Stop singling out sugar
Replies
-
Well said, FireOpalCO.
Pfft.
She was probably paid by Big Sugar to make that post.0 -
Well said, FireOpalCO.
Pfft.
She was probably paid by Big Sugar to make that post.
:laugh:0 -
Regarding food addiction:
I'd have a lot more compassion/sensitivity for people who were "food addicts" if people weren't idiots and self diagnosing. When the average person doesn't understand the difference between "addiction" and "compulsive behavior" and then also applies labels to themselves based on what they found on the internet or heard on television, how can we take a label seriously? (It doesn't help when the media throws the addict label on everything, including things that are clearly compulsive behaviors.)
I've met multiple people who used the word "allergic" when they meant "upset my tummy that one time", they've never gone in for allergy testing. I've also met people who have gone rabid over gluten and when I asked them about what their doctor said, what kind of tests were run, etc. the answer was "well I read this article and decided that was what was wrong with me". Which is the completely backwards way to go about it, the issue could be caused by another ingredient frequently occurring in the food items that person ingests. It could because the person was making better substitutions (eating more fruits and veggies instead of sandwiches) and meeting other gaps in his/her diet. It could completely be in that person's head.
I had a coworker who THOUGHT he had a shellfish allergy and then found out that it was actually to a preservative put on shellfish before selling it in stores, and he could have it if it was fresh caught and being sold right at the dock (or when he was in other countries). He would have gone the rest of his life thinking he couldn't have foods that he really enjoyed eating.
I also have friends with extremely life threatening allergies to common foods and several with Celiac's disease. They also hate the posers whose antics result in others not taking their real issues seriously. I take their needs very seriously to the point where I clean down my kitchen and I write down all the ingredients AND their manufacturer before bringing over homemade goods and I'm okay if they still pass.
First, I'm not a fan of your use of the term "idiot".
Second, how do you feel about the term Gambling Addiction? Nothing is injected or ingested or inhaled yet it has been reclassified as an addiction rather than an impulse control disorder. 'According to Dr. Charles O’Brien, chair of the Substance-Related Disorders Work Group for DSM-5, brain imaging studies and neurochemical tests have made a “strong case that [gambling] activates the reward system in much the same way that a drug does.” Pathological gamblers report cravings and highs in response to their stimulus of choice; it also runs in families, often alongside other addictions. Neuroscience and genetics research has played a key role in these determinations.'
I don't think food addiction is that much of a stretch. Besides, even if "food addiction" is actually an "impulse control disorder" can we not acknowledge that for some people, sugary treats can be incredibly difficult to resist?
I don't understand why people who feel as though they have food or sugar addictions continually have sand kicked in their faces here at MFP. Do people believe them to be weak willed losers who should be put in their place?0 -
I don't understand why people who feel as though they have food or sugar addictions continually have sand kicked in their faces here at MFP. Do people believe them to be weak willed losers who should be put in their place?
Yes, they do. Get used to it. There are people here who have never experienced lack of self-control in eating and have zero empathy towards anyone who claims to have.
Steve0 -
As-evidenced by some extremely belittling and unhelpful posts, yes, it seems many people do believe that.I don't understand why people who feel as though they have food or sugar addictions continually have sand kicked in their faces here at MFP. Do people believe them to be weak willed losers who should be put in their place?0 -
Regarding food addiction:
I'd have a lot more compassion/sensitivity for people who were "food addicts" if people weren't idiots and self diagnosing. When the average person doesn't understand the difference between "addiction" and "compulsive behavior" and then also applies labels to themselves based on what they found on the internet or heard on television, how can we take a label seriously? (It doesn't help when the media throws the addict label on everything, including things that are clearly compulsive behaviors.)
I've met multiple people who used the word "allergic" when they meant "upset my tummy that one time", they've never gone in for allergy testing. I've also met people who have gone rabid over gluten and when I asked them about what their doctor said, what kind of tests were run, etc. the answer was "well I read this article and decided that was what was wrong with me". Which is the completely backwards way to go about it, the issue could be caused by another ingredient frequently occurring in the food items that person ingests. It could because the person was making better substitutions (eating more fruits and veggies instead of sandwiches) and meeting other gaps in his/her diet. It could completely be in that person's head.
I had a coworker who THOUGHT he had a shellfish allergy and then found out that it was actually to a preservative put on shellfish before selling it in stores, and he could have it if it was fresh caught and being sold right at the dock (or when he was in other countries). He would have gone the rest of his life thinking he couldn't have foods that he really enjoyed eating.
I also have friends with extremely life threatening allergies to common foods and several with Celiac's disease. They also hate the posers whose antics result in others not taking their real issues seriously. I take their needs very seriously to the point where I clean down my kitchen and I write down all the ingredients AND their manufacturer before bringing over homemade goods and I'm okay if they still pass.
how do you feel about the term Gambling Addiction?
Gambling "addiction" is actually a compulsive behavioral disorder.0 -
I don't understand why people who feel as though they have food or sugar addictions continually have sand kicked in their faces here at MFP. Do people believe them to be weak willed losers who should be put in their place?
Yes, they do. Get used to it. There are people here who have never experienced lack of self-control in eating and have zero empathy towards anyone who claims to have.
Steve
I have sympathy for people who struggle with eating disorders, and I have actually worked with drug addicts and have *loads* of sympathy for them, even so much as to work tirelessly to change our nation's drug policies.
That doesn't change the *irritation* felt when people confuse eating disorders with addictions. So irritating.0 -
As-evidenced by some extremely belittling and unhelpful posts, yes, it seems many people do believe that.I don't understand why people who feel as though they have food or sugar addictions continually have sand kicked in their faces here at MFP. Do people believe them to be weak willed losers who should be put in their place?
It's difficult to discuss this topic without being misinterpreted and/or having people get emotional over it. I personally have problems with the concept of physical addiction to sugar given the other available diagnoses, but meh . . .0 -
I'm still interested in learning about any studies that show sugar itself is harmful to healthy individuals, in a healthy weight range, who partake in regular exercise, in a balanced (read: reasonable) calorie-controlled diet (which just happens to be the parameters of my own personal situation). Some seem convinced that even in this environment it *causes* diabetes, insulin resistance, cancer, etc...but the research just doesn't seem to support their conclusions...and when pressed, they cite research which either ignores the conditions above or fails to reach the conclusion they purport that it does.0
-
Gambling "addiction" is actually a compulsive behavioral disorder.
I don't profess to be an expert of any kind, but I'm reasonably sure that "pathological gambling" has been reclassified from an impulse control disorder to an addiction.
'CHANGES FOR PG IN DSM-5
Reclassification: From Impulse Control Disorder to Addiction
In the DSM-IV, pathological gambling (PG) was classified under the section titled, “Impulse Control Disorders Not Elsewhere Classified,” along with Compulsive Hair Pulling (Trichotillomania); Intermittent Explosive Disorder; Kleptomania; and Pyromania. The DSM-5 work group proposed that PG be moved to the category Substance-Related and Addictive Disorders.'
http://blog.ncrg.org/blog/2013/05/evolving-definition-pathological-gambling-dsm-50 -
-
Gambling "addiction" is actually a compulsive behavioral disorder.
I don't profess to be an expert of any kind, but I'm reasonably sure that "pathological gambling" has been reclassified from an impulse control disorder to an addiction.
'CHANGES FOR PG IN DSM-5
Reclassification: From Impulse Control Disorder to Addiction
In the DSM-IV, pathological gambling (PG) was classified under the section titled, “Impulse Control Disorders Not Elsewhere Classified,” along with Compulsive Hair Pulling (Trichotillomania); Intermittent Explosive Disorder; Kleptomania; and Pyromania. The DSM-5 work group proposed that PG be moved to the category Substance-Related and Addictive Disorders.'
http://blog.ncrg.org/blog/2013/05/evolving-definition-pathological-gambling-dsm-5
Ok, let me rephrase....
It's a *psychological* disorder, NOT a health/medical problem. Addiction is actually a medical condition. Inability to stop yourself from gambling is NOT. Calling it an "addiction" is just the latest fad. That doesn't make it so.0 -
First, I'm not a fan of your use of the term "idiot".
Noted. You have the right to disagree or even be offended by my language choice.Second, how do you feel about the term Gambling Addiction? Nothing is injected or ingested or inhaled yet it has been reclassified as an addiction rather than an impulse control disorder. 'According to Dr. Charles O’Brien, chair of the Substance-Related Disorders Work Group for DSM-5, brain imaging studies and neurochemical tests have made a “strong case that [gambling] activates the reward system in much the same way that a drug does.” Pathological gamblers report cravings and highs in response to their stimulus of choice; it also runs in families, often alongside other addictions. Neuroscience and genetics research has played a key role in these determinations.'
I don't think food addiction is that much of a stretch. Besides, even if "food addiction" is actually an "impulse control disorder" can we not acknowledge that for some people, sugary treats can be incredibly difficult to resist?
Because when people inflate craving/liking into addictions and confuse addictions and impulse control/obsessive behavior they do two things. First, they are frequently giving an excuse for why it isn't their fault and why they can't change. Second, they are making it harder to fix the actual problem, because the toolkit for fighting an actual addiction and a obsessive behavior are different. Treating them the same is rather like treating bi-polar and schizophrenia patients the same, bound to cause you to fail either or both patients.I don't understand why people who feel as though they have food or sugar addictions continually have sand kicked in their faces here at MFP. Do people believe them to be weak willed losers who should be put in their place?
Because sometimes they DON'T. They want to fall back on that idea because they don't want to take responsibility for their own choices. They don't want to say "change is hard, and I failed today, but I will try again tomorrow". I bought my son JoeJoe's vanilla cookies this week at Trader Joe's. Yesterday I was worn out, PMSing, and dealing with a 4 year old with an ear infection. I ate eight of those things while in front of the TV. That was ME. Sugar didn't make me do it.
People can tell the difference and I've frequently seen people advise others on this board that they are describing something that requires professional help. Eating cookies because the day sucks and they were there, is impulse control. Driving to the store at 2 am in your pajamas to buy Oreo's with your hands shaking and eating half the bag in the parking lot? That would professional intervention time.
Here is another reason I don't think sugar is "addictive". We like food that tastes good, fine. Those cookies tasted great. They were vanilla and creamy, etc. But if they hadn't been in the house, my response would not have been to break open the sugar container and start shoveling spoonfuls into my mouth. That's the kind of behavior you see with a true addiction. (The classic is an alcoholic drinking the cooking sherry or cough syrup in desperation.)0 -
Because when people inflate craving/liking into addictions and confuse addictions and impulse control/obsessive behavior they do two things. First, they are frequently giving an excuse for why it isn't their fault and why they can't change. Second, they are making it harder to fix the actual problem, because the toolkit for fighting an actual addiction and a obsessive behavior are different. Treating them the same is rather like treating bi-polar and schizophrenia patients the same, bound to cause you to fail either or both patients.
And having dealt with both on several levels (including personally), NAIL. ON. HEAD.
My friend was diagnosed ADHD as a kid, and he took Ritalin for years, then Adderall as an adult. When he switched insurance, he had to switch doctors. Dumba$$ shrink gave him PROZAC to treat his ADHD, which has now nearly ruined his life since he tried to ween himself off of them, as he realized that that crap messed up his brain.
Correct diagnosis is key to correct treatment. Too many shrinks these days are all about shoving anti-psychotics down people's throats instead of providing counseling and listening, which is just as bad as online self-diagnosis.0 -
But if they hadn't been in the house, my response would not have been to break open the sugar container and start shoveling spoonfuls into my mouth. That's the kind of behavior you see with a true addiction. (The classic is an alcoholic drinking the cooking sherry or cough syrup in desperation.)
Or committing robbery or fraud to obtain funds to buy more cookies...0 -
Not all sugar is the same. Refining is what turns the food called sugar into a drug called sugar or worse, HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP. Here are some reasons why it is rightly Demonized:It is not enough to know that gram for gram sugar has no nutritional value?
I find it very difficult to stay slim when I consume empty calories. But I don't demonize sugar. If, at the end of the day, I've reached my goal for protein and fiber and still have a few calories left, then I enjoy a cookie. But as a small woman, that is not every day and usually just one cookie.
#1 NY Times & Amazon Bestseller
5 Reasons High Fructose Corn Syrup Will Kill You
by Mark Hyman, MD
IF YOU CAN’T CONVINCE THEM, CONFUSE THEM – Harry Truman
The current media debate about the benefits (or lack of harm) of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) in our diet misses the obvious. The average American increased their consumption of HFCS (mostly from sugar sweetened drinks and processed food) from zero to over 60 pounds per person per year.
During that time period, obesity rates have more than tripled and diabetes incidence has increased more than seven fold. Not perhaps the only cause, but a fact that cannot be ignored.
Doubt and confusion are the currency of deception, and they sow the seeds of complacency. These are used skillfully through massive print and television advertising campaigns by the Corn Refiners Association’s attempt to dispel the “myth” that HFCS is harmful and assert through the opinion of “medical and nutrition experts” that it is no different than cane sugar. It is a “natural” product that is a healthy part of our diet when used in moderation.
Except for one problem. When used in moderation it is a major cause of heart disease, obesity, cancer, dementia, liver failure, tooth decay, and more.
Why is the corn industry spending millions on misinformation campaigns to convince consumers and health care professionals of the safety of their product? Could it be that the food industry comprises 17 percent of our economy?
The Lengths the Corn Industry Will Go To
The goal of the corn industry is to call into question any claim of harm from consuming high fructose corn syrup, and to confuse and deflect by calling their product natural “corn sugar”. That’s like calling tobacco in cigarettes natural herbal medicine.
In the ad, the father tells us:
“Like any parent I have questions about the food my daughter eats–-like high fructose corn syrup. So I started looking for answers from medical and nutrition experts, and what I discovered whether it’s corn sugar or cane sugar your body can’t tell the difference. Sugar is sugar. Knowing that makes me feel better about what she eats and that’s one less thing to worry about.”
Physicians are also targeted directly. I received a 12-page color glossy monograph from the Corn Refiners Association reviewing the “science” that HFCS was safe and no different than cane sugar. I assume the other 700,000 physicians in America received the same propaganda at who knows what cost.
In addition to this, I received a special “personal” letter from the Corn Refiner’s Association outlining every mention of the problems with HFCS in our diet–whether in print, blogs, books, radio, or television. They warned me of the errors of my ways and put me on “notice”. For what I am not sure. To think they are tracking this (and me) that closely gives me an Orwellian chill.
New websites like www.sweetsurprise.com and www.cornsugar.com help “set us straight” about HFCS with quotes from professors of nutrition and medicine and thought leaders from Harvard and other stellar institutions.
Why is the corn industry spending millions on misinformation campaigns to convince consumers and health care professionals of the safety of their product? Could it be that the food industry comprises 17 percent of our economy?
But are these twisted sweet lies or a sweet surprise, as the Corn Refiners Association websites claim?
What the Science Says About HFCS
Let’s examine the science and insert some common sense into the conversation. These facts may indeed come as a sweet surprise. The ads suggest getting your nutrition advice from your doctor (who, unfortunately, probably knows less about nutrition than most grandmothers).
Having studied this for over a decade, and having read, interviewed, or personally talked with most of the “medical and nutrition experts” used to bolster the claim that “corn sugar” and cane sugar are essentially the same, quite a different picture emerges and the role of HFCS in promoting obesity, disease, and death across the globe becomes clear.
Last week over lunch with Dr. Bruce Ames, one of the foremost nutritional scientists in the world, and Dr. Jeffrey Bland, a nutritional biochemist, a student of Linus Pauling, and I reviewed the existing science, and Dr. Ames shared shocking new evidence from his research center on how HFCS can trigger body-wide inflammation and obesity.
Here are 5 reasons you should stay way from any product containing high fructose corn syrup and why it may kill you.
Sugar in any form causes obesity and disease when consumed in pharmacologic doses.Cane sugar and high fructose corn syrup are indeed both harmful when consumed in pharmacologic doses of 140 pounds per person per year.When one 20 ounce HFCS sweetened soda, sports drink, or tea has 17 teaspoons of sugar (and the average teenager often consumes two drinks a day) we are conducting a largely uncontrolled experiment on the human species.Our hunter gatherer ancestors consumed the equivalent of 20 teaspoons per year, not per day. In this sense, I would agree with the corn industry that sugar is sugar. Quantity matters. But there are some important differences.
HFCS and cane sugar are NOT biochemically identical or processed the same way by the body. High fructose corn syrup is an industrial food product and far from “natural” or a naturally occurring substance. It is extracted from corn stalks through a process so secret that Archer Daniels Midland and Carghill would not allow the investigative journalist Michael Pollan to observe it for his book The Omnivore’s Dilemma. The sugars are extracted through a chemical enzymatic process resulting in a chemically and biologically novel compound called HFCS. Some basic biochemistry will help you understand this. Regular cane sugar (sucrose) is made of two-sugar molecules bound tightly together– glucose and fructose in equal amounts.The enzymes in your digestive tract must break down the sucrose into glucose and fructose, which are then absorbed into the body. HFCS also consists of glucose and fructose, not in a 50-50 ratio, but a 55-45 fructose to glucose ratio in an unbound form. Fructose is sweeter than glucose. And HFCS is cheaper than sugar because of the government farm bill corn subsidies. Products with HFCS are sweeter and cheaper than products made with cane sugar. This allowed for the average soda size to balloon from 8 ounces to 20 ounces with little financial costs to manufacturers but great human costs of increased obesity, diabetes, and chronic disease.
Now back to biochemistry. Since there is there is no chemical bond between them, no digestion is required so they are more rapidly absorbed into your blood stream. Fructose goes right to the liver and triggers lipogenesis (the production of fats like triglycerides and cholesterol) this is why it is the major cause of liver damage in this country and causes a condition called “fatty liver” which affects 70 million people.
The rapidly absorbed glucose triggers big spikes in insulin–our body’s major fat storage hormone. Both these features of HFCS lead to increased metabolic disturbances that drive increases in appetite, weight gain, diabetes, heart disease, cancer, dementia, and more.
But there was one more thing I learned during lunch with Dr. Bruce Ames. Research done by his group at the Children’s Hospital Oakland Research Institute found that free fructose from HFCS requires more energy to be absorbed by the gut and soaks up two phosphorous molecules from ATP (our body’s energy source).
This depletes the energy fuel source, or ATP, in our gut required to maintain the integrity of our intestinal lining. Little “tight junctions” cement each intestinal cell together preventing food and bacteria from “leaking” across the intestinal membrane and triggering an immune reaction and body wide inflammation.
High doses of free fructose have been proven to literally punch holes in the intestinal lining allowing nasty byproducts of toxic gut bacteria and partially digested food proteins to enter your blood stream and trigger the inflammation that we know is at the root of obesity, diabetes, cancer, heart disease, dementia, and accelerated aging. Naturally occurring fructose in fruit is part of a complex of nutrients and fiber that doesn’t exhibit the same biological effects as the free high fructose doses found in “corn sugar”.
The takeaway: Cane sugar and the industrially produced, euphemistically named “corn sugar” are not biochemically or physiologically the same.
HFCS contains contaminants including mercury that are not regulated or measured by the FDA. An FDA researcher asked corn producers to ship a barrel of high fructose corn syrup in order to test for contaminants. Her repeated requests were refused until she claimed she represented a newly created soft drink company. She was then promptly shipped a big vat of HFCS that was used as part of the study that showed that HFCS often contains toxic levels of mercury because of chlor-alkali products used in its manufacturing.(i) Poisoned sugar is certainly not “natural”.When HFCS is run through a chemical analyzer or a chromatograph, strange chemical peaks show up that are not glucose or fructose. What are they? Who knows? This certainly calls into question the purity of this processed form of super sugar. The exact nature, effects, and toxicity of these funny compounds have not been fully explained, but shouldn’t we be protected from the presence of untested chemical compounds in our food supply, especially when the contaminated food product comprises up to 15-20 percent of the average American’s daily calorie intake?
Independent medical and nutrition experts DO NOT support the use of HFCS in our diet, despite the assertions of the corn industry. The corn industry’s happy looking websites www.cornsugar.com and www.sweetsurprise.com bolster their position that cane sugar and corn sugar are the same by quoting experts, or should we say misquoting … Barry M. Popkin, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Nutrition, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, has published widely on the dangers of sugar-sweetened drinks and their contribution to the obesity epidemic. In a review of HFCS in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition,(ii) he explains the mechanism by which the free fructose may contribute to obesity.He states that: “The digestion, absorption, and metabolism of fructose differ from those of glucose. Hepatic metabolism of fructose favors de novo lipogenesis (production of fat in the liver). In addition, unlike glucose, fructose does not stimulate insulin secretion or enhance leptin production. Because insulin and leptin act as key afferent signals in the regulation of food intake and body weight (to control appetite), this suggests that dietary fructose may contribute to increased energy intake and weight gain. Furthermore, calorically sweetened beverages may enhance caloric over-consumption.”
He states that HFCS is absorbed more rapidly than regular sugar and that it doesn’t stimulate insulin or leptin production. This prevents you from triggering the body’s signals for being full and may lead to over-consumption of total calories. He concludes by saying that:
“… the increase in consumption of HFCS has a temporal relation to the epidemic of obesity, and the overconsumption of HFCS in calorically sweetened beverages may play a role in the epidemic of obesity.”
The corn industry takes his comments out of context to support their position. “All sugar you eat is the same.”
True pharmacologic doses of any kind of sugar are harmful, but the biochemistry of different kinds of sugar and their respective effects on absorption, appetite, and metabolism are different, and Dr. Popkin knows that.
David S. Ludwig, M.D., Ph.D., Associate Professor of Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, and a personal friend, has published extensively on the dangers and the obesogenic properties of sugar-sweetened beverages.
He was quoted as saying that “high fructose corn syrup is one of the most misunderstood products in the food industry.” When I asked him why he supported the corn industry, he told me he didn’t and that his comments were taken totally out of context.
Misrepresenting science is one thing, misrepresenting scientists who have been at the forefront of the fight against obesity and high fructose sugar sweetened beverages is quite another.
HFCS is almost always a marker of poor-quality, nutrient-poor disease-creating industrial food products or “food-like substances”. The last reason to avoid products that contain HFCS is that they are a marker for poor-quality, nutritionally-depleted, processed industrial food full of empty calories and artificial ingredients. If you find “high fructose corn syrup” on the label you can be sure it is not a whole, real, fresh food full of fiber, vitamins, minerals, phytonutrients, and antioxidants. Stay away if you want to stay healthy. We still must reduce our overall consumption of sugar, but with this one simple dietary change you can radically reduce your health risks and improve your health.While debate may rage about the biochemistry and physiology of cane sugar versus corn sugar, this is in fact beside the point (despite the finer points of my scientific analysis above). The conversation has been diverted to a simple assertion that cane sugar and corn sugar are not different.
The real issues are only two.
We are consuming HFCS and sugar in pharmacologic quantities never before experienced in human history–140 pounds a year versus 20 teaspoons a year 10,000 years ago.
High fructose corn syrup is always found in very poor-quality foods that are nutritionally vacuous and filled with all sorts of other disease promoting compounds, fats, salt, chemicals, and even mercury.
These critical ideas should be the heart of the national conversation, not the meaningless confusing ads and statements by the corn industry in the media and online that attempt to assure the public that the biochemistry of real sugar and industrially produced sugar from corn are the same.
Now I’d like to hear from you …
Do you think there is an association between the introduction of HFCS in our diet and the obesity epidemic?
What reason do you think the Corn Refiners Association has for running such ads and publishing websites like those listed in this article?
What do you think of the science presented here and the general effects of HFCS on the American diet?
Please leave your thoughts by adding a comment below—but remember, we can’t offer personal medical advice online, so be sure to limit your comments to those about taking back our health!
To your good health,
Mark Hyman, MD
References
(i) Dufault, R., LeBlanc, B., Schnoll, R. et al. 2009. Mercury from chlor-alkali plants: Measured concentrations in food product sugar. Environ Health. 26(8):2.
(ii) Bray, G.A., Nielsen, S.J., and B.M. Popkin. 2004. Consumption of high-fructose corn syrup in beverages may play a role in the epidemic of obesity. Am J Clin Nutr. 79(4):537-43. Review.
Avatar of Mark Hyman, MD
About Mark Hyman, MD
MARK HYMAN, MD is dedicated to identifying and addressing the root causes of chronic illness through a groundbreaking whole-systems medicine approach called Functional Medicine. He is a family physician, a eight-time New York Times bestselling author, and an international leader in his field. Through his private practice, education efforts, writing, research, and advocacy, he empowers others to stop managing symptoms and start treating the underlying causes of illness, thereby tackling our chronic-disease epidemic. More about Dr. Hyman or on Functional Medicine. Click here to view all Press and Media Releases
View all posts by Mark Hyman, MD →0 -
Let's agree to disagree.0
-
Regarding food addiction:
I'd have a lot more compassion/sensitivity for people who were "food addicts" if people weren't idiots and self diagnosing. When the average person doesn't understand the difference between "addiction" and "compulsive behavior" and then also applies labels to themselves based on what they found on the internet or heard on television, how can we take a label seriously? (It doesn't help when the media throws the addict label on everything, including things that are clearly compulsive behaviors.)
I've met multiple people who used the word "allergic" when they meant "upset my tummy that one time", they've never gone in for allergy testing. I've also met people who have gone rabid over gluten and when I asked them about what their doctor said, what kind of tests were run, etc. the answer was "well I read this article and decided that was what was wrong with me". Which is the completely backwards way to go about it, the issue could be caused by another ingredient frequently occurring in the food items that person ingests. It could because the person was making better substitutions (eating more fruits and veggies instead of sandwiches) and meeting other gaps in his/her diet. It could completely be in that person's head.
I had a coworker who THOUGHT he had a shellfish allergy and then found out that it was actually to a preservative put on shellfish before selling it in stores, and he could have it if it was fresh caught and being sold right at the dock (or when he was in other countries). He would have gone the rest of his life thinking he couldn't have foods that he really enjoyed eating.
I also have friends with extremely life threatening allergies to common foods and several with Celiac's disease. They also hate the posers whose antics result in others not taking their real issues seriously. I take their needs very seriously to the point where I clean down my kitchen and I write down all the ingredients AND their manufacturer before bringing over homemade goods and I'm okay if they still pass.
Late to the game but seriously +1.
And your later response deserves another +1.0 -
Right. Definitely an unbiased source, Hyman certainly doesn't profit off of sugar fear mongering...
Not all sugar is the same. Refining is what turns the food called sugar into a drug called sugar or worse, HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP. Here are some reasons why it is rightly Demonized:It is not enough to know that gram for gram sugar has no nutritional value?
I find it very difficult to stay slim when I consume empty calories. But I don't demonize sugar. If, at the end of the day, I've reached my goal for protein and fiber and still have a few calories left, then I enjoy a cookie. But as a small woman, that is not every day and usually just one cookie.
#1 NY Times & Amazon Bestseller
5 Reasons High Fructose Corn Syrup Will Kill You
by Mark Hyman, MD
IF YOU CAN’T CONVINCE THEM, CONFUSE THEM – Harry Truman
The current media debate about the benefits (or lack of harm) of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) in our diet misses the obvious. The average American increased their consumption of HFCS (mostly from sugar sweetened drinks and processed food) from zero to over 60 pounds per person per year.
During that time period, obesity rates have more than tripled and diabetes incidence has increased more than seven fold. Not perhaps the only cause, but a fact that cannot be ignored.
Doubt and confusion are the currency of deception, and they sow the seeds of complacency. These are used skillfully through massive print and television advertising campaigns by the Corn Refiners Association’s attempt to dispel the “myth” that HFCS is harmful and assert through the opinion of “medical and nutrition experts” that it is no different than cane sugar. It is a “natural” product that is a healthy part of our diet when used in moderation.
Except for one problem. When used in moderation it is a major cause of heart disease, obesity, cancer, dementia, liver failure, tooth decay, and more.
Why is the corn industry spending millions on misinformation campaigns to convince consumers and health care professionals of the safety of their product? Could it be that the food industry comprises 17 percent of our economy?
The Lengths the Corn Industry Will Go To
The goal of the corn industry is to call into question any claim of harm from consuming high fructose corn syrup, and to confuse and deflect by calling their product natural “corn sugar”. That’s like calling tobacco in cigarettes natural herbal medicine.
In the ad, the father tells us:
“Like any parent I have questions about the food my daughter eats–-like high fructose corn syrup. So I started looking for answers from medical and nutrition experts, and what I discovered whether it’s corn sugar or cane sugar your body can’t tell the difference. Sugar is sugar. Knowing that makes me feel better about what she eats and that’s one less thing to worry about.”
Physicians are also targeted directly. I received a 12-page color glossy monograph from the Corn Refiners Association reviewing the “science” that HFCS was safe and no different than cane sugar. I assume the other 700,000 physicians in America received the same propaganda at who knows what cost.
In addition to this, I received a special “personal” letter from the Corn Refiner’s Association outlining every mention of the problems with HFCS in our diet–whether in print, blogs, books, radio, or television. They warned me of the errors of my ways and put me on “notice”. For what I am not sure. To think they are tracking this (and me) that closely gives me an Orwellian chill.
New websites like www.sweetsurprise.com and www.cornsugar.com help “set us straight” about HFCS with quotes from professors of nutrition and medicine and thought leaders from Harvard and other stellar institutions.
Why is the corn industry spending millions on misinformation campaigns to convince consumers and health care professionals of the safety of their product? Could it be that the food industry comprises 17 percent of our economy?
But are these twisted sweet lies or a sweet surprise, as the Corn Refiners Association websites claim?
What the Science Says About HFCS
Let’s examine the science and insert some common sense into the conversation. These facts may indeed come as a sweet surprise. The ads suggest getting your nutrition advice from your doctor (who, unfortunately, probably knows less about nutrition than most grandmothers).
Having studied this for over a decade, and having read, interviewed, or personally talked with most of the “medical and nutrition experts” used to bolster the claim that “corn sugar” and cane sugar are essentially the same, quite a different picture emerges and the role of HFCS in promoting obesity, disease, and death across the globe becomes clear.
Last week over lunch with Dr. Bruce Ames, one of the foremost nutritional scientists in the world, and Dr. Jeffrey Bland, a nutritional biochemist, a student of Linus Pauling, and I reviewed the existing science, and Dr. Ames shared shocking new evidence from his research center on how HFCS can trigger body-wide inflammation and obesity.
Here are 5 reasons you should stay way from any product containing high fructose corn syrup and why it may kill you.
Sugar in any form causes obesity and disease when consumed in pharmacologic doses.Cane sugar and high fructose corn syrup are indeed both harmful when consumed in pharmacologic doses of 140 pounds per person per year.When one 20 ounce HFCS sweetened soda, sports drink, or tea has 17 teaspoons of sugar (and the average teenager often consumes two drinks a day) we are conducting a largely uncontrolled experiment on the human species.Our hunter gatherer ancestors consumed the equivalent of 20 teaspoons per year, not per day. In this sense, I would agree with the corn industry that sugar is sugar. Quantity matters. But there are some important differences.
HFCS and cane sugar are NOT biochemically identical or processed the same way by the body. High fructose corn syrup is an industrial food product and far from “natural” or a naturally occurring substance. It is extracted from corn stalks through a process so secret that Archer Daniels Midland and Carghill would not allow the investigative journalist Michael Pollan to observe it for his book The Omnivore’s Dilemma. The sugars are extracted through a chemical enzymatic process resulting in a chemically and biologically novel compound called HFCS. Some basic biochemistry will help you understand this. Regular cane sugar (sucrose) is made of two-sugar molecules bound tightly together– glucose and fructose in equal amounts.The enzymes in your digestive tract must break down the sucrose into glucose and fructose, which are then absorbed into the body. HFCS also consists of glucose and fructose, not in a 50-50 ratio, but a 55-45 fructose to glucose ratio in an unbound form. Fructose is sweeter than glucose. And HFCS is cheaper than sugar because of the government farm bill corn subsidies. Products with HFCS are sweeter and cheaper than products made with cane sugar. This allowed for the average soda size to balloon from 8 ounces to 20 ounces with little financial costs to manufacturers but great human costs of increased obesity, diabetes, and chronic disease.
Now back to biochemistry. Since there is there is no chemical bond between them, no digestion is required so they are more rapidly absorbed into your blood stream. Fructose goes right to the liver and triggers lipogenesis (the production of fats like triglycerides and cholesterol) this is why it is the major cause of liver damage in this country and causes a condition called “fatty liver” which affects 70 million people.
The rapidly absorbed glucose triggers big spikes in insulin–our body’s major fat storage hormone. Both these features of HFCS lead to increased metabolic disturbances that drive increases in appetite, weight gain, diabetes, heart disease, cancer, dementia, and more.
But there was one more thing I learned during lunch with Dr. Bruce Ames. Research done by his group at the Children’s Hospital Oakland Research Institute found that free fructose from HFCS requires more energy to be absorbed by the gut and soaks up two phosphorous molecules from ATP (our body’s energy source).
This depletes the energy fuel source, or ATP, in our gut required to maintain the integrity of our intestinal lining. Little “tight junctions” cement each intestinal cell together preventing food and bacteria from “leaking” across the intestinal membrane and triggering an immune reaction and body wide inflammation.
High doses of free fructose have been proven to literally punch holes in the intestinal lining allowing nasty byproducts of toxic gut bacteria and partially digested food proteins to enter your blood stream and trigger the inflammation that we know is at the root of obesity, diabetes, cancer, heart disease, dementia, and accelerated aging. Naturally occurring fructose in fruit is part of a complex of nutrients and fiber that doesn’t exhibit the same biological effects as the free high fructose doses found in “corn sugar”.
The takeaway: Cane sugar and the industrially produced, euphemistically named “corn sugar” are not biochemically or physiologically the same.
HFCS contains contaminants including mercury that are not regulated or measured by the FDA. An FDA researcher asked corn producers to ship a barrel of high fructose corn syrup in order to test for contaminants. Her repeated requests were refused until she claimed she represented a newly created soft drink company. She was then promptly shipped a big vat of HFCS that was used as part of the study that showed that HFCS often contains toxic levels of mercury because of chlor-alkali products used in its manufacturing.(i) Poisoned sugar is certainly not “natural”.When HFCS is run through a chemical analyzer or a chromatograph, strange chemical peaks show up that are not glucose or fructose. What are they? Who knows? This certainly calls into question the purity of this processed form of super sugar. The exact nature, effects, and toxicity of these funny compounds have not been fully explained, but shouldn’t we be protected from the presence of untested chemical compounds in our food supply, especially when the contaminated food product comprises up to 15-20 percent of the average American’s daily calorie intake?
Independent medical and nutrition experts DO NOT support the use of HFCS in our diet, despite the assertions of the corn industry. The corn industry’s happy looking websites www.cornsugar.com and www.sweetsurprise.com bolster their position that cane sugar and corn sugar are the same by quoting experts, or should we say misquoting … Barry M. Popkin, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Nutrition, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, has published widely on the dangers of sugar-sweetened drinks and their contribution to the obesity epidemic. In a review of HFCS in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition,(ii) he explains the mechanism by which the free fructose may contribute to obesity.He states that: “The digestion, absorption, and metabolism of fructose differ from those of glucose. Hepatic metabolism of fructose favors de novo lipogenesis (production of fat in the liver). In addition, unlike glucose, fructose does not stimulate insulin secretion or enhance leptin production. Because insulin and leptin act as key afferent signals in the regulation of food intake and body weight (to control appetite), this suggests that dietary fructose may contribute to increased energy intake and weight gain. Furthermore, calorically sweetened beverages may enhance caloric over-consumption.”
He states that HFCS is absorbed more rapidly than regular sugar and that it doesn’t stimulate insulin or leptin production. This prevents you from triggering the body’s signals for being full and may lead to over-consumption of total calories. He concludes by saying that:
“… the increase in consumption of HFCS has a temporal relation to the epidemic of obesity, and the overconsumption of HFCS in calorically sweetened beverages may play a role in the epidemic of obesity.”
The corn industry takes his comments out of context to support their position. “All sugar you eat is the same.”
True pharmacologic doses of any kind of sugar are harmful, but the biochemistry of different kinds of sugar and their respective effects on absorption, appetite, and metabolism are different, and Dr. Popkin knows that.
David S. Ludwig, M.D., Ph.D., Associate Professor of Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, and a personal friend, has published extensively on the dangers and the obesogenic properties of sugar-sweetened beverages.
He was quoted as saying that “high fructose corn syrup is one of the most misunderstood products in the food industry.” When I asked him why he supported the corn industry, he told me he didn’t and that his comments were taken totally out of context.
Misrepresenting science is one thing, misrepresenting scientists who have been at the forefront of the fight against obesity and high fructose sugar sweetened beverages is quite another.
HFCS is almost always a marker of poor-quality, nutrient-poor disease-creating industrial food products or “food-like substances”. The last reason to avoid products that contain HFCS is that they are a marker for poor-quality, nutritionally-depleted, processed industrial food full of empty calories and artificial ingredients. If you find “high fructose corn syrup” on the label you can be sure it is not a whole, real, fresh food full of fiber, vitamins, minerals, phytonutrients, and antioxidants. Stay away if you want to stay healthy. We still must reduce our overall consumption of sugar, but with this one simple dietary change you can radically reduce your health risks and improve your health.While debate may rage about the biochemistry and physiology of cane sugar versus corn sugar, this is in fact beside the point (despite the finer points of my scientific analysis above). The conversation has been diverted to a simple assertion that cane sugar and corn sugar are not different.
The real issues are only two.
We are consuming HFCS and sugar in pharmacologic quantities never before experienced in human history–140 pounds a year versus 20 teaspoons a year 10,000 years ago.
High fructose corn syrup is always found in very poor-quality foods that are nutritionally vacuous and filled with all sorts of other disease promoting compounds, fats, salt, chemicals, and even mercury.
These critical ideas should be the heart of the national conversation, not the meaningless confusing ads and statements by the corn industry in the media and online that attempt to assure the public that the biochemistry of real sugar and industrially produced sugar from corn are the same.
Now I’d like to hear from you …
Do you think there is an association between the introduction of HFCS in our diet and the obesity epidemic?
What reason do you think the Corn Refiners Association has for running such ads and publishing websites like those listed in this article?
What do you think of the science presented here and the general effects of HFCS on the American diet?
Please leave your thoughts by adding a comment below—but remember, we can’t offer personal medical advice online, so be sure to limit your comments to those about taking back our health!
To your good health,
Mark Hyman, MD
References
(i) Dufault, R., LeBlanc, B., Schnoll, R. et al. 2009. Mercury from chlor-alkali plants: Measured concentrations in food product sugar. Environ Health. 26(8):2.
(ii) Bray, G.A., Nielsen, S.J., and B.M. Popkin. 2004. Consumption of high-fructose corn syrup in beverages may play a role in the epidemic of obesity. Am J Clin Nutr. 79(4):537-43. Review.
Avatar of Mark Hyman, MD
About Mark Hyman, MD
MARK HYMAN, MD is dedicated to identifying and addressing the root causes of chronic illness through a groundbreaking whole-systems medicine approach called Functional Medicine. He is a family physician, a eight-time New York Times bestselling author, and an international leader in his field. Through his private practice, education efforts, writing, research, and advocacy, he empowers others to stop managing symptoms and start treating the underlying causes of illness, thereby tackling our chronic-disease epidemic. More about Dr. Hyman or on Functional Medicine. Click here to view all Press and Media Releases
View all posts by Mark Hyman, MD →
And I suppose the fact that total caloric intake (from carbs, protein, and fat) have increased by about 700 calories per day while caloric expenditure has gone down by about 500 calories per day in that same time period he's talking about is just a minor detail, right? But you can't really profit off of telling people they just eat too much, and since they've already debunked fat as the culprit, now it's sugar, and HFCS, and I've actually already seen a random few starting on the anti protein kick as well.
Bottom line, sugar isn't the problem. Over consumption and sedentary lifestyle is the problem.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions