Is Sugar Toxic? (NYT article)

[Bostonian]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html

Is Sugar Toxic?

By GARY TAUBES

New York Times, April 13, 2011

 

On May 26, 2009, Robert Lustig gave a lecture called “Sugar: The Bitter Truth,†which was posted on YouTube the following July. Since then, it has been viewed well over 800,000 times, gaining new viewers at a rate of about 50,000 per month, fairly remarkable numbers for a 90-minute discussion of the nuances of fructose biochemistry and human physiology.

 

Lustig is a specialist on pediatric hormone disorders and the leading expert in childhood obesity at the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine, which is one of the best medical schools in the country. He published his first paper on childhood obesity a dozen years ago, and he has been treating patients and doing research on the disorder ever since.

 

The viral success of his lecture, though, has little to do with Lustig’s impressive credentials and far more with the persuasive case he makes that sugar is a “toxin†or a “poison,†terms he uses together 13 times through the course of the lecture, in addition to the five references to sugar as merely “evil.†And by “sugar,†Lustig means not only the white granulated stuff that we put in coffee and sprinkle on cereal — technically known as sucrose — but also high-fructose corn syrup, which has already become without Lustig’s help what he calls “the most demonized additive known to man.â€

 

It doesn’t hurt Lustig’s cause that he is a compelling public speaker. His critics argue that what makes him compelling is his practice of taking suggestive evidence and insisting that it’s incontrovertible. Lustig certainly doesn’t dabble in shades of gray. Sugar is not just an empty calorie, he says; its effect on us is much more insidious. “It’s not about the calories,†he says. “It has nothing to do with the calories. It’s a poison by itself.â€

 

If Lustig is right, then our excessive consumption of sugar is the primary reason that the numbers of obese and diabetic Americans have skyrocketed in the past 30 years. But his argument implies more than that. If Lustig is right, it would mean that sugar is also the likely dietary cause of several other chronic ailments widely considered to be diseases of Western lifestyles — heart disease, hypertension and many common cancers among them.

 

<rest of article at link>

 

I wonder what reactions people have to this and similar articles about sugar. Orange juice has almost as much sugar as Coke, so the sugar-is-bad logic would frown on orange juice, too. If I live to average American life expectancy of about 80, that should be ok (but it's a lot easier to say that when you are half that age.)

[wapiti]

While I would never go so far as to say that sugar is "toxic" (doesn't the brain run on glucose?), in my personal opinion, it is likely that the "diseases of Western lifestyles" to which you refer are indeed often a result of glucose and/or insulin issues. And yes, I believe the sugar in juice is approximately as bad for your blood sugar levels as what's in coke. Whether HFCS is as bad for the rest of you is a different question entirely, but as far as blood sugar levels go, I think the effect is similar. Generally we have neither one in our house, and we are far from healthy eaters. But my father was a thin type 2 diabetic with hypertension, cholesterol, etc., and I believe I inherited his genes - some of them anyway. It is likely that I will end up diabetic if I do not watch my diet carefully. My biggest vice at the moment is sugar in my coffee.

 

Hyperbole aside, what you quoted from the article is not news as far as I'm concerned. (are you looking to stir pots this evening? surely there's something more controversial out there ;))

Edited April 18, 2011 by wapiti

[LibraryLover]

I honestly think Gary Taubes is brilliant. He speaks from hard- core research.

 

But if you read Taubes, you know he doesn't talk in sound bites. Read Taubes works, and forget this 'toxic' bit.

 

He so much more than this, and he has dusted off old carb research, which is very important.

Edited April 18, 2011 by LibraryLover

[Ravin]

I needed to see this. Thanks. Probably the healthiest I've ever been was when I was living in VA Beach and eliminated just about all processed sugar from my diet, and retrained my sweet tooth. I let it go once I was aboard ship in the Navy.

 

I've been working on reducing how much sugar DD eats, and hence how much I eat because I prefer to tell her "do as I do" than just "do as I say." And post-baby, I need to make some adjustments in my diet. Time to start cutting back the sugar again!

[LibraryLover]

But Taubes research is more about carbs ...not just pure sugar. Rice, bread...all of that.

 

I needed to see this. Thanks. Probably the healthiest I've ever been was when I was living in VA Beach and eliminated just about all processed sugar from my diet, and retrained my sweet tooth. I let it go once I was aboard ship in the Navy.

 

I've been working on reducing how much sugar DD eats, and hence how much I eat because I prefer to tell her "do as I do" than just "do as I say." And post-baby, I need to make some adjustments in my diet. Time to start cutting back the sugar again!

Edited April 18, 2011 by LibraryLover

[IsabelC]

For our family, we do not consume any totally fake sugar (saccharin, aspartame, etc). We try hard to avoid corn syrup (easy if your food is mostly made from scratch from fresh produce), and we limit our processed white sugar. We try to get our sweetness mostly from fruit, supplemented with less processed forms such as honey (unheated where possible), organic maple syrup, rapadura sugar etc. This is a WIP though; there are still times when I really want pure white icing sugar.

 

So I guess I don't actually believe that sugar is literally toxic. But I do believe that most (western) people eat too much of it, with too much of what they do eat being the more artificial /over-processed types.

 

Btw, I do consider orange juice to be not particularly healthy. We occasionally let the kids have it, but only freshly squeezed home made stuff, and only as a treat. OK, so the shop OJ might be a bit better than Coke (which I'd never let my kids drink even if they wanted to), but it's still nowhere near as good as an orange and a glass of water.

[Rivka]

I honestly think Gary Taubes is brilliant. He speaks from hard- core research.

 

But if you read Taubes, you know he doesn't talk in sound bites. Read Taubes works, and forget this 'toxic' bit.

 

He so much more than this, and he has dusted off old carb research, which is very important.

 

I disagree. His big NYT magazine article about carbs left out huge sections of the medical literature. He decides that something is "wrong" with any research that doesn't fit his conclusion.

[Crispa]

Just to round out the reading, here is a word of caution about fructose alarmism:

 

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/

[jplain]

For those new to Lustig's ideas, I'd suggest first watching Lustig's talk (linked at beginning of NYT article), and then reading the article, which includes comments from interviews with other scientists.

 

By the way, Aragon's circa Jan 2009 differences of opinion with Lustig were actually quite small. They agree much more than they disagree. Furthermore, the data Aragon cites regarding changes in diet over time are selectively presented and misrepresented. Stephen Guyenet's blog presented the same data in much greater (and more accurate) detail: link. And Guyenet talks specifically about fructose here.

 

Also, the last section of Taubes' article includes information that Lustig did not include in his talk, and which Aragon has not attacked. I give a lot more weight to Cantley's and Thompson's views on the topic of sugar and cancer. Aragon's niggling complaints about Lustig's talk pale in comparison.

 

But Taubes research is more about carbs ...not just pure sugar. Rice, bread...all of that

If you've watched Lustig's talk, you've already seen how differently fructose and glucose are metabolized. Based on my understanding of the subject, glucose by itself (rice, potatoes, etc.) is fairly benign for otherwise healthy (non-diabetic) individuals. It may make you obese, but it won't make you diabetic and probably won't give you heart disease either. However, excessive intake of fructose is likely harmful to everyone, and it is probably one of the reasons so many people develop type II diabetes and heart disease. The article does go on to discuss a possible link between glucose and cancer, but this also relies at least in part on metabolic dysfunction, as not everyone with high glucose intake also develops hyperinsulinemia.

 

Going beyond the article, I agree with Kurt Harris' opinions on which things are the bad actors in the Standard American Diet: fructose, linoleic acid, and gluten.

Edited April 18, 2011 by jplain

[kokotg]

 

I wonder what reactions people have to this and similar articles about sugar. Orange juice has almost as much sugar as Coke, so the sugar-is-bad logic would frown on orange juice, too.

 

there's not really any doubt in my mind that orange juice is as bad for you as Coke....when I was pregnant with a gestational diabetes diagnosis, 1/4 cup of juice shot my blood sugar up dramatically--and I don't think I really "had" GD; my numbers on the test were all borderline, and my fasting and post-meal numbers were always fabulous...as long as I didn't drink juice. You might as well take a vitamin C tablet and wash it down with a Coke, as far as I'm concerned. Of course, my husband can drink coke and eat pizza all day and his blood sugar will be awesome. We do a lot of homemade blood sugar experiments around here ;)

[Ester Maria]

My husband is a pharmacist. He agrees with Lustig's views.

 

We have an occasional sugary dessert ;), but not even every week, let alone daily. Fruit is eaten, but in moderation, though naturally occuring fructose in fruit is still a different boat than the majority of sugary processed stuff. Low fat HCFS products, no way.

We like our carbs, but we are really minimalist when it comes to chocolates, gelato, sugar added in food or drinks, etc.

[Parrothead]

Just to round out the reading, here is a word of caution about fructose alarmism:

 

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/

Thank you.

[Margaret in GA]

For those new to Lustig's ideas, I'd suggest first watching Lustig's talk (linked at beginning of NYT article), and then reading the article, which includes comments from interviews with other scientists.

 

By the way, Aragon's circa Jan 2009 differences of opinion with Lustig were actually quite small. They agree much more than they disagree. Furthermore, the data Aragon cites regarding changes in diet over time are selectively presented and misrepresented. Stephen Guyenet's blog presented the same data in much greater (and more accurate) detail: link. And Guyenet talks specifically about fructose here.

 

Also, the last section of Taubes' article includes information that Lustig did not include in his talk, and which Aragon has not attacked. I give a lot more weight to Cantley's and Thompson's views on the topic of sugar and cancer. Aragon's niggling complaints about Lustig's talk pale in comparison.

 

If you've watched Lustig's talk, you've already seen how differently fructose and glucose are metabolized. Based on my understanding of the subject, glucose by itself (rice, potatoes, etc.) is fairly benign for otherwise healthy (non-diabetic) individuals. It may make you obese, but it won't make you diabetic and probably won't give you heart disease either. However, excessive intake of fructose is likely harmful to everyone, and it is probably one of the reasons so many people develop type II diabetes and heart disease. The article does go on to discuss a possible link between glucose and cancer, but this also relies at least in part on metabolic dysfunction, as not everyone with high glucose intake also develops hyperinsulinemia.

 

Going beyond the article, I agree with Kurt Harris' opinions on which things are the bad actors in the Standard American Diet: fructose, linoleic acid, and gluten.

 

:iagree: and thank you for all your wonderful links.

[jplain]

Oh yeah, and the comments on the NYT article and responses by Taubes can be found here: Talk to Gary Taubes About Sugar.

I'm pretty impressed that Taubes devoted so much time to responding to individual comments.

[JadeOrchidSong]

Some Americans put too much sugar in their food in general.

My Asian friends usually have fruit after meals as dessert and consider brownie as "too sweet to be tolerated". When they bake, they cut the sugar in the recipes to half or use only 1/3. Now I use honey or just more dried fruit to substitute sugar.

I think maybe if Americans cut dessert or sugar consumption to even half of what they normally consume, obesity will greatly drop.

[BlsdMama]

 

I wonder what reactions people have to this and similar articles about sugar. Orange juice has almost as much sugar as Coke, so the sugar-is-bad logic would frown on orange juice, too.

 

We do. Our kids are allowed to have juice about once a week, if that. We drink water.

 

I don't believe we were meant to consume the way we do. Fruit was intended to be eaten by the WHOLE fruit, not just the concentrated sugary bit as juice. Not to mention the fact that fruit has a season and then doesn't keep particularly well and so if we weren't trucking it all about and we had to eat seasonally, your fruit consumption would DRASTICALLY reduce. People would be forced to eat meat, grains, and vegetables, and the vegetables would vary.

 

Sugar, as a whole, has it's purpose, you couldn't live without carbohydrates. But to consume them, constantly and in vast amounts, superficially, without the benefit of other nutrients alongside it, it crazy. I wish I were a purist. I'm not. I like a candy bar as much as the next person. But we do try hard to be conscious.

 

Even so called "healthy" eating is bad. Do you know how much sugar they add to yogurt? Buy only plain and sweeten it yourself. Breakfast cereals should be utterly BANNED, it doesn't matter if they use sugar, honey, agave or what to sweeten it - it's too much. And I won't even mention so called sugar substitutes. :(

Edited April 18, 2011 by BlsdMama

[2cents]

I honestly think Gary Taubes is brilliant. He speaks from hard- core research.

 

But if you read Taubes, you know he doesn't talk in sound bites. Read Taubes works, and forget this 'toxic' bit.

 

He so much more than this, and he has dusted off old carb research, which is very important.

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

[RoundAbout]

Fruit is eaten, but in moderation, though naturally occuring fructose in fruit is still a different boat than the majority of sugary processed stuff.

 

Yes, if I remember the video correctly he says that fruit contains not only micro-nutrients but tons of fiber which helps to counteract the 'metabolic shunting' effect of fructose.

 

I've always been anti-juice when it comes to children because I wasn't fond of teaching them that everything they drink had to be flavored and sweet. Watching the video really cemented my views and I now treat juice with the same care as I would a dessert. My son gets 4-6 oz of juice only as a trail treat during long hikes/bike rides. The rest of the time its milk and water.

[SonshineLearner]

I believe that clean water and no sugar that is refined..bleached... would go a long way towards healthy. Yes, your body needs sugar... but it's not refined sugar. (And refined sugar makes your insulin spike, which is what I think helps to contribute towards more cancer... obviously just one of the reasons) My mom's doctor told her to not quit eating sugar... that her body needed it. WHAT?? seriously?? Your body can make "sugar" out of almost everything. You can eat a "sugar free" diet your whole life and be better than.... not. Fruits and veggies.... etc... whole grains... clean water... (no flouride in it... etc...)

Just my thoughts :)

[abreakfromlife]

I haven't read the article, but I watched his video awhile back and thought it was good stuff. I'm on a diet and I have to cut out all sugars and starches for a few weeks, including caffeine, and I did good for a week. This weekend I had a few things b/c it was my dd's birthday. I'll tell you what....after not having sugar or starch for a week, anything that had sugar in it made me feel so sick. I had a small piece of dessert, and I felt like I had eaten a whole bag of cotton candy :tongue_smilie: I was really surprised. And now I'm more motivated to stay off sugar for the rest of my diet, and I'm tempted to really cut out more sugar from the kids' diet, and we don't eat that much sugar as it is.

[Impish]

I think just about anything can be toxic if taken in massive quantities.

[LibraryLover]

I disagree. His big NYT magazine article about carbs left out huge sections of the medical literature. He decides that something is "wrong" with any research that doesn't fit his conclusion.

 

 

Please tell more. I think Taubes has done some remarkable work. Are there particular examples I could chew on (sugar free? lol)

Edited April 18, 2011 by LibraryLover

[LibraryLover]

We stopped drinking juice years ago. My kids get excited when we are on vacation and they get to have organe juice with their hotel breakfast. :tongue_smilie:

[Snickerdoodle]

:bigear:

[Ravin]

But Taubes research is more about carbs ...not just pure sugar. Rice, bread...all of that.

 

I was also eating whole grain everything.

 

Some Americans put too much sugar in their food in general.

My Asian friends usually have fruit after meals as dessert and consider brownie as "too sweet to be tolerated". When they bake, they cut the sugar in the recipes to half or use only 1/3. Now I use honey or just more dried fruit to substitute sugar.

I think maybe if Americans cut dessert or sugar consumption to even half of what they normally consume, obesity will greatly drop.

 

When I retrained my sweet tooth, no one else would eat the sweet treats I made because they weren't sweet enough.

[LauraQ]

I think it's dangerous to over-simplify our horrendous health problems in America by saying everything bad is the fault of one thing--sugar. Don't get me wrong, I think sugar is way over-consumed, especially by me ;-) but too much salt, too much fat, often too much protein, and just plain old Too Much Freaking Food can't all be ignored! And that's just the stuff we put IN that's a problem, it doesn't even begin to address the sedentary issue. Look, I see the results of too much food and too little exercise all the time at work. Someone comes in weighing 300 lbs (even more than when they were here last month) and tries to tell me oh yes, they *have* been sticking to their Diabetic diet! Uh-huh. Then what's with the Cheetos and 20 oz Sprite on your lap? I can only educate a little at a time, but people never cease to amaze me with how little they really know about how to eat. One family says they're keeping loved one on low-protein diet prescribed for his liver disease, but they give him double-meat fast food burgers but take off the buns "because we know bread is bad for you" and no one in the family knows how to cook vegetables other than various forms of fried potatoes. Clearly, this guy's problem isn't sugar! I have a dear friend who's morbidly obese. She has actually said to me she doesn't understand why she's so big, she doesn't think she eats that much. But I've seen her put down half a large pizza, a tumbler full of sweet tea, half a dozen buffalo wings and a couple bread sticks in one sitting without batting an eye. She really has no idea. And the sugar in her tea is, honestly, the least of her problems.

 

What worries me about all these anti-carb gurus in all their forms is that people aren't JUST cutting out the white bread--they're giving up all grains (whole or otherwise) and fruits, and not adding in any more vegetables at all. And often they can't even tell a carb from a protein anyway! I'm sick and tired of watching an obese person dig in to a BUCKET of fried chicken and tell me they're cutting down on carbs while they do it. I'm not mad at the person, I'm frustrated that they just don't know any better, and that they've gotten things totally wrong because of some fad diet peddling nutter with a best-selling book. I'm frustrated that what little good nutrition education there is out there is buried amongst dueling fad diet websites touting very unhealthy ways of eating. Many people have NO idea how to eat healthy, and they're killing themselves because of it. There's just not enough labetolol and metformin in the world to overcome these problems, and let me assure you, it's not just about HFCS!

[ocelotmom]

Some Americans put too much sugar in their food in general.

My Asian friends usually have fruit after meals as dessert and consider brownie as "too sweet to be tolerated". When they bake, they cut the sugar in the recipes to half or use only 1/3. Now I use honey or just more dried fruit to substitute sugar.

I think maybe if Americans cut dessert or sugar consumption to even half of what they normally consume, obesity will greatly drop.

Most recipes have way more sugar than they really need. Even as a full-fledged sugar addict, I generally cut the sugar at least in half when baking (with nothing added to replace it). No one ever complained about the results not being sweet enough.

 

When I retrained my sweet tooth, no one else would eat the sweet treats I made because they weren't sweet enough.

In my experience, a smaller amount of real sugar is accepted better than honey in baked goods.

Edited April 18, 2011 by ocelotmom

[LibraryLover]

If one is not eating green veggies at all, and no fruit whatsoever and calling that a good diet, then let me sell you the Golden Gate Bridge. Even Atkins encouraged certain fruits & veggies (some people can't eat things like bananas or corn, for instance, but there are zillions of frutis & veggies out there).

[Margaret in GA]

I think it's dangerous to over-simplify our horrendous health problems in America by saying everything bad is the fault of one thing--sugar. Don't get me wrong, I think sugar is way over-consumed, especially by me ;-) but too much salt, too much fat, often too much protein, and just plain old Too Much Freaking Food can't all be ignored! And that's just the stuff we put IN that's a problem, it doesn't even begin to address the sedentary issue. Look, I see the results of too much food and too little exercise all the time at work. Someone comes in weighing 300 lbs (even more than when they were here last month) and tries to tell me oh yes, they *have* been sticking to their Diabetic diet! Uh-huh. Then what's with the Cheetos and 20 oz Sprite on your lap? I can only educate a little at a time, but people never cease to amaze me with how little they really know about how to eat. One family says they're keeping loved one on low-protein diet prescribed for his liver disease, but they give him double-meat fast food burgers but take off the buns "because we know bread is bad for you" and no one in the family knows how to cook vegetables other than various forms of fried potatoes. Clearly, this guy's problem isn't sugar! I have a dear friend who's morbidly obese. She has actually said to me she doesn't understand why she's so big, she doesn't think she eats that much. But I've seen her put down half a large pizza, a tumbler full of sweet tea, half a dozen buffalo wings and a couple bread sticks in one sitting without batting an eye. She really has no idea. And the sugar in her tea is, honestly, the least of her problems.

 

What worries me about all these anti-carb gurus in all their forms is that people aren't JUST cutting out the white bread--they're giving up all grains (whole or otherwise) and fruits, and not adding in any more vegetables at all. And often they can't even tell a carb from a protein anyway! I'm sick and tired of watching an obese person dig in to a BUCKET of fried chicken and tell me they're cutting down on carbs while they do it. I'm not mad at the person, I'm frustrated that they just don't know any better, and that they've gotten things totally wrong because of some fad diet peddling nutter with a best-selling book. I'm frustrated that what little good nutrition education there is out there is buried amongst dueling fad diet websites touting very unhealthy ways of eating. Many people have NO idea how to eat healthy, and they're killing themselves because of it. There's just not enough labetolol and metformin in the world to overcome these problems, and let me assure you, it's not just about HFCS!

 

So you're saying that these people you see are taking an Atkins-type approach, but getting the details wrong? Or are you saying that all low-carb diets are flawed? I don't eat grains or dairy and I am far healthier than when I was eating whole grains and cheese in moderation.

 

Margaret

[kokotg]

 

What worries me about all these anti-carb gurus in all their forms is that people aren't JUST cutting out the white bread--they're giving up all grains (whole or otherwise) and fruits, and not adding in any more vegetables at all. And often they can't even tell a carb from a protein anyway! I'm sick and tired of watching an obese person dig in to a BUCKET of fried chicken and tell me they're cutting down on carbs while they do it.

 

Anyone who's eating a bucket of fried chicken isn't following a low carb diet. A KFC original recipe chicken breast has 11 grams of carbs in it (by comparison, a serving of their mashed potatoes without gravy has only 15). The fact that some people fail to do their research and pretend they're cutting down on carbs when they're actually not isn't really an indictment of true low carb diets.

[HeathenMom]

While I would never go so far as to say that sugar is "toxic" (doesn't the brain run on glucose?),

 

in a ketogenic state where no glycogen is consumed, the brain runs on fat. in my experience, fat is a highly superior brain food.

[Lady Florida.]

Just to round out the reading, here is a word of caution about fructose alarmism:

 

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/

 

Thank you.

[regentrude]

I completely agree that we consume too much sugar. But considering sugar a toxin??? Our body is designed to convert starch and other stuff into sugar - glucose. That's how cells get energy.

[jplain]

I completely agree that we consume too much sugar. But considering sugar a toxin??? Our body is designed to convert starch and other stuff into sugar - glucose. That's how cells get energy.

I think you're missing something very important. Most of the article focuses on fructose, not glucose. He is not saying that glucose is toxic. He is arguing that fructose in excess is toxic.

 

Another important point, though not discussed in this article, is that your body can do quite well, and some argue it does better, runing on fat as the primary fuel rather than glucose.

 

Again, if you're new to Lustig's ideas, you really need to start with the video.

[regentrude]

I think you're missing something very important. Most of the article focuses on fructose, not glucose. He is not saying that glucose is toxic. He is arguing that fructose in excess is toxic.

 

 

Anything in excess is bad. the old Greeks knew this much.

 

Another important point, though not discussed in this article, is that your body can do quite well, and some argue it does better, running on fat as the primary fuel rather than glucose.

 

 

Which would be rather unphysiological, considering the way our ancestors ate for centuries, with grains being the primary source of protein (and hence a rather carbohydrate based diet)

 

I play it safe and continue eating the way my grandmothers ate. They were healthy, lived well over ninety with a high quality of life to their last years - and had their sweets and baked goods. In moderation.

[ColoradoMom]

in a ketogenic state where no glycogen is consumed, the brain runs on fat. in my experience, fat is a highly superior brain food.

 

You have it backwards. In a ketogenic state your body eats muscle and produces ketones which are a VERY short term energy for brain function. You cannot in any shape way or form convert fat to glucose because the acetyl-CoA made from glycerol or fatty acids enters the TCA cycle and is not able to go back UP the pathway to create pyruvate to form glucose.

 

Biochemistry 101.

 

Fat gives you energy - but NEVER EVER EVER glucose. It isn't metabolically possible in humans.

[Ester Maria]

Regentrude, take a look at his videos, especially the second part (if I recall well, after a more "general" lecture, he dedicated the whole part to a more "specialized" explanation). I lack the familiarity with biochemistry to be able to lucidly and succintly reiterate how he explained his views, but it might be interesting for you to watch it.

 

The problem is, "excess" with some substances is not the same as "excess" with some other substances. An occasional gelato is fine, even he says that, even my husband says that - but our modern views of what is "excess" are considerably removed from what used to be an occasional sweet, especially in era with low-fat craze where HCFS is used to enhance the flavor of such foods and where things are generally more processed. What our grandmothers used to it is often fundamentally different food (and far less "artificial" and processed) than the one we have today, even if those were still cakes and bread.

[jplain]

Which would be rather unphysiological, considering the way our ancestors ate for centuries, with grains being the primary source of protein (and hence a rather carbohydrate based diet)

 

I play it safe and continue eating the way my grandmothers ate. They were healthy, lived well over ninety with a high quality of life to their last years - and had their sweets and baked goods. In moderation.

We've been eating grains for only a very smal percentage of our history. The percentage we've spent eating refined sweeteners in significant amounts is miniscule. And some of our grandparents, who ate the same diet yours did, suffered greatly from the so-called diseases of civilization. For more I'll direct you to Taube's response to comment #128. See my 2nd post in this thread for the link to comments and responses.

[jplain]

You have it backwards. In a ketogenic state your body eats muscle and produces ketones which are a VERY short term energy for brain function.

 

Fat gives you energy - but NEVER EVER EVER glucose. It isn't metabolically possible in humans.

You have the biochemistry correct. Humans make little* if any glucose from fat. Did someone claim that in this thread?

 

However, ketone bodies are excellent brain fuel. A low-carb adapted brain does need ~50g of glucose per day, but it can be synthesized from amino acids if it isn't being ingested. But a diet that includes plant foods (and dark chocolate ;)) is unlikely to have less than 50g of glucose content per day, so even on a low-carb diet the brain typically gets adequate glucose from the diet.

 

*We actually might make a very small amount, but metabolically speaking it's probably insignificant.

Edited April 18, 2011 by jplain

[jplain]

Anything in excess is bad. the old Greeks knew this much.

They had it easy. They weren't innundated with refined sweeteners like we are.

[LibraryLover]

They had it easy. They weren't innundated with refined sweeteners like we are.

 

 

WAECCP? (Would Aristotle eat CoCo Puffs?)

Edited April 18, 2011 by LibraryLover

[Crissy]

WAECCP? (Would Aristotle eat CoCo Puffs?)

 

I cannot imagine Aristotle being cuckoo for CoCo Puffs.

[RoundAbout]

We've been eating grains for only a very smal percentage of our history. The percentage we've spent eating refined sweeteners in significant amounts is miniscule. And some of our grandparents, who ate the same diet yours did, suffered greatly from the so-called diseases of civilization.

 

Yes and cakes and sweet bread are not a tradition in every culture, certainly not the healthiest. I have a friend who grew up in a very traditional Italian-American household and he remembers his immigrant grandparents only serving fruit for dessert. This is also true in Japan where we lived for many years. Yes, there were doughnut shops but you would see people getting a single donut and it came on a plate with a knife and fork, not packaged 6 at a time like in the US.

 

It was quite a shock coming back to the States and realizing that even splitting a dessert with my husband was more than I was accustomed to.

 

I definitely urge people to watch the video. I am not easily convinced and am not into low-carb at all, but the case against fructose specifically is very powerful. In particular Dr. Lustig rails against sugar drinks which have exploded in the past 30 years, especially among children and quite possibly could account for most of the obesity and diabetes in the very, very young.

[Oak Knoll Mom]

I'm sick and tired of watching an obese person dig in to a BUCKET of fried chicken and tell me they're cutting down on carbs while they do it.

 

I don't know of any low-carb diet that advocates eating a bucket of fried chicken. The flour to bread the chicken is a no-no, and all the low-carb books say to only eat until satisfied, not stuffed.

[jplain]

I definitely urge people to watch the video. I am not easily convinced and am not into low-carb at all, but the case against fructose specifically is very powerful. In particular Dr. Lustig rails against sugar drinks which have exploded in the past 30 years, especially among children and quite possibly could account for most of the obesity and diabetes in the very, very young.

Yes, you don't have to accept low-carb arguments to be convinced that fructose is a bad actor. Lustig isn't even down on fructose in whole foods, because with a few exceptions, whole fruit doesn't actually contain that much fructose. And there are others, like Kurt Harris, who are down on fructose but give glucose a pass for non-diabetics.

[mcconnellboys]

I think that was the contention of Dr. Atkins and Michael Pollan also seems to be making a similar case....

[Parrothead]

I think it's dangerous to over-simplify our horrendous health problems in America by saying everything bad is the fault of one thing--sugar. Don't get me wrong, I think sugar is way over-consumed, especially by me ;-) but too much salt, too much fat, often too much protein, and just plain old Too Much Freaking Food can't all be ignored! And that's just the stuff we put IN that's a problem, it doesn't even begin to address the sedentary issue. Look, I see the results of too much food and too little exercise all the time at work. Someone comes in weighing 300 lbs (even more than when they were here last month) and tries to tell me oh yes, they *have* been sticking to their Diabetic diet! Uh-huh. Then what's with the Cheetos and 20 oz Sprite on your lap? I can only educate a little at a time, but people never cease to amaze me with how little they really know about how to eat. One family says they're keeping loved one on low-protein diet prescribed for his liver disease, but they give him double-meat fast food burgers but take off the buns "because we know bread is bad for you" and no one in the family knows how to cook vegetables other than various forms of fried potatoes. Clearly, this guy's problem isn't sugar! I have a dear friend who's morbidly obese. She has actually said to me she doesn't understand why she's so big, she doesn't think she eats that much. But I've seen her put down half a large pizza, a tumbler full of sweet tea, half a dozen buffalo wings and a couple bread sticks in one sitting without batting an eye. She really has no idea. And the sugar in her tea is, honestly, the least of her problems.

 

What worries me about all these anti-carb gurus in all their forms is that people aren't JUST cutting out the white bread--they're giving up all grains (whole or otherwise) and fruits, and not adding in any more vegetables at all. And often they can't even tell a carb from a protein anyway! I'm sick and tired of watching an obese person dig in to a BUCKET of fried chicken and tell me they're cutting down on carbs while they do it. I'm not mad at the person, I'm frustrated that they just don't know any better, and that they've gotten things totally wrong because of some fad diet peddling nutter with a best-selling book. I'm frustrated that what little good nutrition education there is out there is buried amongst dueling fad diet websites touting very unhealthy ways of eating. Many people have NO idea how to eat healthy, and they're killing themselves because of it. There's just not enough labetolol and metformin in the world to overcome these problems, and let me assure you, it's not just about HFCS!

I totally agree.

[Lawana]

In particular Dr. Lustig rails against sugar drinks which have exploded in the past 30 years, especially among children and quite possibly could account for most of the obesity and diabetes in the very, very young.

 

Please do be careful to distinguish between Type 2 diabetes, which is associated with obesity, and Type 1, which is not. Those of us with dc that have Type 1 have an uphill battle with the idea among some that overconsumption of sugar caused our dc's diabetes!

[jplain]

Please do be careful to distinguish between Type 2 diabetes, which is associated with obesity, and Type 1, which is not. Those of us with dc that have Type 1 have an uphill battle with the idea among some that overconsumption of sugar caused our dc's diabetes!

Did you watch the video?

Lustig discusses type II diabetes in young children. Yes, children.

Remember how type II used to be called "adult onset diabetes"?

Tragically, that is no longer an accurate label.

[RoundAbout]

Please do be careful to distinguish between Type 2 diabetes, which is associated with obesity, and Type 1, which is not. Those of us with dc that have Type 1 have an uphill battle with the idea among some that overconsumption of sugar caused our dc's diabetes!

 

Yes, I was definitely speaking about Type 2 diabetes associated with obesity -which didn't used to affect children at all, but now does.