An interesting article from the Guardian..

tigersword

Oh, and reading through the article, it's just a ridiculous Lustig and Taubes love fest. Poorly researched, what little research was actually referred to was totally irrelevant (sorry, but a study on a child's activity level alone has no real bearing on why adults are obese. Why didn't they mention a study on the activity level of adults? Oh yeah, because adults are far less active than 50 years ago, due to the mechanization and computerization of the work place.) also, calling Lustig "one of the world's leading endocrinologists" is laughable at best. The man is a pediatrician, he doesn't even work with adults. His research is incredibly shoddy at best, and when the flaws in his methods and conclusions were openly questioned, Lustig pointed to his number of YouTube hits as his justification for being right, regardless of what the actual facts are.

And then, of course, add in the fact that (in the US at least) calorie for calorie, Americans are eating 500 calories per day more than they were in the 70's, all while consuming the SAME number of calories from sugar, and well, that pretty much completely discredits the "sugar makes people fat" argument. We aren't eating more sugar, we're just eating more calories.

I'm not arguing, but I do think your facts need checking. I went and looked because I recalled reading about how sugar production in the USA has increased by a lot. This is just looking at the 80's to now. "Beet sugar production has expanded from around 2.7 million tons annually in the early 1980s when new U.S. sugar policies were implemented to an average 3.7 million in the early 1990s, up by over one-third." Here's the article: http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/X0513E/x0513e15.htm

I do think its a little complicated, as its not the only cause. But, I think it is more pervasive than we realize.

Exactly how does production correlate with consumption? I'm talking about how many calories were consumed per person in the US, not with how much was produced. Just looking at production says nothing, because it doesn't consider changes in population, which increased dramatically between the 80's and 90's, and it also doesn't account for exports and imports. Then you have to consider that beet sugar is only one type of sugar. You also have to keep in mind that not all sugar is produced for food consumption. Ethanol production is becoming a bigger industry, and sugar is a main component of ethanol production. Plus you're using 20 year old data. US sugar production and imports have both decreased since the nineties, in fact, the US has decreased overall sugar production by 250,000 tons since 2008, and is projected to reduce sugar imports by over 20% in the next 10 years.
Sugar production and consumption actually peaked in the US in the early 90's and has been decreasing ever since, yet the obesity "crisis" has only been getting worse. Funny how we are eating less and less of something, yet that's still being blamed as the sole culprit.

Also, even if production had increased by 1/3rd since the 80's (which is your claim, not the actual quote you posted) it also follows that the US population has increased by 1/3rd since the 80's, which would lead to no change in per capita availability (though its actually decreased in reality.)

You didn't take what I posted with the right spirit. I'm not arguing. If its not sugar, it's not sugar. No big f'ing deal. I think it has more to do with sugar than people know. It is highly and powerfully addictive. And, it's filler without substance, so people eat more because they are never getting full. It creates a cycle of overeating of the wrong foods. There is a weird addictive quality to it. Yes, people eat more food overall than they used to even as little as 30 years ago. The question is why? I'm not a researcher. I don't have the answer. I am open to all reasonable explanations. But, my hunch is, it has to do with sugar as an additive and preservative. There are obvious many other reasons, that range from geographic location to economic reasons to educational issues. I also would not hang my hat on any one study, but would rather look for a trend in many studies over a period of time which all point to similar conclusions. Maybe, just maybe, we have such a large surplus of food, combined with our animal instinct of survival, and you have a perfect storm. It could be simple, like that. I don't really know.

Cheers.

The problem with this theory (which is the theory that Taubes and Lustig are pushing) is that it sounds great until you actually look at the data. People are consuming 500 calories a day more today than they were in the 70's (before the obesity epidemic started.) According to the same data source (which is the USDA's Economic Research Service) the amount of sugar consumed today is actually about 2 calories less than it was in 1971. So calories have increased, but sugar consumption really hasn't. It increased in the late 80's and early 90's, but then dropped right back down again. However, since then, obesity has become more and more common. It really is as simple as overconsumption. The human body evolved to store calories at every possible opportunity, as early humans had very little access to food, so storing fat was critical to survival during times of famine. Unfortunately, we have such a surplus of food nowadays, that overconsumption is pretty common, but our bodies are still evolved to store calories to survive in times of famine.

neverstray

Oh, and reading through the article, it's just a ridiculous Lustig and Taubes love fest. Poorly researched, what little research was actually referred to was totally irrelevant (sorry, but a study on a child's activity level alone has no real bearing on why adults are obese. Why didn't they mention a study on the activity level of adults? Oh yeah, because adults are far less active than 50 years ago, due to the mechanization and computerization of the work place.) also, calling Lustig "one of the world's leading endocrinologists" is laughable at best. The man is a pediatrician, he doesn't even work with adults. His research is incredibly shoddy at best, and when the flaws in his methods and conclusions were openly questioned, Lustig pointed to his number of YouTube hits as his justification for being right, regardless of what the actual facts are.

And then, of course, add in the fact that (in the US at least) calorie for calorie, Americans are eating 500 calories per day more than they were in the 70's, all while consuming the SAME number of calories from sugar, and well, that pretty much completely discredits the "sugar makes people fat" argument. We aren't eating more sugar, we're just eating more calories.

I'm not arguing, but I do think your facts need checking. I went and looked because I recalled reading about how sugar production in the USA has increased by a lot. This is just looking at the 80's to now. "Beet sugar production has expanded from around 2.7 million tons annually in the early 1980s when new U.S. sugar policies were implemented to an average 3.7 million in the early 1990s, up by over one-third." Here's the article: http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/X0513E/x0513e15.htm

I do think its a little complicated, as its not the only cause. But, I think it is more pervasive than we realize.

Exactly how does production correlate with consumption? I'm talking about how many calories were consumed per person in the US, not with how much was produced. Just looking at production says nothing, because it doesn't consider changes in population, which increased dramatically between the 80's and 90's, and it also doesn't account for exports and imports. Then you have to consider that beet sugar is only one type of sugar. You also have to keep in mind that not all sugar is produced for food consumption. Ethanol production is becoming a bigger industry, and sugar is a main component of ethanol production. Plus you're using 20 year old data. US sugar production and imports have both decreased since the nineties, in fact, the US has decreased overall sugar production by 250,000 tons since 2008, and is projected to reduce sugar imports by over 20% in the next 10 years.
Sugar production and consumption actually peaked in the US in the early 90's and has been decreasing ever since, yet the obesity "crisis" has only been getting worse. Funny how we are eating less and less of something, yet that's still being blamed as the sole culprit.

Also, even if production had increased by 1/3rd since the 80's (which is your claim, not the actual quote you posted) it also follows that the US population has increased by 1/3rd since the 80's, which would lead to no change in per capita availability (though its actually decreased in reality.)

You didn't take what I posted with the right spirit. I'm not arguing. If its not sugar, it's not sugar. No big f'ing deal. I think it has more to do with sugar than people know. It is highly and powerfully addictive. And, it's filler without substance, so people eat more because they are never getting full. It creates a cycle of overeating of the wrong foods. There is a weird addictive quality to it. Yes, people eat more food overall than they used to even as little as 30 years ago. The question is why? I'm not a researcher. I don't have the answer. I am open to all reasonable explanations. But, my hunch is, it has to do with sugar as an additive and preservative. There are obvious many other reasons, that range from geographic location to economic reasons to educational issues. I also would not hang my hat on any one study, but would rather look for a trend in many studies over a period of time which all point to similar conclusions. Maybe, just maybe, we have such a large surplus of food, combined with our animal instinct of survival, and you have a perfect storm. It could be simple, like that. I don't really know.

Cheers.

The problem with this theory (which is the theory that Taubes and Lustig are pushing) is that it sounds great until you actually look at the data. People are consuming 500 calories a day more today than they were in the 70's (before the obesity epidemic started.) According to the same data source (which is the USDA's Economic Research Service) the amount of sugar consumed today is actually about 2 calories less than it was in 1971. So calories have increased, but sugar consumption really hasn't. It increased in the late 80's and early 90's, but then dropped right back down again. However, since then, obesity has become more and more common. It really is as simple as overconsumption. The human body evolved to store calories at every possible opportunity, as early humans had very little access to food, so storing fat was critical to survival during times of famine. Unfortunately, we have such a surplus of food nowadays, that overconsumption is pretty common, but our bodies are still evolved to store calories to survive in times of famine.

Ok, so assuming your assertion is true. I would then ask why are people eating 500 more calories a day than they were in the 1970's? What is driving that? They cannot be more hungry. There is not a food shortage, and therefore a hoarding mentality. Could it be less activity, and therefore more free time, or boredom? Are there any studies that are asking why?

tigersword

Food is more available. Largest increases in consumption were from fat. Based on percentages, since 1970 (as of 2010, the most current data available) meat, nuts, eggs, dairy, and added sugar consumption have dropped by 9%.Grains and fats have increased by 9% to make up the difference (3% increase for grains, 6% increase for fats.) All in all, the average American diet has remained remarkably stable as far as overall macronutrient consumption over the last 40 years.

As for why we are eating more calories? Snacking. Back in the 70's people didn't really snack. You ate breakfast, you ate lunch, you ate dinner, and that was it. Now we suddenly have this multi billion dollar industry based around snacking (and yes, the fitness and weight loss industry has done a lot to push this, with the "eat more often to increase metabolism" myth.) So now people are eating breakfast, lunch, and dinner, like always, but they are also adding in all these snacks throughout the day (fruit, dried fruit, potato chips, snack cakes, Slim Jims, etc.) And then add in the fact that the computerization and mechanization of the manufacturing industry has pushed far more people into white collar and service jobs, rather than manufacturing jobs, and the increased urbanization of the world pushes more people into urban careers, rather than farming, and you have a massive decrease in overall TDEE for the average person. When you do the math, the answer is glaringly obvious.

Unfortunately, telling people to eat less and move more doesn't make money. In fact, it loses a lot of money, the weight loss industry would fall apart, a lot of food companies that make snack foods would see sales drop, and all threse alarmists that are making tons of money writing these books blaming this issue on everything else they can find would also be out of money.

Sugar (and wheat) are just the latest scape goats. They did all this same stuff back in the 80's and 90's with fat, I'm sure in the next decade or two they will turn towards protein as the evil macro. (OMG, protein spikes insulin! Insulin makes people fat by promoting fat storage! Tell everyone to stop eating protein!!!!) See, protein does spike insulin just like carbs. It's very easy for people to push false conclusions by only sharing part of the data.