Upping the ante on the war on sugar?

[justamouse]

Did anyone read this article this morning?

 

 

 

Sugar is so harmful that it should be controlled in the same way as tobacco and alcohol, according to a team of leading public health experts.

 

Three American scientists from the University of California at San Francisco said sugar was more than just "empty calories" that makes people fat.

 

They argue that high-calorie, sweetened food is indirectly responsible for 35 million annual deaths worldwide due to lifestyle-related conditions such as heart disease, diabetes and cancer.

 

Professors Robert Lustig, Laura Schmidt and Claire Brindis are calling for restrictions and controls on sugar that mirror those on tobacco and alcohol.

 

The three set out their views in the leading science journal Nature.

 

They pointed out that, at the levels consumed in the West, sugar alters metabolism, raises blood pressure, disrupts hormone signalling and causes significant damage to the liver that is still not fully understood.

 

The health hazards are similar to the effects of drinking too much alcohol - which is, in any event, manufactured from the distillation of sugar, they said.

 

Speaking about the comment article, Profesoor Lustig, from the UCSF Benioff Children's Hospital, said: "As long as the public thinks that sugar is just 'empty calories', we have no chance in solving this.

 

Edited February 2, 2012 by justamouse
formatting glitch

[Parrothead]

We will have to get our cakes by prescription only. :lol:

 

ETA: Seriously though,

This seems to be more of the problem than actual table sugar:

The main culprit is said to be fructose, a sugar molecule that is commonly added to processed food in sweetening agents such as high-fructose corn syrup. There is increasing evidence that excess fructose has harmful effects on the body.

If they would just leave our food alone and let us buy whole foods at reasonable prices we would all be much better off. Then the occasional cookie or slice of cake would be perfectly fine to consume. Edited February 2, 2012 by Parrothead

[LuvingLife]

We will have to get our cakes by prescription only. :lol:

 

:lol::lol: That is funny!

 

I had no clue sugar was that dangerous, I am going to go Vegetarian with veggies, fruits, and no sugar! Lose the sugar to last Longer, lol.

[GoVanGogh]

From the article:

"We're talking about gentle ways to make sugar consumption slightly less convenient, thereby moving people away from the concentrated dose.

"What we want is to actually increase people's choices by making foods that aren't loaded with sugar comparatively easier and cheaper to get."

 

First of all, the government needs to quit giving farmers subsidies to farm corn and companies need to quit putting corn syrup in everything! I stopped buying (most) processed foods more than a decade ago because I couldn't get over how much sugar/corn syrup was added to everything from tomato sauce to crackers. I honestly think the average consumer doesn't read food labels to know how much carp they are getting in their diets, especially when they eat so called "health food."

[TracyR]

We will have to get our cakes by prescription only. :lol:

 

ETA: Seriously though,

This seems to be more of the problem than actual table sugar:

If they would just leave our food alone and let us buy whole foods at reasonable prices we would all be much better off. Then the occasional cookie or slice of cake would be perfectly fine to consume.

 

:iagree:

[justamouse]

We will have to get our cakes by prescription only. :lol:

 

 

:lol: Could you imagine the black market for cupcakes and Dove chocolate? We'd all be on the street corner with cash in hand.

[OLG]

It's about time we all started paying attention to the risks of sugar. The inflammation it causes fosters so many diseases. And it's so addictive. Hard to eliminate all sugar but certainly cutting back makes good sense, imho.

[Amy in TX]

From the article:

First of all, the government needs to quit giving farmers subsidies to farm corn and companies need to quit putting corn syrup in everything! I

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

[Parrothead]

:lol: Could you imagine the black market for cupcakes and Dove chocolate? We'd all be on the street corner with cash in hand.

Julie in CA would have to get a license to hock her creations. :D

[justamouse]

Here's a vid from CBS

[justamouse]

Julie in CA would have to get a license to hock her creations. :D

 

There'd be a black market for them, too! :lol:

[Onceuponatime]

I'm in trouble. Today I broke down and made a batch of brownies. I have multiple excuses, none of them are really good enough. However, I did reduce the sugar by 1/3. Every little bit helps. :-)

[Momof3littles]

DH and I don't consume much sugar at all, and use erythritol and stevia in lieu of sugar most of the time. Two of his coworkers have high cholesterol and had no idea that sugar can impact cholesterol levels as well as triglyceride levels. They are all science geeks with advanced degrees (mostly PhDs). I think a lot of people are also not aware of how insulin plays such an important role in heart disease, etc. as well. If highly educated science professionals aren't aware of all of the effects of sugar, it makes me wonder about the general population's knowledge. I don't think most physicians spend enough time discussing sugar with their patients, but many have created (dietary) fat-phobic patients for sure. So their patients end up cutting fat while still eating abundant amounts of sugar when trying to address things like high cholesterol.

 

I don't really believe in taxing it, but I think it hasn't been very well addressed. Most people I know assume they don't have to worry about sugar unless they are a diabetic or overweight.

Edited February 2, 2012 by Momof3littles

[In the Rain]

I'm in trouble. Today I broke down and made a batch of brownies. I have multiple excuses, none of them are really good enough. However, I did reduce the sugar by 1/3. Every little bit helps. :-)

 

What time zone are you in? I am reading this at 9:30 am and chuckling that someone's day is already bad enough to have needed brownies. :lol: I've had those days!:tongue_smilie:

 

ETA: That sounded mean. I'm not happy you are having a bad day! I can just sympathize with needing chocolate so early.

[Onceuponatime]

What time zone are you in? I am reading this at 9:30 am and chuckling that someone's day is already bad enough to have needed brownies. :lol: I've had those days!:tongue_smilie:

 

It's 10:30 here. It's not a horrible day, just icky. A little comfort goes a long way. :D

[Tigger]

From the article:

First of all, the government needs to quit giving farmers subsidies to farm corn and companies need to quit putting corn syrup in everything! I stopped buying (most) processed foods more than a decade ago because I couldn't get over how much sugar/corn syrup was added to everything from tomato sauce to crackers. I honestly think the average consumer doesn't read food labels to know how much carp they are getting in their diets, especially when they eat so called "health food."

 

:iagree:

 

If the government wants to reduce consumption, a fairly easy way would be to end corn subsidies since they artificially lower the price of high fructose corn syrup, so the shelf price for the processed food is artificially lower than it would be without subsidies!

[Spy Car]

Dr Lustig explained the scientific reasoning for his position in some detail in a talk called Sugar: The Bitter Truth that many of us may have seen due to past threads.

 

It is a fascinating lecture and, while it runs long, is well worth watching.

 

http://uctv.tv/search-details.aspx?showID=16717

 

Bill

[Catwoman]

Not. Giving. Up. Sugar.

 

Caffeine, sugar, and salty snacks are all I've got.

 

And I'm willing to fight for them.

 

They're going to have to pry my sugar out of my cold, dead hands. :D

Edited February 2, 2012 by Catwoman

[In the Rain]

I agree that sugar is a huge problem, but I don't think taxing is the way to go.

 

He made a great point about sugar not just being "empty calories". That is how I have always viewed it, and that way of thinking is part of the problem.

 

I agree with PP about the need to stop subsidizing corn. Education is part of making healthy choices. The fact that an apple costs more than a candy bar or granola bar factors into the equation too.

[GoVanGogh]

If highly educated science professionals aren't aware of all of the effects of sugar, it makes me wonder about the general population's knowledge.

I totally agree.

 

My cousin's 11-year-old boy weighs over 200 pounds. He is now so large he can barely walk. Yet my cousin is a scientist and his wife is a cpa - both highly educated professionals - and they don't think there is anything wrong with their son. They say he is big-boned and will "even out" as he grows taller. Sad to say, I keep thinking, "if he lives...(to grow taller.)" That weight has got to be causing a lot of internal damage to his heart, lungs and liver.

I think, if they don't know better, is it any wonder that the average person is clueless about nutrition and weight.

[Lawana]

In case anyone has the idea that table sugar is "healthier" than HFCS because of the fructose content, do be aware that sucrose (table sugar) is also half fructose.

[mommymilkies]

I am a very healthy eater (is that even a worthy description?) and we are already GF. I don't eat *that* much sugar, but I would probably rebel if they tried to take my access to sugar away. I NEED COOKIES sometimes, people, and agave and honey just don't do it for most recipes!!!

[mlbuchina]

I heard about it, but haven't read it. I think it is absolutely ridiculous.

 

ETA: Are they also wanting to regulate all carbohydrates? Why single out just sugar? What about starches? The body treats them all the same.

Edited February 2, 2012 by mlbuchina

[shalom22]

I heard about it, but haven't read it. I think it is absolutely ridiculous.

 

ETA: Are they also wanting to regulate all carbohydrates? Why single out just sugar? What about starches? The body treats them all the same.

 

Exactly. 2 slices of wheat bread is equivalent to 2 tbsp of sugar as far as your body is concerned.

[Catwoman]

You crack me up!

 

I actually don't love sweets (love chips), but as soon as someone tells me I can't have it I just want to go out and buy a box of Twinkies and stick it to them!

 

Same here. Salty stuff is my weakness. I use sugar in coffee and tea, and I eat desserts, but not all the time. We always have candy in the house, but not because I buy it all the time; it always seems to be left over from the last holiday.

[justamouse]

Exactly. 2 slices of wheat bread is equivalent to 2 tbsp of sugar as far as your body is concerned.

 

..um...that's actually really incorrect.

[lcelmer]

The problem is not sugar, but irresponsible people making stupid choices.

 

Frankly, our gov and culture have only fostered the prevalent habit of irresponsibility by removing many natural consequences for sins. Adultery is now ok, abandoning your children and spouse is ok, murdering preborn babies is ok, paying no attention to your children's educational needs is ok, (unless you homeschool) relying on others to feed breakfast, lunch, and sometimes clothe your child is ok, children having sexual encounters with other children is ok, but you evil adults better not eat sugar.

 

 

SUGAR is not the cause of obesity, opening your mouth for the 56th doughnut this morning is. It is not the doughnut factory's fault, nor the ingredients that make up the maple bar, it is YOURS!

Edited February 2, 2012 by lcelmer

[justamouse]

Yikes.

 

Umm that's so inflammatory I'm not even going to quote it.

 

You may want to think about rewording some of that.

[Soror]

Dh came home and asked me if I had heard this on the news. My response was, no &*^&, this is surprising? No amount of refined sugar has any benefit to anyone. I don't want it taxed though. I do wish there was more out there about the link between sugar and cholesterol.

[Spy Car]

Exactly. 2 slices of wheat bread is equivalent to 2 tbsp of sugar as far as your body is concerned.

 

You might enjoy watching the video I linked to above, called Sugar: The Bitter Truth. The video refutes the notion that all sugar is the same. In it Dr Robert Lustig methodically explains how differently the body deals with "glucose" (the sugar the brain and body run on, a sugar that can be metabolized in many places in the body, including in cells) as opposed to "fructose" which can only be metabolized in the liver, which medically makes fructose a "toxin."

 

The video goes into great detail about why the differences in types of sugars matters on a physiological level. It is Dr Lustig's position that there are huge difference between glucose absorption and the difficulty of the body has in metabolizing fructose in the liver, and he explains his positions in detail.

 

Table sugar "sucrose" is 50% glucose and 50% fructose.

 

Bill

[Kathleen in VA]

Dr Lustig explained the scientific reasoning for his position in some detail in a talk called Sugar: The Bitter Truth that many of us may have seen due to past threads.

 

It is a fascinating lecture and, while it runs long, is well worth watching.

 

http://uctv.tv/search-details.aspx?showID=16717

 

Bill

 

Thanks for linking this again, Bill. I had lost the link.

 

You might enjoy watching the video I linked to above, called Sugar: The Bitter Truth. The video refutes the notion that all sugar is the same. In it Dr Robert Lustig methodically explains how differently the body deals with "glucose" (the sugar the brain and body run on, a sugar that can be metabolized in many places in the body, including in cells) as opposed to "fructose" which can only be metabolized in the liver, which medically makes fructose a "toxin."

 

The video goes into great detail about why the differences in types of sugars matters on a physiological level. It is Dr Lustig's position that there are huge difference between glucose absorption and the difficulty of the body has in metabolizing fructose in the liver, and he explains his positions in detail.

 

Table sugar "sucrose" is 50% glucose and 50% fructose.

 

Bill

 

I'm about half way through it - hadn't seen it in a while and it's a good reminder about how bad sugar really is for you - especially fructose. One thing he does say is that ethanol is a sugar that the body metabolizes in the brain and therefore it is considered an acute toxin. Fructose is metabolized in the liver and, although it is not healthy for you, it is not an acute toxin. He says the reason governments have been controlling alcohol for 1500 years (his words) is because it is an acute toxin. He doesn't actually say it, but one gets the idea that he might not be in favor of equal treatment of fructose since it is not as deadly as alcohol. Just my guess, though.

 

ETA: This next part is for the pp who attributes obesity/sickness to irresponsible behavior:

 

As far as personal responsibility goes - well, there's certainly something to be said for wise choices. However, as the video explains, due to policies instituted in the early 70s to fight poverty, the food industry started using HFCS as a substitute for sugar in many products and it is found in nearly all processed foods now. In other words, it is very difficult to avoid unless you make a serious effort to do so. Not everyone is even aware of its presence in our food supply and therefore they do not know to even be on the lookout for it. Even if they do know, the fact is, foods that contain it are cheaper and easier on the budget making them more appealing to those with tight budgets. We all know that eating grass-fed beef, free-range poultry, and organic fruits and veggies is extremely expensive.

 

Watch the video before making any sweeping judgments about irresponsible behavior.

Edited February 3, 2012 by Kathleen in VA

[Lucy in Australia]

As far as personal responsibility goes - well, there's certainly something to be said for wise choices. However, as the video explains, due to policies instituted in the early 70s to fight poverty, the food industry started using HFCS as a substitute for sugar in many products and it is found in nearly all processed foods now. In other words, it is very difficult to avoid unless you make a serious effort to do so. Not everyone is even aware of its presence in our food supply and therefore they do not know to even be on the lookout for it. Even if they do know, the fact is, foods that contain it are cheaper and easier on the budget making them more appealing to those with tight budgets. We all know that eating grass-fed beef, free-range poultry, and organic fruits and veggies is extremely expensive.

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

 

This is so true! And as the article says, when soft drinks are often cheaper than milk or water, it's going to be an uphill battle and people have to be fairly determined to win it.

[*lifeoftheparty*]

In case anyone has the idea that table sugar is "healthier" than HFCS because of the fructose content, do be aware that sucrose (table sugar) is also half fructose.

 

Yes, table sugar is 50% glucose and 50% fructose, the way God/Nature made it. Our bodies know how to handle that.

 

HIGH FRUCTOSE (ie. MORE Fructose) Corn Syrup has higher percentages of Fructose, compared to glucose. NOT the way God/Nature intended it. This is a man-made substance that our bodies were never intended to consume/break down.

 

No matter what the commercials (paid for by the Corn Refiners Association) tell you, High Fructose Corn Syrup is NOT the same as table sugar, nor is it processed by the body the same way, NOR does it have the same affects on your health. It is worse. Maybe only a "little bit" worse, but still worse.

 

In addition to that, HFCS is made from genetically modified corn, laced/loaded with way more chemical/unnatural substances than sugar that comes from sugar cane.

http://grist.org/food/researchers-yes-hfcs-is-much-worse-than-table-sugar/

[Laurie4b]

:lol: Could you imagine the black market for cupcakes and Dove chocolate? We'd all be on the street corner with cash in hand.

 

:lol::lol::lol:

[Lawana]

.

Edited February 4, 2012 by Lawana
Invisibility strikes again

[Laurie4b]

You might enjoy watching the video I linked to above, called Sugar: The Bitter Truth. The video refutes the notion that all sugar is the same. In it Dr Robert Lustig methodically explains how differently the body deals with "glucose" (the sugar the brain and body run on, a sugar that can be metabolized in many places in the body, including in cells) as opposed to "fructose" which can only be metabolized in the liver, which medically makes fructose a "toxin."

 

The video goes into great detail about why the differences in types of sugars matters on a physiological level. It is Dr Lustig's position that there are huge difference between glucose absorption and the difficulty of the body has in metabolizing fructose in the liver, and he explains his positions in detail.

 

Table sugar "sucrose" is 50% glucose and 50% fructose.

 

Bill

 

:confused: Isn't the sugar in fruit all fructose? Or do I have that wrong?

[LibraryLover]

You might enjoy watching the video I linked to above, called Sugar: The Bitter Truth. The video refutes the notion that all sugar is the same. In it Dr Robert Lustig methodically explains how differently the body deals with "glucose" (the sugar the brain and body run on, a sugar that can be metabolized in many places in the body, including in cells) as opposed to "fructose" which can only be metabolized in the liver, which medically makes fructose a "toxin."

 

The video goes into great detail about why the differences in types of sugars matters on a physiological level. It is Dr Lustig's position that there are huge difference between glucose absorption and the difficulty of the body has in metabolizing fructose in the liver, and he explains his positions in detail.

 

Table sugar "sucrose" is 50% glucose and 50% fructose.

 

Bill

 

 

Yes. Robert H. Lustig, MD

 

Earl Butz. Yeah.

Edited February 3, 2012 by LibraryLover

[Lawana]

Yes, table sugar is 50% glucose and 50% fructose, the way God/Nature made it. Our bodies know how to handle that.

 

Except that, of course, the way God/Nature made sucrose was in whole foods, which contain other sugars (fructose by itself being one of them), starches, fiber, proteins and fats. The white sugar in the sugar bowl in our cabinets is certainly *not* what God/Nature intended.

 

HIGH FRUCTOSE (ie. MORE Fructose) Corn Syrup has higher percentages of Fructose, compared to glucose. NOT the way God/Nature intended it. This is a man-made substance that our bodies were never intended to consume/break down.

 

Compared to what? Corn syrup that is *not* HFCS? Sucrose? Which does have about the same ratio of fructose and glucose as sucrose? Make no mistake─I am *not* defending HFCS. But vilifying HFCS while giving refined sucrose a pass makes no sense to me.

 

No matter what the commercials (paid for by the Corn Refiners Association) tell you, High Fructose Corn Syrup is NOT the same as table sugar, nor is it processed by the body the same way, NOR does it have the same affects on your health. It is worse. Maybe only a "little bit" worse, but still worse.

 

It may be just a "little bit" worse. I would rather expend the energy understanding that *both* are really, really, bad for us, in any substantial quantity, than split hairs over one being marginally worse.

 

In addition to that, HFCS is made from genetically modified corn, laced/loaded with way more chemical/unnatural substances than sugar that comes from sugar cane.

http://grist.org/food/researchers-yes-hfcs-is-much-worse-than-table-sugar/

 

I'm sure there is a case for that.

[Lawana]

:confused: Isn't the sugar in fruit all fructose? Or do I have that wrong?

 

The sugar in fruit is a combination of fructose, sucrose and glucose, predominantly, with fructose generally being the highest percentage. For example, here is a breakdown of the carbohydrate content of a 125 g serving of raw apple.

 

 

 

Carbohydrates

 

 

Amounts Per Selected Serving

 

%DV

 

 

Total Carbohydrate

17.3

g

6%

 

 

Dietary Fiber

3.0

g

12%

 

 

Starch

0.1

g

 

 

 

Sugars

13.0

g

 

 

 

 

Sucrose

2588

mg

 

 

 

 

Glucose

3038

mg

 

 

 

 

Fructose

7375

mg

 

 

 

 

Lactose

0.0

mg

 

 

 

 

Maltose

0.0

mg

 

 

 

 

Galactose

0.0

mg

 

 

 

 

 

Read More http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/fruits-and-fruit-juices/1809/2#ixzz1lHgMicUN

Sorry about the formatting. As you can see, the ratio of sucrose to glucose to fructose is about 3:3:7, with significant rounding.

 

Also, think about sugar cane and sugar beets. All that sucrose had to come from somewhere.

Edited February 3, 2012 by Lawana
correction

[justamouse]

 

ETA: This next part is for the pp who attributes obesity/sickness to irresponsible behavior:

 

As far as personal responsibility goes - well, there's certainly something to be said for wise choices. However, as the video explains, due to policies instituted in the early 70s to fight poverty, the food industry started using HFCS as a substitute for sugar in many products and it is found in nearly all processed foods now. In other words, it is very difficult to avoid unless you make a serious effort to do so. Not everyone is even aware of its presence in our food supply and therefore they do not know to even be on the lookout for it. Even if they do know, the fact is, foods that contain it are cheaper and easier on the budget making them more appealing to those with tight budgets. We all know that eating grass-fed beef, free-range poultry, and organic fruits and veggies is extremely expensive.

 

Watch the video before making any sweeping judgments about irresponsible behavior.

 

:iagree: So, so true.

[PentecostalMom]

We will have to get our cakes by prescription only. :lol:

 

ETA: Seriously though,

This seems to be more of the problem than actual table sugar:

If they would just leave our food alone and let us buy whole foods at reasonable prices we would all be much better off. Then the occasional cookie or slice of cake would be perfectly fine to consume.

 

Precisely!

[ElizaG]

In it Dr Robert Lustig methodically explains how differently the body deals with "glucose" (the sugar the brain and body run on, a sugar that can be metabolized in many places in the body, including in cells) as opposed to "fructose" which can only be metabolized in the liver, which medically makes fructose a "toxin."

If we tried to eliminate every kind of food and drink that's metabolized in the liver, though, we'd be skeletal in no time.

 

My spidey sense tells me that the problem isn't so much with fructose per se, as with the synthetic form. It could be something, as yet unidentified, that gets created or introduced when corn starch is processed to make corn syrup. For one thing, all the scary research I've seen has been done using synthetic fructose. And I've never heard of evidence of these health problems being widespread among tropical populations such as the Kitavans, who eat a substantial amount of sweet fruit (but no processed foods).

 

Regular corn syrup has been used commercially since the early 20th century, but since it doesn't taste as sweet as sugar, its commercial uses have been limited to things like adding texture and bulk to candy. Since HFCS was developed, people have been eating a lot more corn syrup overall. And if the "something" in it has epigenetic effects, that could explain why these problems took a while to show up in full force.

[asta]

I'm with Icelmer (sp?) - well, except for the sin part - I don't think sugar and sin belong in the same category.

 

I'm sick and tired of things that should be personal responsibility falling into the legislative realm.

 

I used to be skinny, now I'm not. It isn't the fault of the drug manufacturers, it isn't the fault of the various food companies. It is my fault for sitting on my @ss and writing on this board instead of exercising.

 

Here - I'll invoke Godwin's Law (since we're studying the rise of the 3rd Reich right now): the government taking over all aspects of a person's life doesn't happen suddenly/overnight - it happens gradually, bit by bit. Regulate something seemingly innocuous here, take something little away there. It's a slippery slope until one day you find yourself at the bottom, wondering where everything went.

 

a

[Lisbeth]

I'm with Icelmer (sp?) - well, except for the sin part - I don't think sugar and sin belong in the same category.

 

I'm sick and tired of things that should be personal responsibility falling into the legislative realm.

 

I used to be skinny, now I'm not. It isn't the fault of the drug manufacturers, it isn't the fault of the various food companies. It is my fault for sitting on my @ss and writing on this board instead of exercising.

 

Here - I'll invoke Godwin's Law (since we're studying the rise of the 3rd Reich right now): the government taking over all aspects of a person's life doesn't happen suddenly/overnight - it happens gradually, bit by bit. Regulate something seemingly innocuous here, take something little away there. It's a slippery slope until one day you find yourself at the bottom, wondering where everything went.

 

a

 

 

I agree with this. They need to stop trying to legislate personal responsibility.

[Parrothead]

In case anyone has the idea that table sugar is "healthier" than HFCS because of the fructose content, do be aware that sucrose (table sugar) is also half fructose.

Actually my point was that if HFCS and other sweeteners were not artificially introduced into our foods, a little bit of table sugar once in a while (birthday cake, anyone?) wouldn't be too bad.

 

Sadly there is some kind of sweetener in almost every packaged food. Most people don't care enough to read the labels. I've actually had folks get miffed because dh and I don't reach right up there and take one. We will stand in front of all of the tomato sauce and read each brand's label. :D

 

Instead of a tax there ought to be a law against putting sugar/sweeteners in for the sake of feeding the country's sugar addiction.

 

We don't need HFCS added to canned corn.

We don't need sugar added to pasta sauce.

We don't need aspartame added to canned apricots.

[Lizzie in Ma]

We will have to get our cakes by prescription only. :lol:

 

ETA: Seriously though,

This seems to be more of the problem than actual table sugar:

If they would just leave our food alone and let us buy whole foods at reasonable prices we would all be much better off. Then the occasional cookie or slice of cake would be perfectly fine to consume.

 

Exactly.

[jplain]

I'm sick and tired of things that should be personal responsibility falling into the legislative realm.

What pisses me off are the legislated corn and soy subsidies. Our tax dollars are being used to make sure that HFCS and soybean oil and low-quality animal fodder stay cheap.

 

If people want to spend their money on sugar and fast food, fine. But I don't want to be involved in making it more affordable. If you want to eat that crap, you should be paying what it actually costs to produce it.

[GoVanGogh]

I feel a bit hypocritical posting to a thread about sugar when I have Paula Deen's baked French toast in the oven. :tongue_smilie: (It is a treat for my underweight son who had never had French toast until a few months ago and fell in love with it.)

 

ETA: This next part is for the pp who attributes obesity/sickness to irresponsible behavior:

 

As far as personal responsibility goes - well, there's certainly something to be said for wise choices. However, as the video explains, due to policies instituted in the early 70s to fight poverty, the food industry started using HFCS as a substitute for sugar in many products and it is found in nearly all processed foods now. In other words, it is very difficult to avoid unless you make a serious effort to do so. Not everyone is even aware of its presence in our food supply and therefore they do not know to even be on the lookout for it. Even if they do know, the fact is, foods that contain it are cheaper and easier on the budget making them more appealing to those with tight budgets. We all know that eating grass-fed beef, free-range poultry, and organic fruits and veggies is extremely expensive.

I agree with that, but the obesity I see is not because of poverty and cheap food sources.

I live in a state that borders Mexico; we have a lot of immigrants living in poverty in this general area. I have volunteered at a local food pantry off and on for the past 15 years. I see some obesity at the food pantry, but not as much as if I go to the upscale mall or eating establishments.

We were eating at a mid-level restaurant in an affluent area the other night (nothing on the menu less than $12) and easily 1/4 of the men were severely overweight. That's not poverty... And it also isn't intelligence. It is denial.

We also have wonderful farmer's markets throughout the area, so it isn't easy access to good healthy food.

 

My mom is a good example. She has uncontrolled type 2 diabetes and is obese. She is a librarian, squarely in middle class, surrounded by books and magazines all day long. She can afford healthier food choices and she can educate herself about nutrition. She just doesn't want to.

 

I posted earlier that I think government needs to quit subsidizing corn farmers. My BIL is a corn farmer and that is a hot subject in our house, so I won't say more b/c I don't want to elevate my bp so early in the morn.

 

I did want to add that I think we need to look at how our ancestors ate and take a step back - compare their lives to our lives and we need to adjust our diets to our new mostly sedentary lifestyles.

Yes, my grandparents and great-grandparents lived on meat and potatoes and homemade bread. But they also did the backbreaking work of growing that food!

I think Pollan says in one of his books - eat potatoes - BUT only potatoes you have put the effort into growing yourself. I agree completely.

I know I have read many posts here lamenting the fact that their husbands won't eat vegetables and only likes "meat and potatoes."

That may have been fine if you were working a physical job all day long. But if you have a desk job today, your body does not need meat and potatoes every day.

 

So while I think poverty and cheap junk food is an issue, I think there are other issues that also need addressed.

[Spy Car]

:confused: Isn't the sugar in fruit all fructose? Or do I have that wrong?

 

As has been pointed out by other posters the majority of the sugar in fruit is fructose. This is discussed inn the video lecture by Dr Lustig.

 

Before I continue let me make a couple disclaimers. One, it has been some time since I listened to the lecture. Two, I don't pretend to have any expertise in this field and at best have a lay-persons understanding of Dr Lustig's position.

 

If memory serves, Dr Lustig in his lecture makes the point that drinking fruit juice (stripped of its natural fiber) is not much different in it metabolic load on the liver than drinking a soda (aside from the side benefits of vitamins and trace nutrients). He would argue that fruit juice consumed in quantity should not be considered a healthful beverage.

 

His argument, which I will admit to not fully understanding on this point, is that whole fruit is metamobized differently (is it just more slowly?) due to the natural fiber in the fruit. So combined with other foods and the natural fiber in the whole fruit itself the metabolic process is slow enough that the liver in not overwhelmed by a rush of fructose. My appologise to Dr Lustig (and y'all) for less than fully adequate summation of the lecture. It is far better to listen to the man speak, but this is my best "nutshell" remembrance on the point.

 

To address points raised in other posts, he was not suggesting that many other items can be metabolized in the liver, his point was that fructose can ONLY be metabolized in the liver. This means the liver can be overwhelmed with more fructose to process than it can handle, and when that happens there is a cascade of reactions that can negatively effect health. Fat storage and obiesity being directly linked to fructose over-consumption.

 

I would urge people to watch the video. Lustig goes through his scientic reasoning for his position point by point, methodically explaining how different sugars are metabolized in the body—and why that matters.

 

Bill

Edited February 3, 2012 by Spy Car

[justamouse]

If we tried to eliminate every kind of food and drink that's metabolized in the liver, though, we'd be skeletal in no time.

 

My spidey sense tells me that the problem isn't so much with fructose per se, as with the synthetic form. It could be something, as yet unidentified, that gets created or introduced when corn starch is processed to make corn syrup. For one thing, all the scary research I've seen has been done using synthetic fructose. And I've never heard of evidence of these health problems being widespread among tropical populations such as the Kitavans, who eat a substantial amount of sweet fruit (but no processed foods).

 

Regular corn syrup has been used commercially since the early 20th century, but since it doesn't taste as sweet as sugar, its commercial uses have been limited to things like adding texture and bulk to candy. Since HFCS was developed, people have been eating a lot more corn syrup overall. And if the "something" in it has epigenetic effects, that could explain why these problems took a while to show up in full force.

 

I really hate it when people assume that the synthetic form or extraction of something means our body reacts in the same way as its natural form.

 

I totally believe it has epigenetic effects.

 

Actually my point was that if HFCS and other sweeteners were not artificially introduced into our foods, a little bit of table sugar once in a while (birthday cake, anyone?) wouldn't be too bad.

 

Sadly there is some kind of sweetener in almost every packaged food. Most people don't care enough to read the labels. I've actually had folks get miffed because dh and I don't reach right up there and take one. We will stand in front of all of the tomato sauce and read each brand's label. :D

 

Instead of a tax there ought to be a law against putting sugar/sweeteners in for the sake of feeding the country's sugar addiction.

 

We don't need HFCS added to canned corn.

We don't need sugar added to pasta sauce.

We don't need aspartame added to canned apricots.

 

Exactly.