Is Sugar Toxic? (NYT article)

[Lawana]

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.

Yes, I have watched the video, and I certainly do understand that *children* are being diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes. What I am saying is that by failing to distinguish between Type 1 and Type 2 when talking about diabetes in general, and in children in particular, it contributes to the common misperception that *all* diabetes is associated with overconsumption of sugar/carbohydrates. Having a child with Type 1 diabetes, I am very aware of the topics discussed here, and I've read Taubes cover to cover.;)

[justamouse]

WAECCP? (Would Aristotle eat CoCo Puffs?)

 

this is why I adore you....

 

 

:lol::lol::lol:

[vettechmomof2]

Yes, I have watched the video, and I certainly do understand that *children* are being diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes. What I am saying is that by failing to distinguish between Type 1 and Type 2 when talking about diabetes in general, and in children in particular, it contributes to the common misperception that *all* diabetes is associated with overconsumption of sugar/carbohydrates. Having a child with Type 1 diabetes, I am very aware of the topics discussed here, and I've read Taubes cover to cover.;)

 

Very well said.

Stating the difference in the different Types of Diabetes is what Lawana was getting at. A previous poster had stated diabetes generally and not Type 2 Diabetes. There is a HUGE difference between these diseases.

[ColoradoMom]

[/i]

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.

 

Yeah, she said fat is a far superior "brain food". Leaving out her comment on glycogen, which is really only used in short term energy bursts for muscles, her comment that fat can be used by the brain is incorrect, as are many other things said in this thread.

 

As far as this HGC diet goes, I'd be willing to bet money that if I got anyone on a 500 calorie a day diet I'd make them lose weight too.

 

Why don't you guys just do the starvation diet and save yourself the money?

[Lawana]

As far as this HGC diet goes, I'd be willing to bet money that if I got anyone on a 500 calorie a day diet I'd make them lose weight too.

 

Why don't you guys just do the starvation diet and save yourself the money?

Are you suggesting a very low calorie diet as a weight control solution that succeeds in the long run?

[jplain]

...her comment that fat can be used by the brain is incorrect, as are many other things said in this thread.

The main constituent of dietary fats are triglycerides. Triglycerides are composed of glycerol + 3 fatty acids. Ketone bodies are products of fatty acid metabolism, and they most certainly can be used as fuel by the brain. In fact, it is a completely normal metabolic process, even if you eat high carb, because your brain will normally begin to utilize some ketones when you are in a fasted (pre-breakfast) state. Google it if you don't believe me. Would you like to elaborate on the other things you believe to be incorrect?

 

As far as this HGC diet goes, I'd be willing to bet money that if I got anyone on a 500 calorie a day diet I'd make them lose weight too.

Huh? This thread has not a single thing to do with either the HCG diet or very low calorie diets.

 

Why don't you guys just do the starvation diet and save yourself the money?

Very low calorie (starvation) diets are risky because they can cause damage to organs and significant loss of lean mass (muscle). They may also cause long-term metabolic changes that will make it difficult to return to a higher calorie maintenance diet without unwanted weight gain. And finally, calorie-restricted diets make both animal models and human subjects grumpy and aggressive and generally miserable. Who needs that? Edited April 19, 2011 by jplain

[LibraryLover]

Who is discussing a diet of 500 calories here? I juts re read the thread, even. I don't think you're barking up the right tree here. lol

 

 

I'd be willing to bet money that if I got anyone on a 500 calorie a day diet I'd make

 

Why don't you guys just do the starvation diet and save yourself the money?

Edited April 19, 2011 by LibraryLover

[LibraryLover]

this is why I adore you....

 

 

:lol::lol::lol:

 

 

LOL You make me smile. :)

[jplain]

Yes, I have watched the video, and I certainly do understand that *children* are being diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes. What I am saying is that by failing to distinguish between Type 1 and Type 2 when talking about diabetes in general, and in children in particular, it contributes to the common misperception that *all* diabetes is associated with overconsumption of sugar/carbohydrates.

Ah, I misunderstood.

 

Actually, a reader took Taubes to task for this, as early in the article he failed to specify that when he wrote diabetes, he was referring to type II. Here is the comment followed by Taubes' response:

 

In the future, can you please be more specific when referring to diabetes and diabetics? It is not until several pages in that Type II diabetes is mentioned. Type I diabetics, who have an autoimmune disease not caused by poor dietary choices, are tired of shooting down common misconceptions about the origin of their disease. While I'm sure you're quite aware of the difference, please be more precise with your language.

An excellent point and I am guilty as charged. This is an inherent problem, though, in writing science for the lay public. The science invariably has to be simplified considerably to make the articles flow and to prevent readers from getting bogged down early in technical details -- the difference, in this case, between type 1 and type 2 diabetes. So the detail is delayed for later in the article, by which time, as you point out, readers could have already come to mistaken conclusions about which diabetes we're discussing. This is always a judgment call, but it's a hard problem to avoid and there are no easy solutions. Or if there are, I haven't mastered them.

 

And based on my own reading, I'd this agree that this is the current convention in the popular press.

If it is type II, it is often referred to as diabetes without further elaboration.

If it is type I, it is described as type I and also specifically referred to as autoimmune in origin.

Edited April 19, 2011 by jplain

[justamouse]

Actually, they're finding out that Type 2 may ALSO be an autoimmune disease.

[jplain]

Actually, they're finding out that Type 2 may ALSO be an autoimmune disease.

*sigh* I'm nervous about this, partly because they sound almost gleeful about the possibility of a pharmaceutical treatment. Someone is seeing dollar signs.

 

Regardless of what the immune system of a type II diabetic is doing, I firmly believe that certain lifestyle modifications are extremely effective for most type IIs. And there's no question that lifestyle modifications are far cheaper and far less risky than heavy duty immune system modulating drugs.

[justamouse]

*sigh* I'm nervous about this, partly because they sound almost gleeful about the possibility of a pharmaceutical treatment. Someone is seeing dollar signs.

 

Regardless of what the immune system of a type II diabetic is doing, I firmly believe that certain lifestyle modifications are extremely effective for most type IIs. And there's no question that lifestyle modifications are far cheaper and far less risky than heavy duty immune system modulating drugs.

 

Yeah, I don't disagree with you. "Look, it's a disease, we can eat anything we want and take these pills..."

 

by the looks of it, it still starts when there's too much fat on the organs-if there's no fat on the organs...

[Margaret in GA]

*sigh* I'm nervous about this, partly because they sound almost gleeful about the possibility of a pharmaceutical treatment. Someone is seeing dollar signs.

 

Regardless of what the immune system of a type II diabetic is doing, I firmly believe that certain lifestyle modifications are extremely effective for most type IIs. And there's no question that lifestyle modifications are far cheaper and far less risky than heavy duty immune system modulating drugs.

:iagree:

[kokotg]

I didn't verify what you posted here, but lets face it, 11 grams or 15 grams of carbs is LOW. If that is seriously all the carbs one consumes in a day, it's even below Atkin's induction levels. The average American diet is something like 300 grams (give or take).

 

Yes, if that's all one ate in a day. What she was describing was someone eating a bucket of chicken in one meal. Let's say she was exaggerating, and didn't really mean the whole bucket, but maybe 4 pieces of chicken. We're still up to 44 grams of carbs in one meal. And, aside from that, I imagine the breading at KFC is primarily white flour, which isn't on the list of allowed foods of any low carb diet I've ever seen. My point was that anyone who eats a bucket of fried chicken (unless it's homemade fried chicken fried in coconut oil with almond flour breading or something ;)) isn't following a low carb diet as recommended by anyone who recommends low carb diets, so it isn't fair to blame Atkins or Gary Taubes or whoever if someone chooses to do so.

[thescrappyhomeschooler]

I've eliminated most processed forms of sugar and other processed carbs from our diets. I don't know what I think about sugar being toxic, but I'm sure it's addictive. And I know from experience that both of my kids are much better behaved when not eating it.

 

My opinion is that if the food is found in nature, it's good for us. If it is run through a factory and changed its form, then it's not so good for us.

[MelanieM]

My point was that anyone who eats a bucket of fried chicken (unless it's homemade fried chicken fried in coconut oil with almond flour breading or something ;)) isn't following a low carb diet as recommended by anyone who recommends low carb diets, so it isn't fair to blame Atkins or Gary Taubes or whoever if someone chooses to do so.

 

I believe her point was that these people think they're following a low carb diet when they aren't, because they have no real understanding of what a carb actually is. So I don't believe she was blaming the diet "gurus" either.

[kokotg]

I believe her point was that these people think they're following a low carb diet when they aren't, because they have no real understanding of what a carb actually is. So I don't believe she was blaming the diet "gurus" either.

 

She said, in reference to the fried chicken example:

 

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.

[MelanieM]

She said, in reference to the fried chicken example:

 

My apologies. I completely missed the last part of that sentence! I guess that's what I get for trying to read and wrangle a toddler at the same time. Or perhaps I just believe in my own misinterpretation and read what I wanted to read. ;)

[ocelotmom]

I've eliminated most processed forms of sugar and other processed carbs from our diets. I don't know what I think about sugar being toxic, but I'm sure it's addictive. And I know from experience that both of my kids are much better behaved when not eating it.

 

Now that I've eliminated most sugar from my diet, it's pretty easy for me to see that *I'm* better behaved when I'm not eating it.

[Jami]

No you are right. Although if that 44 gram meal was a once in awhile thing I think it still stays true to low carb. At least the low carb plan I follow. I'd rather blow 44 grams on fried chicken than cake (I don't have a sweet tooth).

 

A lot of people take low carb diets to extremes that weren't intended by the diets though. While Atkins, for example, does start off with very low levels of carbs the overall intention is not to live carb free on meat alone. Some people do that because they see quick results. But then they become bored with their food choices and blow it. I've never met anyone who says they spent 5 years eating only meat. And I love meat. But I love other things too. I have a huge variety on low carb. That has made it feel pretty easy.

 

I think low carb is misunderstood. People see it as extreme. It's only because some people are desperate to lose weight quickly and THEY take it to extremes. The diets themselves aren't all extreme. I think some transfer their extreme behavior onto something else in an extreme way (hopefully that makes sense). For example, prior to low carb they drank 3 large Mountain Dews and downed 2 dozen donuts for breakfast. Now they decide to go on low carb, catch wind that limiting foods to one item results in rapid weight loss, and they eat eggs for three meals a day 7 days a week and swear they have found their ace in the hole and they will now commit to the egg diet forever. They do lose weight quickly. They aren't hungry. But come on, nobody can live on that forever. And that was never the intention of any low carb diet. Others observe this behavior and announce low carb is evil, doesn't work, and is extreme. Of course egg diet person gives up after a couple of months because, again, nobody can live like that.

 

To each their own. I do think we are talking about 2 different things here though. People who have emotional food issues and people who are just eating unheathy foods and could stand to make a few changes. The first is a much more complicated thing to deal with.

:iagree:

 

So well said, Wendy.

 

I've been eating low carb for 11 months now and have lost almost 60 lbs. There are no quick fixes, but avoiding sugar, grains and starchy vegetables at least 85% of the time has worked really well for my weight loss and overall energy and health. I actually don't eat a huge variety, but that's because boring works for me when I'm focused on weight loss. But I know I *can* if I'm feeling creative. So many great veggies, fruits, nuts, fats, and proteins out there to play with and enjoy.

[M&MsMom]

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.

 

 

The statement that we've been eating grains for only a small percentage of our history is wrong. Going back to Ancient Egypt, the staple of their diet was bread made from grains (they were an agricultural society) supplemented with fruits and vegetables. Every single society since then has revolved around a particular grain or starch as the main ingredient in their diet (Irish - potatoes, Asian - rice, Mexican - beans/corn etc. ) In Asia, where the center of their diet is rice, incidences of the Western diseases is much lower (diabetes is very rare there). When Asians immigrate West, and start eating large amounts of meat and cheese, their rates of disease rise.

 

Heart disease can be reversed by eating a plant-based diet (see Dr. Esselstyn's work at the Cleveland Clinic) and many people have cured their diabetes on the same regimen. See Dr. John McDougal's website for scientific research. The studies are overwhelming.

[Dawn in OH]

Orange juice has almost as much sugar as Coke, so the sugar-is-bad logic would frown on orange juice, too.

 

We don't drink juice any more. It's empty calories. To get the full benefit of the fruit, you need to actually eat fruit. Juice IS barely better than a soda.

[jplain]

The statement that we've been eating grains for only a small percentage of our history is wrong.

You misunderstood. I said history, not recorded history.

 

And I have posted my thoughts on McDougall, Ornish, et al in other threads, so I won't bother to re-hash them here. Anyone interested in that topic can search the archives and/or start a new thread. But in a nutshell, I don't think it is the right approach for most people. For type IIs, I'd suggest Bernstein's approach first, unless you also happen to be an ethical vegetarian.

 

However, back on the topic of this thread, it is interesting that a low fructose diet is one of the few pieces of common ground that I can find with the very low fat near-vegan diet advocates.

Edited April 19, 2011 by jplain

[kitten18]

The statement that we've been eating grains for only a small percentage of our history is wrong. Going back to Ancient Egypt, the staple of their diet was bread made from grains (they were an agricultural society) supplemented with fruits and vegetables.

That was only about 5,000 years ago (8-10,000 years for the first agricultural revolution).

 

I think jplain's point is that, that is a very short amount of time in human history. I believe that homo sapiens have been around for several hundred thousand years.

[kokotg]

That was only about 5,000 years ago (8-10,000 years for the first agricultural revolution).

 

I think jplain's point is that, that is a very short amount of time in human history. I believe that homo sapiens have been around for several hundred thousand years.

 

Who knew a thread about controversial nutrition information could run up against that other controversial issue? :lol:

[kitten18]

Who knew a thread about controversial nutrition information could run up against that other controversial issue? :lol:

I know, I really wasn't trying to turn it into something else. I don't want to go there.:tongue_smilie:

[Ravin]

The statement that we've been eating grains for only a small percentage of our history is wrong. Going back to Ancient Egypt, the staple of their diet was bread made from grains (they were an agricultural society) supplemented with fruits and vegetables. Every single society since then has revolved around a particular grain or starch as the main ingredient in their diet (Irish - potatoes, Asian - rice, Mexican - beans/corn etc. ) In Asia, where the center of their diet is rice, incidences of the Western diseases is much lower (diabetes is very rare there). When Asians immigrate West, and start eating large amounts of meat and cheese, their rates of disease rise.

 

Heart disease can be reversed by eating a plant-based diet (see Dr. Esselstyn's work at the Cleveland Clinic) and many people have cured their diabetes on the same regimen. See Dr. John McDougal's website for scientific research. The studies are overwhelming.

 

Human beings can live on a variety of different diets. For those whose ancestors have been eating grain-based diets for thousands of years, it's probably going to be relatively healthy. But plenty of people have genes mixed in from people whose ancestors ate primarily meats and vegetables/nuts/fruits (hunter-gatherers) or whose agricultural staple was taro or plaintain or such, not a grain. The Inuit, for one outlying example, did fine on a diet containing almost no carbs for several thousand years prior to the last century. Now that population, having adopted a largely modern Western diet, has serious problems. Especially those who have mutations for sucrose intolerance (which isn't a problem if you eat a traditional Inuit diet) or for more efficient absorption of calcium (some Inuit children become hypercalcemic if given the standard recommended daily amount).

 

Paleoanthropologists have shown that early agriculture brought the ability to support more people, but it also shortened average lifespans and greatly increased the likelihood of dying of disease, young. Infant mortality skyrocketed. Hunter gatherers, on the other hand, tended to be healthier.

[jplain]

I know, I really wasn't trying to turn it into something else. I don't want to go there.:tongue_smilie:

Heh heh, I don't mind going there. As a biologist, I can't have a conversation with someone about human physiology without some basic agreement on foundational concepts like evolution and the pathogenic theory of medicine. Discussions of nutrition are a lot less meaningful when we cannot compare and contrast humans with other organisms. And biological science in general is meaningless if one doesn't believe that there are evolutionary relationships between humans and the organisms we use in the lab as models.

[jplain]

I look at things like grains as fillers. It stretches a meal and economically that makes sense for a lot of people, but I don't see it as in and of itself the best nutrition wise.

Yes, on a population level, grains are fantastic. Grains are fairly easy to cultivate, and can provide enough calories to support a large number of people. Less worry about the food supply allows for leisure-class professions (artist, musician, scholar, writer, etc.) as well as the ability to maintain a professional military.

 

However, being able to support more people isn't the same as superior nutrition. On an individual level, the ancestral diet was likely healthier. This is backed up by physical anthropological studies of human remains, as well as studies of modern-day hunter gatherer populations.

[kitten18]

Heh heh, I don't mind going there. As a biologist, I can't have a conversation with someone about human physiology without some basic agreement on foundational concepts like evolution and the pathogenic theory of medicine. Discussions of nutrition are a lot less meaningful when we cannot compare and contrast humans with other organisms. And biological science in general is meaningless if one doesn't believe that there are evolutionary relationships between humans and the organisms we use in the lab as models.

 

I've always learned a lot from your posts. All the way back to vaccine discussions at Ovusoft.

[Upward Journey]

In terms of sugar, people get all up in arms about the anti sugar camp. I don't think it's "toxic", but there is a difference between adding a teaspoon of sugar to enhance a sauce and eating sugary cereals and baked goods daily. Sugar has gone from a small ingredient to flavor things to "the" main ingredient in some foods. That is a problem because sugar does nothing for our health. It causes many people to have blood sugar issues, which in turn leads to cravings and overeating. I think sometimes people overeat to compensate for what they are not getting nutritionally speaking from the food they are eating.

 

:iagree: