We Can Blame Sugar All We Like – But We're Only Creating More Problems For Ourselves
Options
Replies
-
Huh. That's actually a pretty good article. Thanks for sharing.0
-
Had to Google it - yep, just as I thought. Lustig. I knew Lustig, Taubes or MercoLOLa would be involved, they're all crackpots from the "sugar iz da debilz" school.0
-
-
SarcasmIsMyLoveLanguage wrote: »
No, the article referred to a "documentary" (aka propaganda video) called Sugar Crash. Lustig was one of the people involved in it. He's a longtime anti-sugar crackpot who uses junk science and cherry-picked facts to justify his agenda. The article itself that Wetcoaster linked to was 100% solid.0 -
SarcasmIsMyLoveLanguage wrote: »
No, the article referred to a "documentary" (aka propaganda video) called Sugar Crash. Lustig was one of the people involved in it. He's a longtime anti-sugar crackpot who uses junk science and cherry-picked facts to justify his agenda. The article itself that Wetcoaster linked to was 100% solid.
Got it. I misread your comment.
It's time for me to get off the interwebz now
0 -
What bad thing will happen if added/excess sugar is removed from the modern diet? Answer...nothing.
Nothing bad will happen if people stop eating sugary cereals, or candy. Still plenty of sugars in natural foods.
Comparing it with the fat-scare is unfair. Humans actually NEED fat.0 -
From http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/statistics/Overall Numbers, Diabetes and Prediabetes
Prevalence: In 2012, 29.1 million Americans, or 9.3% of the population, had diabetes.
Approximately 1.25 million American children and adults have type 1 diabetes.
Undiagnosed: Of the 29.1 million, 21.0 million were diagnosed, and 8.1 million were undiagnosed.
Prevalence in Seniors: The percentage of Americans age 65 and older remains high, at 25.9%, or 11.8 million seniors (diagnosed and undiagnosed).
New Cases: 1.4 million Americans are diagnosed with diabetes every year.
Prediabetes: In 2012, 86 million Americans age 20 and older had prediabetes; this is up from 79 million in 2010.
Deaths: Diabetes remains the 7th leading cause of death in the United States in 2010, with 69,071 death certificates listing it as the underlying cause of death, and a total of 234,051 death certificates listing diabetes as an underlying or contributing cause of death.
- See more at: http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/statistics/#sthash.QaOEy1zE.dpuf
Rates of type 2 diabetes have increased markedly since 1960 in parallel with obesity. As of 2010 there were approximately 285 million people diagnosed with the disease compared to around 30 million in 1985.[4][5] Type 2 diabetes is typically a chronic disease associated with a ten-year-shorter life expectancy.[4] Long-term complications from high blood sugar can include heart disease, strokes, diabetic retinopathy where eyesight is affected, kidney failure which may require dialysis, and poor blood flow in the limbs leading to amputations. The acute complication of ketoacidosis, a feature of type 1 diabetes, is uncommon,[6] however hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state may occur."
Dr. Lustig is a crack pot?? Really? Not an educated pediatric endocrinologist from University of California seeing the rise of DMll in children and trying to warn public of what he is seeing happening in clinical practice?0 -
Dr. Lustig is a crack pot?? Really? Not an educated pediatric endocrinologist from University of California seeing the rise of DMll in children and trying to warn public of what he is seeing happening in clinical practice?
For starters, here's one analysis/review by Alan Aragon which analyzes and takes issue with Lustig's half-baked approach and tendency to cherry-pick facts. Peer-reviewed resources are referenced and included below the article.
Lustig falsely demonizes carbohydrates in general, claims that fructose is "a poison" and rails about the evils of high-fructose corn syrup, which is essentially identical to sucrose in molecular construction and how it's metabolized by the human body. He makes numerous other errant claims (detailed in the linked analysis) and completely ignores both context and dosage. He may be well-intentioned, but his research and findings are slipshod and disingenuous.
As for the statistics you listed from diabetes.org, those are often trotted out here by low-carb/keto advocates to advance their agenda. I still await an explanation as to how they reach verifiable/reliable numbers for undiagnosed diabetics, as it would seem that "undiagnosed" by its very definition means that nobody knows the person is diabetic.0 -
Good thought provoking questions but I can't ignore the complications of Type 2 DM and that it is directly related to diet and exercise. I have listened to Lustig's lectures to the public and his Biochem lectures that are not simplified for the general public. He demonizes sugar, not carbohydrates in general. He demonizes all the overly processed foods with sugar including high fructose corn syrup added to increase sales of food. He explains the biochemistry of how sugar is broken down in the body and why high fructose corn syrup while "essential identical to sucrose in molecular construction" it does not tell our brains we have had calories and are full.
"One of the most infamous and controversial sucrose replacements is the manmade sweetener known as high fructose corn syrup (HFCS). It’s made by milling corn down until it turns into corn starch, which is then further processed with water and bacterial and fungi-derived enzymes that break down into short chains of glucose or corn syrup. Add another bacterial enzyme to convert the glucose and you finally have HFCS, which is significantly sweeter than glucose.
Glucose, on the other hand, is considered the body’s energy source. It’s also called blood sugar because it circulates throughout the body and can be used immediately for energy or stored in muscle cells or the liver as glycogen for later use. When it’s digested, glucose provides satiety signals to the brain that fructose cannot provide because it isn’t transported to the brain, telling the body it’s satisfied with what it just consumed. But because glucose isn’t as sweet as fructose, and because of continued consumption, the modern palate has become accustomed to higher levels of sweetness.
When the government placed domestic production quotas and foreign import tariffs on sugar in 1977, the industry turned to HFCS for a cheaper sweetening alternative to sugar, according to Diabetes Health. Between 1970 and 2000, people consumed 30 percent more fructose than they ever had before.
Long-term consumption of sugary drinks can double the risk of diabetes, and part of that risk is due to the excess weight gained from sugar-calories, according to Dr. Walter Willett, the chair of the nutrition department at the Harvard School of Public Health. According to a study published in the American Society for Clinical Nutrition while HFCS has “become a favorite substitute for sucrose in carbonated beverages, baked good, canned fruits, jams and jellies, and dairy products … HFCS constitutes a major source of dietary fructose.”
Alan Aragon even states:
-Towards the end of Lustig’s lecture, he mentions that fructose within fruit is okay because its effect is neutralized by the fiber content.
- I have a great deal of respect for Lustig’s professional accomplishments, and I share his concern for the nation’s penchant for sitting around and overconsuming food and beverages of all sorts.
I guess if you want to ignore the statistics from the American Academy of Diabetes (not just diabetes.org) then go ahead and add a few tablespoons of sugar to that coffee.0 -
That's a nice opinion piece, but actual research shows that highly refined white sugar does have addictive properties and affects the mammalian brain's reward system in much the same way as addictive drugs. For the past two decades, a lot of research (peer-reviewed articles from institutions all over the world) has been published and is still being published that supports the food/sugar addiction model. Heroin addicts have been talking about sugar cravings for decades - this isn't new information.
Just going to copy my post from the other thread, which includes just a fraction of what is available. (Ignore Wilson's work, his claims were made over two decades ago).
Sugar addiction can be tough to beat. Even harder when some refuse to acknowledge the truth about sugar's effects on the brain. Rejecting sugar addiction is old hat; luckily there's been exciting research done that indicates that mammalian brains do become sugar-addicted. Thanks to technology advances that allow for techniques like brain imaging, we can now observe and analyze how sugar really affects the brain (similar to other illicit drugs). And as with any reward center in the brain, acclimation and resulting abnormal behaviors do occur w/r/t sugar. A reward process being natural does not prevent it from moving into the realm of addiction, as we are just now learning. Highly processed, sugar-laden foods do in fact change the brain and produce behaviors much in the same way as seen with traditional drugs. I just saw a presentation given at UoC about refined sugar affecting the fetal brain to such an extent that the person deals with the consequences for life. Refined, highly potent sugar does affect the brain's "addiction center" just as any other "drug". There's loads of research available, much more will be published over the next several years. Here's just a little bit of information from real experts:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235907/
http://news.mit.edu/2015/decoding-sugar-addiction-0129
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3139704/#S9title
http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2015/01/07/sugar-health-research
http://abc13.com/health/study-sugar-is-as-addictive-as-cocaine/533979/
http://www.healthline.com/health/food-nutrition/experts-is-sugar-addictive-drug
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11733709
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3109725/
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090727102024.htm
https://www.princeton.edu/pr/news/02/q2/0620-hoebel.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1313591?dopt=Abstract?access_num=1313591
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2714381/#__sec1title
I've yet to see a good argument against sugar addiction (that wasn't made by industry). So yes, OP, you are very likely addicted to sugar in some way, no matter what anyone here tells you. And it's hard, because hidden sugars under a variety of ingredient names are in just about everything. And overconsumption is killing us and destroying our bodies. What some folks don't understand is that there is a HUGE difference between the sugar that is found in nature and part of our natural diet (i.e. fruit sugar bound to fiber and nutrients) and the "steroid sugar" we've purified and made potent and coupled with other junk (e.g. donuts). Our brains can handle the sugar in an apple, they cannot handle the beefed up stuff in a donut.
NB: Just to make clear, I am only addressing the idea that sugar is not at all addictive. I make no other claims about choice or personal responsibility.
With that said, I do think industry is partly responsible for the poor state of public health given that a) they put sugar in way too many foods for profit's sake (bliss point), and b) they deliberately misinform the public (by "buying" their way into and polluting academia) in order to maximize profits, just like the cigarette companies used to. And it's not the first time - they tried to discredit and prohibit valid dental research into sugar in the 70s.0 -
0
-
Agree:
The 2015 Dietary Guideline Advisory Committee just released new recommendations to limit added sugars to 10 percent of daily calories. Right now, Americans are eating more sugar than ever before — on average, about 160 pounds a year.
James DiNicolantonio is a cardiovascular research scientist at St. Luke’s Mid-America Heart Institute in Kansas City, Mo. He recently published a comprehensive review of dozens of studies in which he contends that sugar is more dangerous than salt when it comes to risk for heart disease. He says that refined sugar is similar to cocaine — a white crystal extracted from sugar cane rather than coca leaves — and that studies show it can be even more addictive than the recreational drug.0 -
Meh, sugar doesn't have to be "the debil" to be a problem in increased obesity.
Added sugar = more calories. Food processors use high fructose corn syrup as a cheap filler. So, at least in the US, people eating a processed food diet have become accustomed to a higher level of sweetness in foods overall. Eat at even a moderate carb level for awhile then taste a bit of white bread...tastes like cake.
Plus the increased sugar jacking with blood sugar levels...spike and drop leading to increased hunger/eating.
I thought the idea that sugar is usually linked with fat in the diet to be disingenuous. A lot of sugar is in beverages or eaten as candy. The decrease in soda consumption is encouraging.
I scan for HFCS and avoid it 90% of the time. I don't need loads of extra sweetener in my soup, salad dressing, bread, etc. That and trans fats are tops on my avoid list.
The study re:sugar effecting the fetal brain makes me sad. I didn't try to restrict my eating while pregnant partly due to stuff about babies whose mothers were in calorie restriction went on to have a lifelong issue with weight due to developing a thrifty metabolism IIRC. So now I wish I had restricted sugar at least.0 -
That's a nice opinion piece, but actual research shows that highly refined white sugar does have addictive properties and affects the mammalian brain's reward system in much the same way as addictive drugs. For the past two decades, a lot of research (peer-reviewed articles from institutions all over the world) has been published and is still being published that supports the food/sugar addiction model. Heroin addicts have been talking about sugar cravings for decades - this isn't new information.
Just going to copy my post from the other thread, which includes just a fraction of what is available. (Ignore Wilson's work, his claims were made over two decades ago).
Sugar addiction can be tough to beat. Even harder when some refuse to acknowledge the truth about sugar's effects on the brain. Rejecting sugar addiction is old hat; luckily there's been exciting research done that indicates that mammalian brains do become sugar-addicted. Thanks to technology advances that allow for techniques like brain imaging, we can now observe and analyze how sugar really affects the brain (similar to other illicit drugs). And as with any reward center in the brain, acclimation and resulting abnormal behaviors do occur w/r/t sugar. A reward process being natural does not prevent it from moving into the realm of addiction, as we are just now learning. Highly processed, sugar-laden foods do in fact change the brain and produce behaviors much in the same way as seen with traditional drugs. I just saw a presentation given at UoC about refined sugar affecting the fetal brain to such an extent that the person deals with the consequences for life. Refined, highly potent sugar does affect the brain's "addiction center" just as any other "drug". There's loads of research available, much more will be published over the next several years. Here's just a little bit of information from real experts:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235907/
http://news.mit.edu/2015/decoding-sugar-addiction-0129
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3139704/#S9title
http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2015/01/07/sugar-health-research
http://abc13.com/health/study-sugar-is-as-addictive-as-cocaine/533979/
http://www.healthline.com/health/food-nutrition/experts-is-sugar-addictive-drug
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11733709
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3109725/
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090727102024.htm
https://www.princeton.edu/pr/news/02/q2/0620-hoebel.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1313591?dopt=Abstract?access_num=1313591
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2714381/#__sec1title
I've yet to see a good argument against sugar addiction (that wasn't made by industry). So yes, OP, you are very likely addicted to sugar in some way, no matter what anyone here tells you. And it's hard, because hidden sugars under a variety of ingredient names are in just about everything. And overconsumption is killing us and destroying our bodies. What some folks don't understand is that there is a HUGE difference between the sugar that is found in nature and part of our natural diet (i.e. fruit sugar bound to fiber and nutrients) and the "steroid sugar" we've purified and made potent and coupled with other junk (e.g. donuts). Our brains can handle the sugar in an apple, they cannot handle the beefed up stuff in a donut.
NB: Just to make clear, I am only addressing the idea that sugar is not at all addictive. I make no other claims about choice or personal responsibility.
With that said, I do think industry is partly responsible for the poor state of public health given that a) they put sugar in way too many foods for profit's sake (bliss point), and b) they deliberately misinform the public (by "buying" their way into and polluting academia) in order to maximize profits, just like the cigarette companies used to. And it's not the first time - they tried to discredit and prohibit valid dental research into sugar in the 70s.
Rats, rats, rats, more rats...
I'm also interested in what the hell you think we do to sugar to make it "steroid sugar".0 -
Pollywog_la wrote: »What bad thing will happen if added/excess sugar is removed from the modern diet? Answer...nothing.
Nothing bad will happen if people stop eating sugary cereals, or candy. Still plenty of sugars in natural foods.
Comparing it with the fat-scare is unfair. Humans actually NEED fat.
Low fat never said no fat (there's naturally-occurring fat in whole foods too, like nuts, meat (including fatty fish), avocado, olives) -- you don't need to get fat from sweets or packaged foods or fast food, etc., or even lots of sat fat from dairy or fattier cuts of meat to live. In fact, we are still recommended to limit those things. So it's the same.
And of course we do need sugar to live -- it's just that it's so incredibly important our bodies can create it from other things. That there are people who worry about whether they should reduce or limit their consumption of fruits and even vegetables because "sugar" shows that we've gone overboard, as usual, since it's easier to blame a macro than learn to eat in a sensible way that focuses on nutrient dense foods. Well, not easier, but apparently sexier -- there's more money to be made promoting this line. Apparently we are now doing the reverse of the Snackwell's thing -- making "no sugar" products that have extra fat and sodium and calories. People want a magic bullet.
As for your question, I am in favor of people eating fewer foods with lots of sugar added. I don't eat sugary cereal or candy myself (well, I don't like either), and I eat the foods with added sugar that I like (such as ice cream) in moderation. But wanting those foods removed from the food supply seems extreme. Why should they be, when many enjoy them and the correct answer is not to eat stupidly.
0 -
Decreasing added sugar (and increasing protein and fiber) certainly makes it easier for me to stay in a calorie deficit.0
-
Agree:
The 2015 Dietary Guideline Advisory Committee just released new recommendations to limit added sugars to 10 percent of daily calories. Right now, Americans are eating more sugar than ever before — on average, about 160 pounds a year.
Everything I've seen has said added sugar consumption is down some. Still too high, but at about 14% of calories (vs. the 10% or less recommended--although one can certainly argue that lower would be better). Even this stat is a little misleading, as apparently about 49% of this is from soda (the lion's share) plus other sweetened drinks. While those who consume sweetened drinks tend to get lots and lots of calories (and sugar) from them, I don't believe they are the majority. Even at my fattest I never consumed sweetened drinks (or crazy amounts of sugar).
Does your number include non-added sugar (like from fruits and veg)?
And as someone who has eaten a variety of foods with sugar, from carrots to apples to ice cream, the notion that it's similar to cocaine or super addictive in itself (would you even want to eat plain sugar? ugh) or dangerous in itself simply doesn't pass the red face test. Having a terrible diet and being overweight, yes, both can be quite bad for your health. I'd include drinking tons of calories from soda as "having a terrible diet," sure.0 -
I didn't see any sources in the original article. Zero.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »Agree:
The 2015 Dietary Guideline Advisory Committee just released new recommendations to limit added sugars to 10 percent of daily calories. Right now, Americans are eating more sugar than ever before — on average, about 160 pounds a year.
Everything I've seen has said added sugar consumption is down some. Still too high, but at about 14% of calories (vs. the 10% or less recommended--although one can certainly argue that lower would be better). Even this stat is a little misleading, as apparently about 49% of this is from soda (the lion's share) plus other sweetened drinks. While those who consume sweetened drinks tend to get lots and lots of calories (and sugar) from them, I don't believe they are the majority. Even at my fattest I never consumed sweetened drinks (or crazy amounts of sugar).
Does your number include non-added sugar (like from fruits and veg)?
And as someone who has eaten a variety of foods with sugar, from carrots to apples to ice cream, the notion that it's similar to cocaine or super addictive in itself (would you even want to eat plain sugar? ugh) or dangerous in itself simply doesn't pass the red face test. Having a terrible diet and being overweight, yes, both can be quite bad for your health. I'd include drinking tons of calories from soda as "having a terrible diet," sure.
Just curious if anyone ever engages in a thoughtful discussion with you when you pose such logical questions about such an impassioned topic? It certainly doesn't seem so, from the many threads on this topic where I've seen you raise these valid points, but if it ever does happen, can you tag me into the thread? I'd love to see a serious discussion on this that didn't just include a bunch of references to different articles (on both sides).0 -
That's a nice opinion piece, but actual research shows that highly refined white sugar does have addictive properties and affects the mammalian brain's reward system in much the same way as addictive drugs. For the past two decades, a lot of research (peer-reviewed articles from institutions all over the world) has been published and is still being published that supports the food/sugar addiction model. Heroin addicts have been talking about sugar cravings for decades - this isn't new information.
Just going to copy my post from the other thread, which includes just a fraction of what is available. (Ignore Wilson's work, his claims were made over two decades ago).
Sugar addiction can be tough to beat. Even harder when some refuse to acknowledge the truth about sugar's effects on the brain. Rejecting sugar addiction is old hat; luckily there's been exciting research done that indicates that mammalian brains do become sugar-addicted. Thanks to technology advances that allow for techniques like brain imaging, we can now observe and analyze how sugar really affects the brain (similar to other illicit drugs). And as with any reward center in the brain, acclimation and resulting abnormal behaviors do occur w/r/t sugar. A reward process being natural does not prevent it from moving into the realm of addiction, as we are just now learning. Highly processed, sugar-laden foods do in fact change the brain and produce behaviors much in the same way as seen with traditional drugs. I just saw a presentation given at UoC about refined sugar affecting the fetal brain to such an extent that the person deals with the consequences for life. Refined, highly potent sugar does affect the brain's "addiction center" just as any other "drug". There's loads of research available, much more will be published over the next several years. Here's just a little bit of information from real experts:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235907/
http://news.mit.edu/2015/decoding-sugar-addiction-0129
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3139704/#S9title
http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2015/01/07/sugar-health-research
http://abc13.com/health/study-sugar-is-as-addictive-as-cocaine/533979/
http://www.healthline.com/health/food-nutrition/experts-is-sugar-addictive-drug
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11733709
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3109725/
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090727102024.htm
https://www.princeton.edu/pr/news/02/q2/0620-hoebel.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1313591?dopt=Abstract?access_num=1313591
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2714381/#__sec1title
I've yet to see a good argument against sugar addiction (that wasn't made by industry). So yes, OP, you are very likely addicted to sugar in some way, no matter what anyone here tells you. And it's hard, because hidden sugars under a variety of ingredient names are in just about everything. And overconsumption is killing us and destroying our bodies. What some folks don't understand is that there is a HUGE difference between the sugar that is found in nature and part of our natural diet (i.e. fruit sugar bound to fiber and nutrients) and the "steroid sugar" we've purified and made potent and coupled with other junk (e.g. donuts). Our brains can handle the sugar in an apple, they cannot handle the beefed up stuff in a donut.
NB: Just to make clear, I am only addressing the idea that sugar is not at all addictive. I make no other claims about choice or personal responsibility.
With that said, I do think industry is partly responsible for the poor state of public health given that a) they put sugar in way too many foods for profit's sake (bliss point), and b) they deliberately misinform the public (by "buying" their way into and polluting academia) in order to maximize profits, just like the cigarette companies used to. And it's not the first time - they tried to discredit and prohibit valid dental research into sugar in the 70s.
Rat studies requiring putting the animals on a binge / feast cycle to get the results wanted and articles claiming addiction with no actual link to said study.0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7opFCZr1PA
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 911 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions