I've watched Dr. Lustig's video previously, and in general its the same principles touted by Gary Taubes, but I still find it dubious.
You can look at your patient population and come up with a hypothesis that would make sense from a pure biochemistry perspective, but that's really no different than what the proponents of dietary fat as a cause of heart disease did.<p>And since when is monitoring people in a controlled lab for a few weeks at a time (likely limiting their physical activity and who knows what kind of stress to the system having your blood drawn every 30 minutes induces) considered valid scientific research when it in no way exemplifies real world situations that people are exposed to.
And sugar is apparently carcinogenic because it can cause an increase in baseline insulin levels as a response, which can drive glucose into potential tumor cells allowing them to grow. That's purely speculative, and very difficult to substantiate when there are so many other reasons for people to develop cancer: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/13/health/research/red-meat-linked-to-cancer-and-heart-disease.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/13/health/research/red-meat-l...</a><p>Personally, I'm still convinced that a calorie is a calorie. And the reason we've been gaining weight, with greater incidence of heart disease, diabetes, etc. is that we simply consume too much food, perhaps too much processed food, but in general we just eat too much.
So eat less, and the best way is to consume small portions of food multiple times a day instead of large meals with large gaps in between. Trust me, it works.
I'm a big fan of Alan Aragon, one of the country's leading experts on nutrition/health (in my and a lot of people's opinion). He did a pretty well informed takedown of Dr. Lustig's alarmist stance... check it out here and make up your own minds:<p><a href="http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/" rel="nofollow">http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-ab...</a><p><a href="http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/02/19/a-retrospective-of-the-fructose-alarmism-debate/" rel="nofollow">http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/02/19/a-retrospective-of-...</a>
My boss, on my first job, whenever presented with any alarmist "study" of this nature would mumble:<p>"If you feed a rat a boxcar of anything, it'll get cancer".
Yes, sugar is toxic. It was never found in a natural diet for humans in the high quantities it is now ingested by people. The two major effects it has on the body is: 1) simultaneously raising blood sugar levels while promoting insulin resistance when it is eaten, and 2) promoting the glycation process that badly affects metabolic processes. Do a google search on "Advanced Glycation End Products" (also called AGEs) for a better understanding of what exactly sugar does to you.
HN threads on this topic already:<p><a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3781829" rel="nofollow">http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3781829</a><p><a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2443316" rel="nofollow">http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2443316</a>
Here is Dr. Lustig's UCSF lecture, referenced in the 60 minutes piece: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM</a><p>NYTimes article, same subject: <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html?_r=2&ref=magazine" rel="nofollow">https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.ht...</a>
Interesting newsstory. Dr Lustig was also features on Science Friday a few months ago -- <a href="http://www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/201202172" rel="nofollow">http://www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/201202172</a><p>One concern of the doctor's that's somewhat glossed over is how fructose, unlike other sugars, is metabolized in the liver. His gripe here is partly with the glut of sugar in our diet, and partly how all of the sugars in a food product are lumped together on the nutrition label as "sugar", with no distinction between the different molecules.
As a person who read about studies like these, how do I filter out the "real" studies versus the studies blown out of proportions? I've read Ben Goldacre's <i>Bad Science</i> (which I highly recommend), but I don't have the time to do much research on every study newspapers/other media come out with. Is there a simple way to find out whether this - or any other study, for that matter - is a study to take seriously?
Pretty much everything's toxic depending on the dosage. Salt, water (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication</a>), and, of course, sugar.
I quit white sugar for some time and I am not sure if sugar is really toxic but I can say:<p>- Coming through the day w/o white sugar is a completely different experience: no more downs (or "sugar crashs") through the day and work motivation is always up<p>- These sugar crashs or downs can be severe especially if you are under stress; then the stress is multiplied which leads to depression and more white sugar consumption<p>- Eating now fruits because of the fructose regularly, before I've never ate fruits (there was no reason because anything with white sugar was much sweeter and tastier than fruit)<p>Now when I accidentally eat something containing white sugar I immediately "feel" the white sugar: my brain is getting a high like with alcohol or caffeine—it's a difference compared to fructose. It's a subtle feeling and you probably won't feel it if your are used to white sugar. Before I related the downs to the heavy lunch I had before, that I haven't slept well or that the work is just so boring, etc.<p>Another observations regarding "white sugar could be drug": Look how many shelves with sweets you find a grocery store and compare the amount to other foods and with alcohol (where you usually find similar quantities).
Please could someone help me unpick the numbers?<p>> <i>Americans are now consuming nearly 130 pounds of added sugars per person, per year.</i><p>This sentence is so vague as to be almost meaningless. Assuming 311,600,000 Americans. I have no way of telling how many Americans are eating a "safe" level of sugar versus how many Americans are eating a "dangerous" level of sugar.<p>130 lb is nearly 60 kg - that's a remarkable amount of sugar. And if that's a mean then there are people eating considerably more than that.<p>Scarily, the amount of added sugar has decreased (between 2000 and 2008) - (<a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db87.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db87.htm</a>)<p>> <i>Although the percent of daily calories derived from added sugars declined between 1999–2000 and 2007–2008 (2), consumption of added sugars remains high in the diets of Americans.</i>
To you guys calling this alarmist, it's not. It has been known for a while: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM</a><p>Most of the same dangers as alcohol.
The crux of the piece, as I heard it, was that sugar is about as bad as fat when it comes to causes of heart disease and heart attacks, that HFCS is, in fact, worse than cane sugar because of the way the liver processes them, AND that the brain responds to sugar about the same way it does cocaine, and proves to be about as addictive.<p>So, toxic might a little strong, but when the doctors that worked on these studies recommend no more than about 100g/day of added sugars in your diet, less than what's in a can of soda, "large quantities" may not mean what you think it means either.
Of course it is. Why do you think preserved jams and jellies work? Bacteria love sugar as much as any other creature but it's a preservative in large quantities.