also, 'nice food'. Well, maybe not 'severe trauma', but not sure the same is true with sugar either.
I have been addicted to Tramadol - didn't realise until I tried to stop taking it and had classic 'cold turkey' issues.
Hasn't stopped me taking similar since, in some cases for a good bit of time at once and been fine stopping taking it too.0 -
[quote
Sugar Showdown: Science Responds to "Fructophobia"
The scientific community lashed out against "sugar is toxic" sensationalism on Sunday, April 22, identifying it as a distraction from more meaningful areas of research and debate on the causes of obesity and disease.
In a highly attended debate at Experimental Biology 2012 in San Diego sponsored by the Corn Refiners Association, scientists expressed clear frustration about the repeated assaults on sugar both in recent news reports and in the scientific literature.
"You don't often see this at a meeting," said John White, Ph.D., of White Technical Research, to me after the event, referring to what he said was "the groundswell of researchers pushing back" against inflammatory remarks and overstatements.
The symposium organized by the American Society for Nutrition showcased both sides of the controversy surrounding the metabolic effects and health implications of sugar—fructose, sucrose, and high-fructose corn syrup—using latest available and emerging scientific findings.
As the first presenter, White presented data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys showing that no correlation existed between total fructose and the prevalence of obesity and that total added sugars and intake of sugar-sweetened beverages have declined for more than a decade.
"The support for fructose as a metabolic threat at current levels of intake is weak," White affirmed.
White also made the point that high-fructose corn syrup and sucrose are not different, suggesting the former might've been more appropriately called "medium-fructose corn syrup" because of its similarity to table sugar and other sugars.
Presenting a contrasting view, George Bray, M.D., chief division of clinical obesity and metabolism, showed data that soft drink consumption had increased from 1950 to 2000. Sugar-sweetened beverages, he argued, provide add-on calories that lead to weight gain, particularly from intra-abdominal fat.
In what promised to be a highly charged attack on sugar, characteristic of his appearance in media reports, Robert Lustig, M.D., began with a title slide displaying: "Fructose: alcohol without the 'buzz'". He argued that fructose metabolism was similar to that of ethanol's and that a "beer belly" was not far off from a "soda belly."
In his limited time, fast-talking Dr. Lustig quickly explained metabolic pathways and repeated remarks that fructose may be addicting to the brain like ethanol, based on animal research, and that fructose may be several times more likely than glucose to form advanced-glycation end products (a hallmark feature of uncontrolled diabetes).
Next to speak was cardiologist James Rippe, M.D., who presented a convincing argument that while fructose alone may have "qualitative differences," they were not "quantitative differences." He argued that research comparing pure fructose to pure glucose was not relevant to human nutrition.
Sharing White's viewpoint, Dr. Rippe added that there were no metabolic differences between the sugars or fructose by itself—that is, there are no clinically meaningful effects on blood lipids at levels consumed by people normally, and no effects on uric acid or blood pressure.
He said the hot topic was an emotional issue creating a "perfect storm" for mistaken identity.
Dr. Rippe said afterward that Dr. Lustig's logic about fructose being uniquely responsible for disease was like going into "an alternate universe" that just did not stand up to scientific scrutiny. Yet it garners attention because of the public's habit of playing "the blame game" mixed with misconceptions about high-fructose corn syrup.
"People called him on it today," Rippe told me. By going to the media directly, he said, Dr. Lustig didn't have to have the same standards of proof that scientists usually must have.
The last presenter was David Klurfeld, Ph.D., of the United States Department of Agriculture, who rounded out the debate again affirming that there was no evidence suggesting that sugar presented a unique metabolic danger.
"Is there a metabolic difference between sugars? Of course," Klurfeld said, "Is it biologically meaningful?" The answer was that it wasn't, according to the available evidence.
"The dose makes the poison," Klurfeld added. Should there be sugar regulation or taxation? There is insufficient data to justify any decision, Klurfeld said, quipping that whole milk would be next.
A question-and-answer period followed the debate giving a voice to disgruntled attendees who called Dr. Lustig out for suggesting that sugar was a metabolic danger. Dr. Lustig agreed that "everything can be toxic" at a dose, but sugar is abused and addictive.
One commenter (later identified as Richard Black, Ph.D., of Kraft Foods) responded saying that media should stop comparing sugar to cocaine by showing images where the brain lights up in the same areas. "The brain is supposed to light up in response to food," he said.
In an amusing but perhaps humbling moment for Dr. Lustig, he singled out the commenter asking if he had children. The commenter responded that he did. Dr. Lustig then asked him if as infants his children more easily liked sweet foods. The commenter said that, yes, of course they did because breast milk was sweet. Dr. Lustig replied that it was not. His reply caused an immediate reaction (notably, from mostly women) in the room who voiced in unison, "Yes, it is!"
John Sievenpiper, M.D., of St. Michael's Hospital told me after the event he was pleased that the speakers framed their arguments in a way that put the controversy in perspective. As shown in recent meta-analyses of which he co-authored, fructose demonstrated no significant effect on body weight or blood pressure in calorie-controlled trials. Fructose also demonstrated improvement of glycemic control at levels comparable to that obtained in fruit.
"It's hard to change people's minds," Dr. Sievenpiper said, stating concern that people would reduce intake of fruit in response to fears about the metabolic effects of fructose.
Don't miss this Storify story from folks on Twitter using the #sugarshowdown hashtag during the debate. Also, check out video blogger Emily Tomayko's recap on the ASN blog here.
Update 24-May-12: As a follow-up to this report, I've posted an interview with Dr. Sievenpiper here. Hopefully, it will help bring more clarity to the issues and answer several questions people have. If you wish to comment, please do so after reading that post. I've now closed comments on this blog post.
Update 8-June-12: Check out videos (just published) of each of the talks. Here they are: White, Lustig, Bray, Rippe, and Klurfeld. Oh, and there is a video of the Q&A too.
http://evolvinghealthscience.blogspot.com/2012/04/sugar-showdown-science-responds-to.html?spref=tw
[/quote]Thanks so much for this. Open forums within the scientific community, whether pro or con, is good.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
I posted two peer reviewed scientific articles that used HUMANS as a study and people are still arguing about rodents and if this is real. Oi.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 997 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions