Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
The Sugar Conspiracy
Options
Replies
-
pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »Let's assume the rat experiment is applicable, which virtually nobody does in science, but let's assume it does. One study is not enough. What's next? A human study?
This is totally me talking out of my *kitten*, but my assumption is rat studies are always pointed to in these arguments because human studies have never managed to prove the point. I mean, sugar is not a new product. Added sugar is not a new product. It's not like there hasn't been enough time for the powers of added sugar to be tested and trialed. They've done countless studies on the effects (or lack thereof) of artificial sweeteners, so I assume they've done the same and more with sugar. And if any of those studies actually supported any actual causative relationship between sugar and the slew of things it's supposed to cause (other than just what the excess calories cause), I think someone would have posted it by now. At least that's what my little brain assumes
A few studies are linked and explained in that scientific American article as well as an explanation of why rats aren't applicable. Through all the debate it could be decided immediately with a simple link to a robust peer reviewed study that has been further validated. There aren't any so far.
And it doesn't sound like the poster you're debating with would change her mind anyway. So, debate over, I guess
Exactly...this debate is over. I am not going to change my mind, neither the people whom I am debating with.
It's a shame because I learn a lot from the debates on these boards. Especially here on the debate section where evidence is supposed to reign. But for whatever reason, every single sugar debates devolves into "heroin" "no" "Lustig" "no" "but rats!" "no" "personal experience!!" "we're done." It would be interesting to see some more information provided instead of the back and forth that always happens instead.10 -
pcoslady83 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »
It's a scientific debate, semantics are important. I think we are all just geeks who like debating
But its also important in the context of the idea of a sugar conspiracy, or whatever. Are corporate interests feeding us an addictive substance or is sugar just really tasty and some of us develop unhealthy relationships with it? Obviously i support the latter explanation.
I believe refined sugar is addictive to many people and at the minimum an appetite stimulant which interferes with normal brain functionality. So I think corporations are using these attributes of sugar to increase profits.
Aaaaannnnnndddddddd...I don't like debating at all. I used to though, but when I started understanding that different people experience different realities when faced with an objectively same situation, debating became less interesting and learning about different experiences and perspective became more interesting.
Experiences do not negate reality. If I start seeing unicorns, the unicorns are not there. It's me. The fact that I saw unicorns is real, the existence of unicorns is not. If someone believes they are physically addicted to sugar the only way to determine if this is true is through science.
Sure science will determine that...eventually. Till then, it is good to have an open mind.
I do. It's open to evidence.
Then..let us just wait and respect people's experiences rather than dismissing them as willpower problem.
I hope I've been clear that I think it's more nuanced than just a willpower problem and calling something psychological is in no way a dismissal. If someone tells me they really struggle with sugar I am in no position to say "No you don't get a grip" but can discuss how to categorise it or whether it's the substance itself.
A simple google search will point you to papers. Here is the first link that turned up and I have copied the conclusion.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235907/
The reviewed evidence supports the theory that, in some circumstances, intermittent access to sugar can lead to behavior and neurochemical changes that resemble the effects of a substance of abuse. According to the evidence in rats, intermittent access to sugar and chow is capable of producing a “dependency”. This was operationally defined by tests for bingeing, withdrawal, craving and cross-sensitization to amphetamine and alcohol. The correspondence to some people with binge eating disorder or bulimia is striking, but whether or not it is a good idea to call this a “food addiction” in people is both a scientific and societal question that has yet to be answered. What this review demonstrates is that rats with intermittent access to food and a sugar solution can show both a constellation of behaviors and parallel brain changes that are characteristic of rats that voluntarily self-administer addictive drugs. In the aggregrate, this is evidence that sugar can be addictive.
Now..please don't tell me that the study was in rats and not applicable to humans.
Why would I not tell you that? The study is literally on rats. This has been discussed already. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/brainwaves/is-sugar-really-toxic-sifting-through-the-evidence/ Rat study dealt with in this article.
Sure..I did go through the article. I found two places where it mentions rat study.
<snip>
B. Not only do many worrying fructose studies use unrealistic doses of the sugar unaccompanied by glucose, it also turns out that the rodents researchers have studied metabolize fructose in a very different way than people do—far more different than originally anticipated. Studies that have traced fructose's fantastic voyage through the human body suggest that the liver converts as much as 50 percent of fructose into glucose, around 30 percent of fructose into lactate and less than one percent into fats. In contrast, mice and rats turn more than 50 percent of fructose into fats, so experiments with these animals would exaggerate the significance of fructose's proposed detriments for humans, especially clogged arteries, fatty livers and insulin resistance.
<snip>
Now..for B. Sure liver converts 50% of fructose into glucose..if that glucose is in excess of what body needs (which is the problem in addiction like behavior with sugar causes), it gets converted to fat. I have a hard time understanding what is the point the author is trying to make here.
I think your point A has been well covered by other posters. I'd like to address point B.
The paragraph you've quoted here contains two points which go hand in hand in order to reach a conclusion. These are: a human liver would convert as much as 50% of that fructose into glucose; a rat liver would convert more than 50% of it into fat.
We'll add to these facts a third one that you provided:[a human] liver converts 50% of fructose into glucose..if that glucose is in excess of what body needs (which is the problem in addiction like behavior with sugar causes), it gets converted to fat.
Please bear with me as I piece this together.
As you correctly stated, in a human excess glucose is converted to fat; so then at first glance those aforementioned figures of 50% might appear to be equivalent.
However, please pay close attention to the wording here. It is the excess glucose that is converted into fat, and a human liver may convert as much as 50% of fructose into glucose. Let's use 50 grams of straight fructose, ingested by Alice, as an example to illustrate what I'm trying to say. As much as 25 grams of it could be converted to glucose. How much of that is excess? Of course that would depend on how much glucose Alice's body needs, so it is quite possible that less than 25 grams of the recently-converted glucose is re-converted into fat.
As for a rat or mouse liver, again please pay close attention to the wording. "Mice and rats turn more than 50% of fructose into fats." Returning to our illustration, let's say that Bob the lab rat is fed 50 grams of straight fructose (we're keeping Alice's and Bob's amounts the same only for the sake of simplicity & comparison). Over 25 grams could be converted into fat for poor Bob.
Do you see the subtle yet important difference that could make mouse and rat studies unreliable when extrapolated to humans?
Regarding your point that excess glucose is a "problem in addiction like behavior with sugar causes", here we agree. Excess glucose is a problem. No one says it's OK to consume any form of sugar to the point that your liver begins to turn it to fat; and I would like to see more help available for people who, for whatever reason, engage in addiction-like or compulsive behavior when it comes to food.
Let us consider you argument and take a can of classic coke which is just sugar (so that we don't have fat or any protein or complex carbohydrates coming into equation and a can of coke is something many people consume). Google says it has 39 grams of sugar. Let us say 25% of that get converted to fat which is roughly 10 grams fat per day which is 8 pounds per year and I don't think it is less.
Also, again I restate my my point that many people may not stop at one coke or one cookie or one slice of cake because sugar makes you eat more of it.
Right. But a rat study could potentially show that those 39 grams of sugar (let's say it's all fructose to keep it consistent) convert to as much as 19.5 grams of fat or more because, as the article said, "mice and rats turn more than 50 percent of fructose into fats"; whereas a human " liver converts as much as 50 percent of fructose into glucose", (in the case of the Coke, 19.5 grams or less which then may or may not turn into fat).
This highlights why it can be inaccurate to extrapolate and apply data gathered from rat studies to humans. The author said "experiments with these animals would exaggerate the significance of fructose's proposed detriments for humans, especially clogged arteries, fatty livers and insulin resistance." And you said you had a hard time understanding why that would be, and I've attempted to explain.
Again, I agree with your point that many people may not stop after just one because of many reasons. That is unhealthy no matter how you look at it and I'd like to see more help available to people who display compulsive eating habits.
Sure...we applied a correction to compensate for the exaggeration that the article claims and we see it is still a huge impact. So just because he is claiming that differences are exaggerated, it still doesn't mean the impact of sugar on human beings is insignificant. So that argument is not worth much.
Oh OK. Do you know where I can read about that? I'm actually very curious about the validity of rodent studies as applied to humans. I asked a question yesterday about it and didn't get an answer. It would make a huge difference if a correction had been applied to compensate for the differences, and I would have to repent in dust and sack cloth.
We applied the correction you suggested right here for the most reasonable case of a can of coke using the numbers provided by the article and using a liberal estimate that only half of glucose resulting from fructose gets to fats.
Here is a paper where Dr. Lustig answers your question.
http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0002822310019851/1-s2.0-S0002822310019851-main.pdf?_tid=6fc801d8-20a9-11e6-89cf-00000aacb35f&acdnat=1463982457_96671721f8e69b58feaecfc74bea0c9f
Anyways..when claiming exaggeration, Scientific American post refers to a paper which doesn't compare mice and human beings at all. I have no clue where he got the data from. Can you please point me where I can find the information about rats converting 50% of fructose to fat?
And I am getting out of here. It was fun debating with you all.
Please, no Lustig. He's as credible as the guy with the ancient aliens.
Well..you can have your opinions.
The irony is we are debating about an article that heavily relies on Lustig's work and you don't want to quote him.
It's not a personal preference. Lustig isn't credible. Credibility isn't a fashion or opinion.
Really? If it was not a personal preference, we would not be having this debate, Guardian wouldn't have published an article quoting him heavily, his youtube video wouldn't have gone viral. Every one would have decided he is not credible and he would be found no where. We are having this debate because many consider him credible. It is purely your opinion that he is not credible.
Obviously you are entitled to your opinion, and it's awesome you found something that works for you, since so many people don't. But Freelee the Banana Girl is hugely popular and her stuff goes viral all the time. David Wolfe (sp?) shared a post on FB that drilling being done in Russia was dangerous because if they drilled too far in, they would let out gravity, and that went viral. Being popular with the general public does not make you scientifically credible.
Sure..please prove to me that entire scientific community has discredited Lustig.
I'm sure this won't sway you at all, but I found it fascinating and pertinent to the debate. From http://www.foodinsight.org/FedUp-review
The Fed Up claim: Dr. Robert Lustig said that there is “really good data” that “a calorie is not a calorie," in that the "toxicity" of sugars is an inherent and unique contributor to obesogenicity. "When your liver gets that big sugar rush [after drinking a sugar-sweetened beverage] ... it has no choice but to turn it into fat immediately."
The facts: Many of the most trenchant comments made by Dr. Lustig about sugar, who receives substantial screen-time, are far from representative of the scientific mainstream. The theories presented by experts in the film about sugars' metabolism and the "unique" role of sugar in obesity have been called into question by numerous independent and respected scientific authorities. Regardless of global scientific consensus that state otherwise, the documentary presents these theories as fact. And once again, no credible supportive data are actually presented here. Some scientists specifically have questioned, in particular, Dr. Lustig's elucidation of how sugars are metabolized in the liver and his notion of "toxicity."
Case in point, Dr. Mark Kern, professor at San Diego State University, has scientifically critiquedDr. Lustig’s recent book Fat Chance. In his words, the book "is the product of one individual’s point of view—a perspective that is not supported by the vast majority of scientific research on nutrition and metabolism." Furthermore, Kern concludes that "books like Fat Chance are regressive and only serve to increase consumer confusion about nutrition, rather than help create smarter consumers who are able to make informed decisions about their health."
He goes on to state that:
"There is no scientific evidence to support the idea that fructose causes obesity or metabolic syndrome when consumed in typical amounts.
"Dr. Lustig’s assertion that excessive fructose is converted to fat by the body, thereby uniquely contributing to obesity and metabolic syndrome, is unsubstantiated.
"Dr. Lustig’s understanding of fructose metabolism and the published literature on fructose and health is limited."
In addition, the 2010 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee said this about sugar-related randomized control trials (RCTs), which are considered the gold standard of scientific research:
"RCTs report that added sugars are not different from other calories in increasing energy intake or body weight. Prospective studies report some relationship with SSB and weight gain, but it is not possible to determine if these relationships are merely linked to additional calories, as opposed to added sugars per se."
In an article in the American Diabetes Association's journal Diabetes Care, Dr. Richard Kahn and John Sievenpiper, MD, argue that many factors contribute to weight gain and that there is nothing unique about calories from sugars. Calories from any source, including sugars, if eaten in excess of energy needs, can contribute to weight gain:
"In a pooled analysis of three of the well-known Harvard cohorts (which are often cited [5–7,17]as showing that sugar causes obesity and diabetes) an increase in one serving of French fries (+3.35 lbs), potato chips (+1.69 lbs), unprocessed meat (+0.93 lbs), or boiled, baked or mashed potatoes (+57 lbs) resulted in greater or similar weight gain as did sugary beverages (+1.0 lbs) for every 4 years of follow-up, when intake was not adjusted for total energy consumption (18)."
More than any other dietary component or lifestyle factor, sugars have been studied for their potential association with obesity. A substantial amount of research has been conducted on the relationships between intake of sugars and health outcomes, and the cumulative body of evidence is quite impressive.
Scientific consensus to date shows that:
The link between sugar intake and obesity is inconsistent.
Sugar intake alone does not cause type 2 diabetes.
Sugar is not considered an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease.
9 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »
It's a scientific debate, semantics are important. I think we are all just geeks who like debating
But its also important in the context of the idea of a sugar conspiracy, or whatever. Are corporate interests feeding us an addictive substance or is sugar just really tasty and some of us develop unhealthy relationships with it? Obviously i support the latter explanation.
I believe refined sugar is addictive to many people and at the minimum an appetite stimulant which interferes with normal brain functionality. So I think corporations are using these attributes of sugar to increase profits.
Aaaaannnnnndddddddd...I don't like debating at all. I used to though, but when I started understanding that different people experience different realities when faced with an objectively same situation, debating became less interesting and learning about different experiences and perspective became more interesting.
Experiences do not negate reality. If I start seeing unicorns, the unicorns are not there. It's me. The fact that I saw unicorns is real, the existence of unicorns is not. If someone believes they are physically addicted to sugar the only way to determine if this is true is through science.
Sure science will determine that...eventually. Till then, it is good to have an open mind.
I do. It's open to evidence.
Then..let us just wait and respect people's experiences rather than dismissing them as willpower problem.
So once again someone tries to claim that she is not responsible for gaining weight, unlike the rest if us.
Sorry, your weight issues are NOT different from those of others. If it's willpower for us, it's willpower for you.
Wow...looks like you know me better than myself.4 -
diannethegeek wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »Let's assume the rat experiment is applicable, which virtually nobody does in science, but let's assume it does. One study is not enough. What's next? A human study?
This is totally me talking out of my *kitten*, but my assumption is rat studies are always pointed to in these arguments because human studies have never managed to prove the point. I mean, sugar is not a new product. Added sugar is not a new product. It's not like there hasn't been enough time for the powers of added sugar to be tested and trialed. They've done countless studies on the effects (or lack thereof) of artificial sweeteners, so I assume they've done the same and more with sugar. And if any of those studies actually supported any actual causative relationship between sugar and the slew of things it's supposed to cause (other than just what the excess calories cause), I think someone would have posted it by now. At least that's what my little brain assumes
A few studies are linked and explained in that scientific American article as well as an explanation of why rats aren't applicable. Through all the debate it could be decided immediately with a simple link to a robust peer reviewed study that has been further validated. There aren't any so far.
And it doesn't sound like the poster you're debating with would change her mind anyway. So, debate over, I guess
Exactly...this debate is over. I am not going to change my mind, neither the people whom I am debating with.
It's a shame because I learn a lot from the debates on these boards. Especially here on the debate section where evidence is supposed to reign. But for whatever reason, every single sugar debates devolves into "heroin" "no" "Lustig" "no" "but rats!" "no" "personal experience!!" "we're done." It would be interesting to see some more information provided instead of the back and forth that always happens instead.
Well I have certainly tried to keep it evidence based. Not sure what I can do other than ask for evidence. There are reasons why personal experience doesnt count as evidence which I hope I've explained.1 -
@kinny72 you might want to read the about page on that site and consider the source.1
-
The implication was that food addicts (or people claiming to be) don't exhibit this type of behavior in the absence of economic difficulties. I am aware of instances (although rare) in which people shop lifted food as a means to avoid the stigma of being overweight and purchasing something like a box of donuts or cupcakes.When people are stealing food, it is because they have none, not because they want a sugar fix. They don't generally care about the type and quality of food, they are hungry.
Humiliation is a big motivator for those who steal food when they have the ability to afford it.
I agree though, the consequences of addiction pale in comparison to those of dependence.
I don't understand your point about humiliation. A little help?Many addiction groups recognize both a physical and a psychological component to addiction (not counting physical dependencies). This is the development of an abnormal craving once the substance is ingested. Once the craving is induced it cannot be satisfied no matter how much of the substance is consumed. The other component is the existence of a mental obsession of which the afflicted cannot overcome to prevent the triggering of the craving through ingesting the substance.
Basically, they can't stop once they've started and they can't stop themselves from starting.
This is a core concept behind the reason that many recovered alcoholics (or other recovered addicts) will not attempt moderation. While free from any physical dependencies, they are not free from the condition which caused the craving in the first place. Their recovery comes on the mental obsession side of the problem.
I believe there are many compounds which carry a potential to cause such a reaction. Food is one of these. Sugary foods seem to be the most commonly cited, but I am aware of plenty who cite fatty meats and other things like salt, and starchy foods...or any mixture of them.
I think a lot of people say they are addicted to sugar as a way of describing their fondness for it. They might have heard about it before, but aren't quite as out of control as the statement would indicate. To them, it might be more of a metaphor. Others are struggling with crippling desperation. On these forums, I can't tell one type from the other, so I treat them the same.
It's like that riddle where there are two tribes, one filled cannible liars (as in they never tell the truth) and one friendly honest (as in they never tell a lie). They look the same. You approach a fork in the road and see one tribesman standing there. The two paths will take you to either village. Given a single question, what do you ask the tribesman?Which way to your village?
In either case, the answer is the same.
I love all of this and it makes me very curious how you treat people who say they are addicted to sugar. Could you give an example?
I personally feel that I have no choice but to take them seriously. It doesn't matter if they are claiming only a sugar addiction or all foods or even only specific foods like Lemur's donuts. I'll usually tell them that if they feel they have an addiction, they should get help by seeking out groups and physicians familiar with food issues. I usually do this in a PM as it can get lost or debated among the other posts. Sometimes, I suspect that the suggestion that the problem might be serious is enough for them to take a deeper look at themselves. I don't know how many of them actually seek help, but I feel it is important for them to know that there are groups and physicians which recognize and specialize in these types of problems.
ETA: To clarify, when I say "treat", I mean they lay term as in "react" or "interact". I am not a doctor and do not claim to "treat" people in that sense.1 -
pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »
It's a scientific debate, semantics are important. I think we are all just geeks who like debating
But its also important in the context of the idea of a sugar conspiracy, or whatever. Are corporate interests feeding us an addictive substance or is sugar just really tasty and some of us develop unhealthy relationships with it? Obviously i support the latter explanation.
I believe refined sugar is addictive to many people and at the minimum an appetite stimulant which interferes with normal brain functionality. So I think corporations are using these attributes of sugar to increase profits.
Aaaaannnnnndddddddd...I don't like debating at all. I used to though, but when I started understanding that different people experience different realities when faced with an objectively same situation, debating became less interesting and learning about different experiences and perspective became more interesting.
Experiences do not negate reality. If I start seeing unicorns, the unicorns are not there. It's me. The fact that I saw unicorns is real, the existence of unicorns is not. If someone believes they are physically addicted to sugar the only way to determine if this is true is through science.
Sure science will determine that...eventually. Till then, it is good to have an open mind.
I do. It's open to evidence.
Then..let us just wait and respect people's experiences rather than dismissing them as willpower problem.
I hope I've been clear that I think it's more nuanced than just a willpower problem and calling something psychological is in no way a dismissal. If someone tells me they really struggle with sugar I am in no position to say "No you don't get a grip" but can discuss how to categorise it or whether it's the substance itself.
A simple google search will point you to papers. Here is the first link that turned up and I have copied the conclusion.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235907/
The reviewed evidence supports the theory that, in some circumstances, intermittent access to sugar can lead to behavior and neurochemical changes that resemble the effects of a substance of abuse. According to the evidence in rats, intermittent access to sugar and chow is capable of producing a “dependency”. This was operationally defined by tests for bingeing, withdrawal, craving and cross-sensitization to amphetamine and alcohol. The correspondence to some people with binge eating disorder or bulimia is striking, but whether or not it is a good idea to call this a “food addiction” in people is both a scientific and societal question that has yet to be answered. What this review demonstrates is that rats with intermittent access to food and a sugar solution can show both a constellation of behaviors and parallel brain changes that are characteristic of rats that voluntarily self-administer addictive drugs. In the aggregrate, this is evidence that sugar can be addictive.
Now..please don't tell me that the study was in rats and not applicable to humans.
Why would I not tell you that? The study is literally on rats. This has been discussed already. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/brainwaves/is-sugar-really-toxic-sifting-through-the-evidence/ Rat study dealt with in this article.
Sure..I did go through the article. I found two places where it mentions rat study.
<snip>
B. Not only do many worrying fructose studies use unrealistic doses of the sugar unaccompanied by glucose, it also turns out that the rodents researchers have studied metabolize fructose in a very different way than people do—far more different than originally anticipated. Studies that have traced fructose's fantastic voyage through the human body suggest that the liver converts as much as 50 percent of fructose into glucose, around 30 percent of fructose into lactate and less than one percent into fats. In contrast, mice and rats turn more than 50 percent of fructose into fats, so experiments with these animals would exaggerate the significance of fructose's proposed detriments for humans, especially clogged arteries, fatty livers and insulin resistance.
<snip>
Now..for B. Sure liver converts 50% of fructose into glucose..if that glucose is in excess of what body needs (which is the problem in addiction like behavior with sugar causes), it gets converted to fat. I have a hard time understanding what is the point the author is trying to make here.
I think your point A has been well covered by other posters. I'd like to address point B.
The paragraph you've quoted here contains two points which go hand in hand in order to reach a conclusion. These are: a human liver would convert as much as 50% of that fructose into glucose; a rat liver would convert more than 50% of it into fat.
We'll add to these facts a third one that you provided:[a human] liver converts 50% of fructose into glucose..if that glucose is in excess of what body needs (which is the problem in addiction like behavior with sugar causes), it gets converted to fat.
Please bear with me as I piece this together.
As you correctly stated, in a human excess glucose is converted to fat; so then at first glance those aforementioned figures of 50% might appear to be equivalent.
However, please pay close attention to the wording here. It is the excess glucose that is converted into fat, and a human liver may convert as much as 50% of fructose into glucose. Let's use 50 grams of straight fructose, ingested by Alice, as an example to illustrate what I'm trying to say. As much as 25 grams of it could be converted to glucose. How much of that is excess? Of course that would depend on how much glucose Alice's body needs, so it is quite possible that less than 25 grams of the recently-converted glucose is re-converted into fat.
As for a rat or mouse liver, again please pay close attention to the wording. "Mice and rats turn more than 50% of fructose into fats." Returning to our illustration, let's say that Bob the lab rat is fed 50 grams of straight fructose (we're keeping Alice's and Bob's amounts the same only for the sake of simplicity & comparison). Over 25 grams could be converted into fat for poor Bob.
Do you see the subtle yet important difference that could make mouse and rat studies unreliable when extrapolated to humans?
Regarding your point that excess glucose is a "problem in addiction like behavior with sugar causes", here we agree. Excess glucose is a problem. No one says it's OK to consume any form of sugar to the point that your liver begins to turn it to fat; and I would like to see more help available for people who, for whatever reason, engage in addiction-like or compulsive behavior when it comes to food.
Let us consider you argument and take a can of classic coke which is just sugar (so that we don't have fat or any protein or complex carbohydrates coming into equation and a can of coke is something many people consume). Google says it has 39 grams of sugar. Let us say 25% of that get converted to fat which is roughly 10 grams fat per day which is 8 pounds per year and I don't think it is less.
Also, again I restate my my point that many people may not stop at one coke or one cookie or one slice of cake because sugar makes you eat more of it.
Right. But a rat study could potentially show that those 39 grams of sugar (let's say it's all fructose to keep it consistent) convert to as much as 19.5 grams of fat or more because, as the article said, "mice and rats turn more than 50 percent of fructose into fats"; whereas a human " liver converts as much as 50 percent of fructose into glucose", (in the case of the Coke, 19.5 grams or less which then may or may not turn into fat).
This highlights why it can be inaccurate to extrapolate and apply data gathered from rat studies to humans. The author said "experiments with these animals would exaggerate the significance of fructose's proposed detriments for humans, especially clogged arteries, fatty livers and insulin resistance." And you said you had a hard time understanding why that would be, and I've attempted to explain.
Again, I agree with your point that many people may not stop after just one because of many reasons. That is unhealthy no matter how you look at it and I'd like to see more help available to people who display compulsive eating habits.
Sure...we applied a correction to compensate for the exaggeration that the article claims and we see it is still a huge impact. So just because he is claiming that differences are exaggerated, it still doesn't mean the impact of sugar on human beings is insignificant. So that argument is not worth much.
Oh OK. Do you know where I can read about that? I'm actually very curious about the validity of rodent studies as applied to humans. I asked a question yesterday about it and didn't get an answer. It would make a huge difference if a correction had been applied to compensate for the differences, and I would have to repent in dust and sack cloth.
We applied the correction you suggested right here for the most reasonable case of a can of coke using the numbers provided by the article and using a liberal estimate that only half of glucose resulting from fructose gets to fats.
Here is a paper where Dr. Lustig answers your question.
http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0002822310019851/1-s2.0-S0002822310019851-main.pdf?_tid=6fc801d8-20a9-11e6-89cf-00000aacb35f&acdnat=1463982457_96671721f8e69b58feaecfc74bea0c9f
Anyways..when claiming exaggeration, Scientific American post refers to a paper which doesn't compare mice and human beings at all. I have no clue where he got the data from. Can you please point me where I can find the information about rats converting 50% of fructose to fat?
And I am getting out of here. It was fun debating with you all.
Please, no Lustig. He's as credible as the guy with the ancient aliens.
Well..you can have your opinions.
The irony is we are debating about an article that heavily relies on Lustig's work and you don't want to quote him.
It's not a personal preference. Lustig isn't credible. Credibility isn't a fashion or opinion.
Really? If it was not a personal preference, we would not be having this debate, Guardian wouldn't have published an article quoting him heavily, his youtube video wouldn't have gone viral. Every one would have decided he is not credible and he would be found no where. We are having this debate because many consider him credible. It is purely your opinion that he is not credible.
Many people consider Freelee credible. Some people are willing to believe just about anything.
ETA: Posted before reading all the responses. I see this has been covered.3 -
paulgads82 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »Let's assume the rat experiment is applicable, which virtually nobody does in science, but let's assume it does. One study is not enough. What's next? A human study?
This is totally me talking out of my *kitten*, but my assumption is rat studies are always pointed to in these arguments because human studies have never managed to prove the point. I mean, sugar is not a new product. Added sugar is not a new product. It's not like there hasn't been enough time for the powers of added sugar to be tested and trialed. They've done countless studies on the effects (or lack thereof) of artificial sweeteners, so I assume they've done the same and more with sugar. And if any of those studies actually supported any actual causative relationship between sugar and the slew of things it's supposed to cause (other than just what the excess calories cause), I think someone would have posted it by now. At least that's what my little brain assumes
A few studies are linked and explained in that scientific American article as well as an explanation of why rats aren't applicable. Through all the debate it could be decided immediately with a simple link to a robust peer reviewed study that has been further validated. There aren't any so far.
And it doesn't sound like the poster you're debating with would change her mind anyway. So, debate over, I guess
Exactly...this debate is over. I am not going to change my mind, neither the people whom I am debating with.
I don't mean to be rude but I've given enough opportunities for people to provide scientific evidence. I've given some, you've provided a belief. That's not how science works and its clear this is not going to be scientific debate but one based on belief and a misunderstanding of the scientific process.
I am sorry..the scientific evidence you provided was not convincing enough for me (the same way the references I provided were not convincing for you). It shows how biased you are with your opinions. If you provide something, it is scientific, if others provide something, it is not scientific.
And it is never favours science when one is so dogmatic and just dismiss people's experiences. Science has to explain what I am experiencing, I don't have to fit my experience to whatever explanation science has already provided. If nothing that science provides fits my experience, I will just wait till it does.
2 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »@kinny72 you might want to read the about page on that site and consider the source.
That's fair, although I think the individual scientists cited are more what I was paying attention to, but point well taken. And I appreciate the link you provided. From my point of view, the studies pointing to sugar being a direct cause of these issues are at best "plausible" and cannot be easily replicated, so I'm not convinced, but I might be as entrenched in my opinion as anyone else!2 -
This thread has gone full on quackadoodle. Kinda sad as it started out better than usual.7
-
pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »Let's assume the rat experiment is applicable, which virtually nobody does in science, but let's assume it does. One study is not enough. What's next? A human study?
This is totally me talking out of my *kitten*, but my assumption is rat studies are always pointed to in these arguments because human studies have never managed to prove the point. I mean, sugar is not a new product. Added sugar is not a new product. It's not like there hasn't been enough time for the powers of added sugar to be tested and trialed. They've done countless studies on the effects (or lack thereof) of artificial sweeteners, so I assume they've done the same and more with sugar. And if any of those studies actually supported any actual causative relationship between sugar and the slew of things it's supposed to cause (other than just what the excess calories cause), I think someone would have posted it by now. At least that's what my little brain assumes
A few studies are linked and explained in that scientific American article as well as an explanation of why rats aren't applicable. Through all the debate it could be decided immediately with a simple link to a robust peer reviewed study that has been further validated. There aren't any so far.
And it doesn't sound like the poster you're debating with would change her mind anyway. So, debate over, I guess
Exactly...this debate is over. I am not going to change my mind, neither the people whom I am debating with.
I don't mean to be rude but I've given enough opportunities for people to provide scientific evidence. I've given some, you've provided a belief. That's not how science works and its clear this is not going to be scientific debate but one based on belief and a misunderstanding of the scientific process.
I am sorry..the scientific evidence you provided was not convincing enough for me (the same way the references I provided were not convincing for you). It shows how biased you are with your opinions. If you provide something, it is scientific, if others provide something, it is not scientific.
And it is never favours science when one is so dogmatic and just dismiss people's experiences. Science has to explain what I am experiencing, I don't have to fit my experience to whatever explanation science has already provided. If nothing that science provides fits my experience, I will just wait till it does.
Again, I am not dismissing your experience, I am saying personal experience is not scientific evidence that sugar itself is addictive. This is literally why we have science, to remove human bias, faulty reasoning and subjectivity. There is no way for an individual to demonstrate a substance is physically addictive. Your experiences are valid, they are prone to misinterpretation and this is not a criticism or an insult, it's just how the human mind works. This is an interesting debate but its fast becoming How to Science 101 which I have little interest in doing.6 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »@kinny72 you might want to read the about page on that site and consider the source.
That's fair, although I think the individual scientists cited are more what I was paying attention to, but point well taken. And I appreciate the link you provided. From my point of view, the studies pointing to sugar being a direct cause of these issues are at best "plausible" and cannot be easily replicated, so I'm not convinced, but I might be as entrenched in my opinion as anyone else!
Nobody is entrenched, we are just waiting for actual evidence.4 -
pcoslady83 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »
It's a scientific debate, semantics are important. I think we are all just geeks who like debating
But its also important in the context of the idea of a sugar conspiracy, or whatever. Are corporate interests feeding us an addictive substance or is sugar just really tasty and some of us develop unhealthy relationships with it? Obviously i support the latter explanation.
I believe refined sugar is addictive to many people and at the minimum an appetite stimulant which interferes with normal brain functionality. So I think corporations are using these attributes of sugar to increase profits.
Aaaaannnnnndddddddd...I don't like debating at all. I used to though, but when I started understanding that different people experience different realities when faced with an objectively same situation, debating became less interesting and learning about different experiences and perspective became more interesting.
Experiences do not negate reality. If I start seeing unicorns, the unicorns are not there. It's me. The fact that I saw unicorns is real, the existence of unicorns is not. If someone believes they are physically addicted to sugar the only way to determine if this is true is through science.
Sure science will determine that...eventually. Till then, it is good to have an open mind.
I do. It's open to evidence.
Then..let us just wait and respect people's experiences rather than dismissing them as willpower problem.
I hope I've been clear that I think it's more nuanced than just a willpower problem and calling something psychological is in no way a dismissal. If someone tells me they really struggle with sugar I am in no position to say "No you don't get a grip" but can discuss how to categorise it or whether it's the substance itself.
A simple google search will point you to papers. Here is the first link that turned up and I have copied the conclusion.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235907/
The reviewed evidence supports the theory that, in some circumstances, intermittent access to sugar can lead to behavior and neurochemical changes that resemble the effects of a substance of abuse. According to the evidence in rats, intermittent access to sugar and chow is capable of producing a “dependency”. This was operationally defined by tests for bingeing, withdrawal, craving and cross-sensitization to amphetamine and alcohol. The correspondence to some people with binge eating disorder or bulimia is striking, but whether or not it is a good idea to call this a “food addiction” in people is both a scientific and societal question that has yet to be answered. What this review demonstrates is that rats with intermittent access to food and a sugar solution can show both a constellation of behaviors and parallel brain changes that are characteristic of rats that voluntarily self-administer addictive drugs. In the aggregrate, this is evidence that sugar can be addictive.
Now..please don't tell me that the study was in rats and not applicable to humans.
Why would I not tell you that? The study is literally on rats. This has been discussed already. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/brainwaves/is-sugar-really-toxic-sifting-through-the-evidence/ Rat study dealt with in this article.
Sure..I did go through the article. I found two places where it mentions rat study.
A. A more compelling criticism is that concern about fructose is based primarily on studies in which rodents and people consumed huge amounts of the molecule—up to 300 grams of fructose each day, which is nearly equivalent to the total sugar in eight cans of Coke—or a diet in which the vast majority of sugars were pure fructose. The reality is that most people consume far less fructose than used in such studies and rarely eat fructose without glucose.
AND
B. Not only do many worrying fructose studies use unrealistic doses of the sugar unaccompanied by glucose, it also turns out that the rodents researchers have studied metabolize fructose in a very different way than people do—far more different than originally anticipated. Studies that have traced fructose's fantastic voyage through the human body suggest that the liver converts as much as 50 percent of fructose into glucose, around 30 percent of fructose into lactate and less than one percent into fats. In contrast, mice and rats turn more than 50 percent of fructose into fats, so experiments with these animals would exaggerate the significance of fructose's proposed detriments for humans, especially clogged arteries, fatty livers and insulin resistance.
Let us first see A: Study was conducted on rodents which consumed huge amounts of sugar. What drove them to consume huge amounts of sugar? Did they force feed the rodents and people so that they can see impact of such high levels of sugar consumption? Rodents were just offered sugar solution as an option along with their regular food and rodents displayed addiction traits (both behavioral and neurochemical).
Now..for B. Sure liver converts 50% of fructose into glucose..if that glucose is in excess of what body needs (which is the problem in addiction like behavior with sugar causes), it gets converted to fat. I have a hard time understanding what is the point the author is trying to make here.
Excess glucose is first and foremost turned to glycogen.
Also your body upregulates the carb oxidation to meet the increased supply, because burning it off is less work than converting it to fat. Efficiency, yo.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10365981
Sure..some people may have excellent metabolism which burns off excess sugar. It is not true for everyone on this planet. If all our bodies were identical and excellent, then we would not have issues like obesity today.
I agree that not all our bodies are identical and excellent, but the idea that some people's metabolism burns off a great deal more calories that other's isn't exactly true. Here's a good explanation:
https://examine.com/faq/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/
The revelant portion:Metabolic rate does vary, and technically there could be large variance. However, statistically speaking it is unlikely the variance would apply to you. The majority of the population exists in a range of 200-300kcal from each other and do not possess hugely different metabolic rates.
This leaves room for outliers with extremely high or extremely low metabolism, but as you can see the variation in metabolic rates would not contribute greatly to the obesity issues.
let us say we are same height and weight to begin with and you burn a modest 125 Cal per day more than me. That means if we eat the same food, I am twelve pounds heavier than you per year. If we consider 250 Cal per day which is what the study you referred to suggests, then I am twenty four pounds heavier than you. That is in one year I can move from healthy weight to nearly obese.
Very true. But if you are weighing yourself you could catch the slow gain and reverse/prevent it by cutting out a can of soda (or its equivalent) or walking some more each day. It's not difficult to eliminate 250 Cal/day through a combination of watching what you eat and conscientiously moving some more.
In this case it wouldn't be the differences in metabolism that contributed to obesity, it would be mindlessness and/or neglectfulness.
Well..you can constantly move the goal post. I specifically answered to your point that metabolism doesn't contribute to obesity because the difference in metabolism is insignificant.
I just showed that is not the case. All things being equal, even exercise being equal, modest difference in metabolism can contribute to significant weight gain.
Now you are saying it is not metabolism, it is mindlessness.
Metabolism alone cannot contribute to weight gain. Overeating despite one's metabolism does.
For example, when I gained weight, it was because I had been very active and stopped being active and yet did not adjust my eating (I was also depressed). My lack of activity lowered my metabolism. Yet it wasn't my metabolism that caused me to gain weight, it was that I was overeating.7 -
The implication was that food addicts (or people claiming to be) don't exhibit this type of behavior in the absence of economic difficulties. I am aware of instances (although rare) in which people shop lifted food as a means to avoid the stigma of being overweight and purchasing something like a box of donuts or cupcakes.When people are stealing food, it is because they have none, not because they want a sugar fix. They don't generally care about the type and quality of food, they are hungry.
Humiliation is a big motivator for those who steal food when they have the ability to afford it.
I agree though, the consequences of addiction pale in comparison to those of dependence.
I don't understand your point about humiliation. A little help?
Other incidents would include people who shoplift for the thrill or compulsion. In any of these cases, it's still not a drive specifically for sugar.2 -
pcoslady83 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »
It's a scientific debate, semantics are important. I think we are all just geeks who like debating
But its also important in the context of the idea of a sugar conspiracy, or whatever. Are corporate interests feeding us an addictive substance or is sugar just really tasty and some of us develop unhealthy relationships with it? Obviously i support the latter explanation.
I believe refined sugar is addictive to many people and at the minimum an appetite stimulant which interferes with normal brain functionality. So I think corporations are using these attributes of sugar to increase profits.
Aaaaannnnnndddddddd...I don't like debating at all. I used to though, but when I started understanding that different people experience different realities when faced with an objectively same situation, debating became less interesting and learning about different experiences and perspective became more interesting.
Experiences do not negate reality. If I start seeing unicorns, the unicorns are not there. It's me. The fact that I saw unicorns is real, the existence of unicorns is not. If someone believes they are physically addicted to sugar the only way to determine if this is true is through science.
Sure science will determine that...eventually. Till then, it is good to have an open mind.
I do. It's open to evidence.
Then..let us just wait and respect people's experiences rather than dismissing them as willpower problem.
I hope I've been clear that I think it's more nuanced than just a willpower problem and calling something psychological is in no way a dismissal. If someone tells me they really struggle with sugar I am in no position to say "No you don't get a grip" but can discuss how to categorise it or whether it's the substance itself.
A simple google search will point you to papers. Here is the first link that turned up and I have copied the conclusion.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235907/
The reviewed evidence supports the theory that, in some circumstances, intermittent access to sugar can lead to behavior and neurochemical changes that resemble the effects of a substance of abuse. According to the evidence in rats, intermittent access to sugar and chow is capable of producing a “dependency”. This was operationally defined by tests for bingeing, withdrawal, craving and cross-sensitization to amphetamine and alcohol. The correspondence to some people with binge eating disorder or bulimia is striking, but whether or not it is a good idea to call this a “food addiction” in people is both a scientific and societal question that has yet to be answered. What this review demonstrates is that rats with intermittent access to food and a sugar solution can show both a constellation of behaviors and parallel brain changes that are characteristic of rats that voluntarily self-administer addictive drugs. In the aggregrate, this is evidence that sugar can be addictive.
Now..please don't tell me that the study was in rats and not applicable to humans.
Why would I not tell you that? The study is literally on rats. This has been discussed already. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/brainwaves/is-sugar-really-toxic-sifting-through-the-evidence/ Rat study dealt with in this article.
Sure..I did go through the article. I found two places where it mentions rat study.
<snip>
B. Not only do many worrying fructose studies use unrealistic doses of the sugar unaccompanied by glucose, it also turns out that the rodents researchers have studied metabolize fructose in a very different way than people do—far more different than originally anticipated. Studies that have traced fructose's fantastic voyage through the human body suggest that the liver converts as much as 50 percent of fructose into glucose, around 30 percent of fructose into lactate and less than one percent into fats. In contrast, mice and rats turn more than 50 percent of fructose into fats, so experiments with these animals would exaggerate the significance of fructose's proposed detriments for humans, especially clogged arteries, fatty livers and insulin resistance.
<snip>
Now..for B. Sure liver converts 50% of fructose into glucose..if that glucose is in excess of what body needs (which is the problem in addiction like behavior with sugar causes), it gets converted to fat. I have a hard time understanding what is the point the author is trying to make here.
I think your point A has been well covered by other posters. I'd like to address point B.
The paragraph you've quoted here contains two points which go hand in hand in order to reach a conclusion. These are: a human liver would convert as much as 50% of that fructose into glucose; a rat liver would convert more than 50% of it into fat.
We'll add to these facts a third one that you provided:[a human] liver converts 50% of fructose into glucose..if that glucose is in excess of what body needs (which is the problem in addiction like behavior with sugar causes), it gets converted to fat.
Please bear with me as I piece this together.
As you correctly stated, in a human excess glucose is converted to fat; so then at first glance those aforementioned figures of 50% might appear to be equivalent.
However, please pay close attention to the wording here. It is the excess glucose that is converted into fat, and a human liver may convert as much as 50% of fructose into glucose. Let's use 50 grams of straight fructose, ingested by Alice, as an example to illustrate what I'm trying to say. As much as 25 grams of it could be converted to glucose. How much of that is excess? Of course that would depend on how much glucose Alice's body needs, so it is quite possible that less than 25 grams of the recently-converted glucose is re-converted into fat.
As for a rat or mouse liver, again please pay close attention to the wording. "Mice and rats turn more than 50% of fructose into fats." Returning to our illustration, let's say that Bob the lab rat is fed 50 grams of straight fructose (we're keeping Alice's and Bob's amounts the same only for the sake of simplicity & comparison). Over 25 grams could be converted into fat for poor Bob.
Do you see the subtle yet important difference that could make mouse and rat studies unreliable when extrapolated to humans?
Regarding your point that excess glucose is a "problem in addiction like behavior with sugar causes", here we agree. Excess glucose is a problem. No one says it's OK to consume any form of sugar to the point that your liver begins to turn it to fat; and I would like to see more help available for people who, for whatever reason, engage in addiction-like or compulsive behavior when it comes to food.
Let us consider you argument and take a can of classic coke which is just sugar (so that we don't have fat or any protein or complex carbohydrates coming into equation and a can of coke is something many people consume). Google says it has 39 grams of sugar. Let us say 25% of that get converted to fat which is roughly 10 grams fat per day which is 8 pounds per year and I don't think it is less.
Also, again I restate my my point that many people may not stop at one coke or one cookie or one slice of cake because sugar makes you eat more of it.
Sugar can't make you do anything.8 -
-
pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »Let's assume the rat experiment is applicable, which virtually nobody does in science, but let's assume it does. One study is not enough. What's next? A human study? I am convinced by rat study and effect on my health by cutting out all added sugar and grains. I don't consider removing added sugars have huge human cost which necessitates endless studies like in case of some drugs where rats are not sufficient and we need human subjects.
We evolved not eating refined sugars, we have seen obesity raise to the point where it has become a public health crisis, we have seen the positive effects on health by cutting out sugar and we will do just fine without added sugar.
And as I said, I have a case study of one, which is myself and I know from personal experience how sugar is appetite stimulant, how it brings out addictive traits in me which has nothing to do with just will power.
More evidence is welcome but not necessary for me.
Ok just so we are clear. Rat studies, N=1 anecdotal experience, articles that have been debunked by the scientific community and viral videos are sufficient evidence for your stance. Is that right?
13 -
Anything to deny responsibility for weight gain, I guess. Sad.7
-
Back to the original OP, I truly believe the Sugar Conspiracy is a valid title for this thread, but not in the way that was originally suggested in the post and article provided. It is about flooding consumers with just enough sciencey sounding jargon and speculous studies based on animal models that aren't reproducible in humans, as well as quotable sound bites and click bait titles to convince people that sugar is singularly responsible for every possible negative health situation: obesity, diabetes, PCOS, NAFLD, etc. The claims in these articles support what the individual is feeling, and what they want to believe. The average individual just doesn't have the scientific background or interest in using critical thinking to sufficiently vet these wild claims, and the counter points are difficult to follow peer reviewed scientific journals. It convinces people that what they are reading IS the science and that what everyone else is posting is just their belief.
10 -
It's strange, as I've lost weight whilst virtually bed bound through illness and still eating sugar. If the response to this is that sugar is only addictive or encourages you to eat more for some people, then how can it be a physical attribute of sugar? This is the plausibility aspect I can't get round.3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 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
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 934 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions