Happy Saturday, Let's Talk Sugar . . .

SunofaBeach14

Not sure what this thread is even about anymore...

It's here to simply share the article, and allow people who have the patience and basic intelligence to do so, to read it. I also mentioned Alan Aragon's name because there is frankly far too much bad information out there, and I find that people like him help me cut through the B.S. I want the most bang for my efforts, period.

I understand what this thread was supposed to be about, it's just that at this point the word 'sugar' hasn't appeared - nor has the original article been quoted - in the last page at all...

To go back to what this thread is supposed to be about, and to expand on the first post a bit, it is estimated that the average citizen of the Roman empire got ~80% of his calories from carbs, and this remained stable (or even increased) until the late Middle Ages. To clear up a further misconception, malnutrition was common but subnutrition wasn't

Cane sugar may not have been common but honey and fruit sugars were. Apicius put honey in nearly everything according to his cookbook. It is fairly easy to see that high-carb or high-sugar diets don't guarantee obesity in any way.

This is another good article but it discusses the strange treatment of sugar in the media: http://www.forbes.com/sites/trevorbutterworth/2014/02/06/sweet-and-sour-the-media-decided-fructose-was-bad-for-america-but-science-had-second-thoughts/

tennisdude2004

Lol.

I meant 50% of the posts between you and me. It's less of a percentage across the thread as a whole.

Enjoy your sunny Sunday!

Oh, so you are saying all your posts responding to me are idiotic...ok....

Edited to condense.

Only if you are suggesting all of your posts addressed to me are idiotic!

tigersword

I never post on here. But based on some of the comments today, I felt compelled to post a quick response.

One of the BASIC tenets of critical thinking is analyzing and synthesizing CONTEXT. What does that mean? It means that you have to look at the circumstances surrounding an argument/thesis/action/idea in order to truly understand how and/or why it is being generated.

In looking at context, you must ALWAYS look beyond the thesis, premise and evidence, and delve down into the who, what, when, why and how of the argument. Context is one of the most important factors when analyzing a theory, and to dismiss or disregard it by saying that it "doesn't matter" is a sign of your lack of critical thinking skills. No offense.

So back to the topic at hand.... The fact that the very people that are making the claim that HFCS is not harmful are the same people funding the study is the type of information you would want to know when studying the validity of the article's thesis. What if a company that manufacturers steroids came out with a study saying there are no adverse effects associated with steroid usage and in fact, steroids will actually lengthen your life span? Or if an insurance company came out with a study that said they found evidence that a lump found in a woman's breast is harmless and going to a doctor to get checked out is a waste of money? Would you look at either of these studies and question the biases associated with them or would you also say it doesn't matter who wrote and/or funded the studies as long as the theories, premises and evidence are sound?

For one thing, none of those "example" studies you mentioned would pass peer review. Companies market products using "studies" all the time. Internally designed studies that haven't been peer reviewed, because they wouldn't pass peer review. This is what the peer review system is for. The peer reviewers have absolutely NOTHING to do with the study, they aren't being paid by the people that funded the study. Their sole job is to look at the hypothesis, read the methods, and look for methodological flaws and personal biases that may have affected the results. And it's not just one reviewer.

This is why looking at the funding source, and immediately disregarding a study, rather than actually reading the study and basing conclusions on the merits of the data, is actually the real sign a of lack of critical thinking skills.

Sarauk2sf

Lol.

I meant 50% of the posts between you and me. It's less of a percentage across the thread as a whole.

Enjoy your sunny Sunday!

Oh, so you are saying all your posts responding to me are idiotic...ok....

Edited to condense.

Only if you are suggesting all of your posts addressed to me are idiotic!

No, I am not. 50% = 1/2 = yours. You said it yourself. If you would like to tell me mine are...then please do. Again...coy.

Sarauk2sf

Sorry Sun....got distracted there by the insinuations and ducking and diving of the questions. :flowerforyou:


Out to lift so hopefully no more derailing.....

Slacker16

This is another good article but it discusses the strange treatment of sugar in the media: http://www.forbes.com/sites/trevorbutterworth/2014/02/06/sweet-and-sour-the-media-decided-fructose-was-bad-for-america-but-science-had-second-thoughts/

This sort of stuff is typical when a scientific topic is developed enough to have everyday applications (especially commercial ones) but not quite developed enough for there to be an established consensus that can be distributed to the masses.

In a way, it's similar to the AC vs DC debate of the late 1890's, complete with Edison-style pseudoscience being peddled for commercial purposes.

Sweets were, in fact, the "first" enemy. Artificial sweeteners are way older than fat substitutes. Then fat became the enemy, remember margarine? Now sugar is again the enemy but the pendulum might be swinging. In a way, both have a point: fat makes it easy to consume a hyooge amount of calories in little time and sugar is one of the few nutrients that provide almost no satiation.

I suspect that, 100 years from now, our grandkids will think we were idiots...

SunofaBeach14

Sorry Sun....got distracted there by the insinuations and ducking and diving of the questions. :flowerforyou:


Out to lift so hopefully no more derailing.....

Not at all. Enjoy the lifting!

SunofaBeach14

I never post on here. But based on some of the comments today, I felt compelled to post a quick response.

One of the BASIC tenets of critical thinking is analyzing and synthesizing CONTEXT. What does that mean? It means that you have to look at the circumstances surrounding an argument/thesis/action/idea in order to truly understand how and/or why it is being generated.

In looking at context, you must ALWAYS look beyond the thesis, premise and evidence, and delve down into the who, what, when, why and how of the argument. Context is one of the most important factors when analyzing a theory, and to dismiss or disregard it by saying that it "doesn't matter" is a sign of your lack of critical thinking skills. No offense.

So back to the topic at hand.... The fact that the very people that are making the claim that HFCS is not harmful are the same people funding the study is the type of information you would want to know when studying the validity of the article's thesis. What if a company that manufacturers steroids came out with a study saying there are no adverse effects associated with steroid usage and in fact, steroids will actually lengthen your life span? Or if an insurance company came out with a study that said they found evidence that a lump found in a woman's breast is harmless and going to a doctor to get checked out is a waste of money? Would you look at either of these studies and question the biases associated with them or would you also say it doesn't matter who wrote and/or funded the studies as long as the theories, premises and evidence are sound?

For one thing, none of those "example" studies you mentioned would pass peer review. Companies market products using "studies" all the time. Internally designed studies that haven't been peer reviewed, because they wouldn't pass peer review. This is what the peer review system is for. The peer reviewers have absolutely NOTHING to do with the study, they aren't being paid by the people that funded the study. Their sole job is to look at the hypothesis, read the methods, and look for methodological flaws and personal biases that may have affected the results. And it's not just one reviewer.

This is why looking at the funding source, and immediately disregarding a study, rather than actually reading the study and basing conclusions on the merits of the data, is actually the real sign a of lack of critical thinking skills.

Agreed. Context matters, but that's not the entire story, it simply allows someone to check the data with perhaps a bit more of a critical eye, and that is why that information is provided with these studies. We all have or biases and that is one of the reasons why we have to rely on the scientific method and the peer review process. I agree that there are certain sources of information which aren't worth double checking, Mercola comes to mind, but that happens over time after someone has continually demonstrated his/her willingness to cherry pick or, in more limited cases, fabricate data. Dr. Wakefield's autism/vaccination study comes to mind with that latter one. Here: http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/01/05/autism.vaccines/

tigersword

I never post on here. But based on some of the comments today, I felt compelled to post a quick response.

One of the BASIC tenets of critical thinking is analyzing and synthesizing CONTEXT. What does that mean? It means that you have to look at the circumstances surrounding an argument/thesis/action/idea in order to truly understand how and/or why it is being generated.

In looking at context, you must ALWAYS look beyond the thesis, premise and evidence, and delve down into the who, what, when, why and how of the argument. Context is one of the most important factors when analyzing a theory, and to dismiss or disregard it by saying that it "doesn't matter" is a sign of your lack of critical thinking skills. No offense.

So back to the topic at hand.... The fact that the very people that are making the claim that HFCS is not harmful are the same people funding the study is the type of information you would want to know when studying the validity of the article's thesis. What if a company that manufacturers steroids came out with a study saying there are no adverse effects associated with steroid usage and in fact, steroids will actually lengthen your life span? Or if an insurance company came out with a study that said they found evidence that a lump found in a woman's breast is harmless and going to a doctor to get checked out is a waste of money? Would you look at either of these studies and question the biases associated with them or would you also say it doesn't matter who wrote and/or funded the studies as long as the theories, premises and evidence are sound?

For one thing, none of those "example" studies you mentioned would pass peer review. Companies market products using "studies" all the time. Internally designed studies that haven't been peer reviewed, because they wouldn't pass peer review. This is what the peer review system is for. The peer reviewers have absolutely NOTHING to do with the study, they aren't being paid by the people that funded the study. Their sole job is to look at the hypothesis, read the methods, and look for methodological flaws and personal biases that may have affected the results. And it's not just one reviewer.

This is why looking at the funding source, and immediately disregarding a study, rather than actually reading the study and basing conclusions on the merits of the data, is actually the real sign a of lack of critical thinking skills.

Agreed. Context matters, but that's not the entire story, it simply allows someone to check the data with perhaps a bit more of a critical eye, and that is why that information is provided with these studies. We all have or biases and that is one of the reasons why we have to rely on the scientific method and the peer review process. I agree that there are certain sources of information which aren't worth double checking, Mercola comes to mind, but that happens over time after someone has continually demonstrated his/her willingness to cherry pick or, in more limited cases, fabricate data. Dr. Wakefield's autism/vaccination study comes to mind with that latter one. Here: http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/01/05/autism.vaccines/

http://darryl-cunningham.blogspot.com/2010/05/facts-in-case-of-dr-andrew-wakefield.html
That's the Dr. Wakefield story in comic strip form, it's actually a very good summary of events.

AsaThorsWoman

kuolo

I'm sharing this link that was posted recently by Alan Aragon on his FB page. It provides a good overview of our state of knowledge on HFCS and fructose. If you want good research-based nutrition information and you don't know who Alan Aragon is then I highly recommend that you go introduce yourself to his website and blog.

http://m.advances.nutrition.org/content/4/2/236.long

The conclusion (to save those who don't want to read the entire article):

So, what do we really know about the metabolism, endocrine responses, and health effects of sucrose, HFCS, and fructose? At present, we believe that the following conclusions are warranted. First, there is no unique relationship between HFCS and obesity. Second, there is broad scientific consensus that there are no significant metabolic or endocrine response differences or differences in health-related effects between HFCS and sucrose. Third, the metabolism and health effects of both HFCS and sucrose are different from those observed in studies that compare pure fructose with pure glucose, neither of which is consumed to any appreciable degree in the human diet. Fourth, recent randomized clinical trials have suggested that there are no adverse effects on total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol or HDL cholesterol at amounts ranging up to the 90th percentile level of fructose consumption, although other investigators have shown increases in cholesterol and/or LDL cholesterol in subjects consuming either sucrose or HFCS (66, 68–70), so further research studies are needed to clarify this issue. There is, however, a reliable increase in triglycerides from consumption of elevated levels of carbohydrates (particularly simple sugars), which merits further exploration.

Would like to say first that I know very little about this as it's not something we have in the UK really, but I'm coming at this from an analytical point of view and just wanted to say that the quality of this article bothered me. If you look closely, I think this is slightly misleading/doesn't say very much.

It starts off by saying that THEY believe the following conclusions are warranted. Not that they are backed up by evidence.

So it says there is no UNIQUE relationship between HFCS and obesity, not no relationship at all.

The fact that it seems relatively specific in the similarities with sucrose make me wonder what differences they found. Also, 'broad scientific consensus' can be fairly meaningless.

Then it goes on to say that HFCS and sucrose cannot be compared to studies with fructose and glucose, but immediately goes on to say that for FRUCTOSE " there are no adverse effects on total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol or HDL cholesterol at amounts ranging up to the 90th percentile level of fructose consumption," (ie this is totally irrelevant to both sucrose and HFCS by the previous sentence.)

And it says that studies "have shown increases in cholesterol and/or LDL cholesterol in subjects consuming either sucrose or HFCS" - the fact that it says this straight after saying FRUCTOSE has no effect makes it read like it is talking about HFCS in both instances, whereas it is clearly not - and the fact that it then says other studies are needed to clarify furher undermines what is actually a 'broad scientific consensus', to use their phrase.

(So while those with vested interests cannot necessarily determine the results of a trial, although this was not a trial, they can determine how the evidence is presented and also what is implied quite cleverly).

And the final sentence - where it blames 'carbohydrates' - I suspect that this is actually a study based not on carbs but on HFCS and again this is a way of phrasing it that makes it sound different to what it is.

If you read the actual 'study' not just the conclusion, it basically doesn't say anything at all. Plus they cherry-pick their findings and studies, including using 'undocumented observation'. They also seem to not have actually done different studies using HFCS verus sucrose, but actually used both and counted it as the same study, whilst somehow implying that therefore their results mean that they are the same to the body. So it is wildly misleading.

Anyway like I said I don't really hold an opinion on the matter but as far as I'm concerned this isn't a reliable source of information at all, in fact completely the opposite.

AlabasterVerve

Anyway like I said I don't really hold an opinion on the matter but as far as I'm concerned this isn't a reliable source of information at all, in fact completely the opposite.

This, definitely. It came across as propaganda not a definitive review of the science.

tigersword

I'm sharing this link that was posted recently by Alan Aragon on his FB page. It provides a good overview of our state of knowledge on HFCS and fructose. If you want good research-based nutrition information and you don't know who Alan Aragon is then I highly recommend that you go introduce yourself to his website and blog.

http://m.advances.nutrition.org/content/4/2/236.long

The conclusion (to save those who don't want to read the entire article):

So, what do we really know about the metabolism, endocrine responses, and health effects of sucrose, HFCS, and fructose? At present, we believe that the following conclusions are warranted. First, there is no unique relationship between HFCS and obesity. Second, there is broad scientific consensus that there are no significant metabolic or endocrine response differences or differences in health-related effects between HFCS and sucrose. Third, the metabolism and health effects of both HFCS and sucrose are different from those observed in studies that compare pure fructose with pure glucose, neither of which is consumed to any appreciable degree in the human diet. Fourth, recent randomized clinical trials have suggested that there are no adverse effects on total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol or HDL cholesterol at amounts ranging up to the 90th percentile level of fructose consumption, although other investigators have shown increases in cholesterol and/or LDL cholesterol in subjects consuming either sucrose or HFCS (66, 68–70), so further research studies are needed to clarify this issue. There is, however, a reliable increase in triglycerides from consumption of elevated levels of carbohydrates (particularly simple sugars), which merits further exploration.

Would like to say first that I know very little about this as it's not something we have in the UK really, but I'm coming at this from an analytical point of view and just wanted to say that the quality of this article bothered me. If you look closely, I think this is slightly misleading/doesn't say very much.

It starts off by saying that THEY believe the following conclusions are warranted. Not that they are backed up by evidence.

So it says there is no UNIQUE relationship between HFCS and obesity, not no relationship at all.

The fact that it seems relatively specific in the similarities with sucrose make me wonder what differences they found. Also, 'broad scientific consensus' can be fairly meaningless.

Then it goes on to say that HFCS and sucrose cannot be compared to studies with fructose and glucose, but immediately goes on to say that for FRUCTOSE " there are no adverse effects on total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol or HDL cholesterol at amounts ranging up to the 90th percentile level of fructose consumption," (ie this is totally irrelevant to both sucrose and HFCS by the previous sentence.)

And it says that studies "have shown increases in cholesterol and/or LDL cholesterol in subjects consuming either sucrose or HFCS" - the fact that it says this straight after saying FRUCTOSE has no effect makes it read like it is talking about HFCS in both instances, whereas it is clearly not - and the fact that it then says other studies are needed to clarify furher undermines what is actually a 'broad scientific consensus', to use their phrase.

(So while those with vested interests cannot necessarily determine the results of a trial, although this was not a trial, they can determine how the evidence is presented and also what is implied quite cleverly).

And the final sentence - where it blames 'carbohydrates' - I suspect that this is actually a study based not on carbs but on HFCS and again this is a way of phrasing it that makes it sound different to what it is.

If you read the actual 'study' not just the conclusion, it basically doesn't say anything at all. Plus they cherry-pick their findings and studies, including using 'undocumented observation'. They also seem to not have actually done different studies using HFCS verus sucrose, but actually used both and counted it as the same study, whilst somehow implying that therefore their results mean that they are the same to the body. So it is wildly misleading.

Anyway like I said I don't really hold an opinion on the matter but as far as I'm concerned this isn't a reliable source of information at all, in fact completely the opposite.

He was commenting on sucrose, HFCS, AND fructose, separately. The fact that he mentioned that sucrose and HFCS can't be directly compared to fructose does not make his comment about the effects of fructose irrelevant, because he wasn't comparing fructose to either of those. He was talking about fructose.

Next, what "study" are you referring to? This isn't a study, it is a review of the scientific literature. That's why there are over 100 studies referenced and linked.

Finally, as I'm reading through it one last time, this paper was NOT funded by Pepsi or the Corn Refiners Association. One of the two authors disclosed that those companies have paid him consulting fees. What exactly is so odd or sinister about a food company hiring a food scientist as an occasional consultant, and how do you make the illogical leap that these companies all paid for this specific paper?

RaspberryKeytoneBoondoggle

I don't think that the purpose of the article is to prove anything, more to help people understand that there is no need to be afraid of sugar and that there has been excessive fear-mongering in popular media over the last few decades. It is an account of how the diet industry has used a correlation between the availability of HFCS and obesity and implied a causal effect when there are hundreds of other factors that can be taken into account. The media jumped on this idea and there has been a disproportionate amount of items in the media blaming HFCS for being fat. What is unfortunate is that many people are mislead into believing that they only need to reduce a certain type of sugar in their diet and they will solve their obesity problem. Jumping on the "bad HFCS" bandwagon is also a terrific opportunity to make money selling diet books on this popular topic.

It's another example of the way dietary constructs take precedence over common sense.

geebusuk

On this vauge kind of area....

While in the UK we don't have HFCS really - just 'normal' sucrose in those applications, is it worth aiming to swap fructose for dextrose (glucose) for the sake of muscle glycogen?

Specifically thinking for a bulk where I'd want muscles to be 'full' as much as possible. May make similar sense for cut too if it does make any sense. Not sure how much the muscles will actually benefit from having more directly vs just having more calories.

RaspberryKeytoneBoondoggle

The UK also has HFCS and fearmongering articles, just like North America.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/jun/11/why-our-food-is-making-us-fat

geebusuk

Well, yes; the Guardian.

Sadly, Lustig has been posturing around some UK group earlier this year with appropriately irksome results.

I did ask them several times (they answered another of my questions) about what research their campaign was based on.
Not a smidgen of a reply.

And yes, while we do have HFCS, it's considerably less widely used than in the US as a replacement for sucrose - due to various market regulations etc in the US I believe.

yarwell

Market regs in the EU (soon to be removed) inhibit production of HFCS. In the UK I think it's less than 100k tonnes compared to 2.5m t of sucrose.

RaspberryKeytoneBoondoggle

Well, yes; the Guardian.

Sadly, Lustig has been posturing around some UK group earlier this year with appropriately irksome results.

I did ask them several times (they answered another of my questions) about what research their campaign was based on.
Not a smidgen of a reply.

An, yes! Their campaign indeed!