Public Enemy #1: Sugar

Discussion in 'The Bar' started by newcastlefan, Mar 2, 2013.

  1. newcastlefan

    newcastlefan גֵּרְשֹׁם VIP

    Reputations:
    136,080
    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2011
    Messages:
    57,696
    Likes Received:
    17,010
    Short form: the sugar in our diets will cause diabetes and other ailments; obesity may cause diabetes and other ailments, but sugar is guaranteed to.



    http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/27/its-the-sugar-folks/?src=recg

    Sugar is indeed toxic. It may not be the only problem with the Standard American Diet, but it’s fast becoming clear that it’s the major one.
    A study published in the Feb. 27 issue of the journal PLoS One links increased consumption of sugar with increased rates of diabetes by examining the data on sugar availability and the rate of diabetes in 175 countries over the past decade. And after accounting for many other factors, the researchers found that increased sugar in a population’s food supply was linked to higher diabetes rates independent of rates of obesity.
    In other words, according to this study, it’s not just obesity that can cause diabetes: sugar can cause it, too, irrespective of obesity. And obesity does not always lead to diabetes.
    The study demonstrates this with the same level of confidence that linked cigarettes and lung cancer in the 1960s. As Rob Lustig, one of the study’s authors and a pediatric endocrinologist at the University of California, San Francisco, said to me, “You could not enact a real-world study that would be more conclusive than this one.â€
    The study controlled for poverty, urbanization, aging, obesity and physical activity. It controlled for other foods and total calories. In short, it controlled for everything controllable, and it satisfied the longstanding “Bradford Hill†criteria for what’s called medical inference of causation by linking dose (the more sugar that’s available, the more occurrences of diabetes); duration (if sugar is available longer, the prevalence of diabetes increases); directionality (not only does diabetes increase with more sugar, it decreases with less sugar); and precedence (diabetics don’t start consuming more sugar; people who consume more sugar are more likely to become diabetics).
    The key point in the article is this: “Each 150 kilocalories/person/day increase in total calorie availability related to a 0.1 percent rise in diabetes prevalence (not significant), whereas a 150 kilocalories/person/day rise in sugar availability (one 12-ounce can of soft drink) was associated with a 1.1 percent rise in diabetes prevalence.†Thus: for every 12 ounces of sugar-sweetened beverage introduced per person per day into a country’s food system, the rate of diabetes goes up 1 percent. (The study found no significant difference in results between those countries that rely more heavily on high-fructose corn syrup and those that rely primarily on cane sugar.)
    This is as good (or bad) as it gets, the closest thing to causation and a smoking gun that we will see. (To prove “scientific†causality you’d have to completely control the diets of thousands of people for decades. It’s as technically impossible as “proving†climate change or football-related head injuries or, for that matter, tobacco-caused cancers.) And just as tobacco companies fought, ignored, lied and obfuscated in the ’60s (and, indeed, through the ’90s), the pushers of sugar will do the same now.
    But as Lustig says, “This study is proof enough that sugar is toxic. Now it’s time to do something about it.â€
    The next steps are obvious, logical, clear and up to the Food and Drug Administration. To fulfill its mission, the agency must respond to this information by re-evaluating the toxicity of sugar, arriving at a daily value — how much added sugar is safe? — and ideally removing fructose (the “sweet†molecule in sugar that causes the damage) from the “generally recognized as safe†list, because that’s what gives the industry license to contaminate our food supply.
    On another front, two weeks ago a coalition of scientists and health advocates led by the Center for Science in the Public Interest petitioned the F.D.A. to both set safe limits for sugar consumption and acknowledge that added sugars, rather than lingering on the “safe†list, should be declared unsafe at the levels at which they’re typically consumed. (The F.D.A. has not yet responded to the petition.)
    Allow me to summarize a couple of things that the PLoS One study clarifies. Perhaps most important, as a number of scientists have been insisting in recent years, all calories are not created equal. By definition, all calories give off the same amount of energy when burned, but your body treats sugar calories differently, and that difference is damaging.
    And as Lustig lucidly wrote in “Fat Chance,†his compelling 2012 book that looked at the causes of our diet-induced health crisis, it’s become clear that obesity itself is not the cause of our dramatic upswing in chronic disease. Rather, it’s metabolic syndrome, which can strike those of “normal†weight as well as those who are obese. Metabolic syndrome is a result of insulin resistance, which appears to be a direct result of consumption of added sugars. This explains why there’s little argument from scientific quarters about the “obesity won’t kill you†studies; technically, they’re correct, because obesity is a marker for metabolic syndrome, not a cause.
    The take-away: it isn’t simply overeating that can make you sick; it’s overeating sugar. We finally have the proof we need for a verdict: sugar is toxic.
     
  2. gilaet

    gilaet Xanax Service Dog Staff Member

    Reputations:
    242,712
    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2010
    Messages:
    88,547
    Likes Received:
    21,512
  3. Boss Ono

    Boss Ono New Member Banned User

    Reputations:
    -6
    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2010
    Messages:
    21,398
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is corn syrup in there? Go grocery shopping sometime and see if you can fill a cart with items that don't have corn syrup in them. :fil:
     
  4. ohmicah

    ohmicah Real Gad About Town

    Reputations:
    455
    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2012
    Messages:
    8,291
    Likes Received:
    3,707
    Artificial sweeteners tied to obesity, Type 2 diabetes


    High-intensity sweetener changes metabolic responses

    CBC News

    Posted: Feb 17, 2013 10:23 AM ET

    Last Updated: Feb 17, 2013 10:22 AM ET

    Read 246comments246

    Diet pop and other artificially sweetened products may cause us to eat and drink even more calories and increase our risk for obesity and Type 2 diabetes, researchers are learning.
    Former McGill University researcher Dana Small specializes in the neuropsychology of flavour and feeding at Yale University in New Haven, Conn. Small said there's mounting evidence that artificial sweeteners have a couple of problematic effects. Sugar substitutes such as sucralose and aspartame are more intensely sweet than sugar and may rewire taste receptors so less sweet, healthier foods aren't as enjoyable, shifting preferences to higher calorie, sweeter foods, she said.
    Small and some other researchers believe artificial sweeteners interfere with brain chemistry and hormones that regulate appetite and satiety. For millennia, sweet taste signalled the arrival of calories. But that's no longer the case with artificial sweeteners.
    "The sweet taste is no longer signalling energy and so the body adapts," Small said in an interview with CBC News. "It's no longer going to release insulin when it senses sweet because sweet now is not such a good predictor of the arrival of energy."
    Susan Swithers, a psychology professor at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Ind., studies behavioural neuroscience. "Exposure to high-intensity sweeteners could change the way that sweet tastes are processed," she says.
    "A number of epidemiological studies show that people who do consume high intensity sweeteners show differences in metabolic responses, have an increased risk for things like Type 2 diabetes and also have an increased risk for overweight and obesity."
    [​IMG]Exposure to high-intensity sweeteners could change the way that sweet tastes are processed. (Justin Sullivan/Getty )
    This week, researchers in France who followed the drinking habits of 66,000 women for 14 years reported that both regular and diet pop increase the risk of developing Type 2 diabetes, but the risk was higher among diet drinkers — 15 per cent higher for consumption of as little as 500 ml per week and 59 per cent higher for those having 1.5 litres per week.
    Writing in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, the researchers said the women's age and body size were taken into account but eating habits may have changed over time and factors besides consumption of artificially sweetened drinks couldn't be ruled out.
    Scientists in the U.S. have also found this association.
    More difficult to manage weight

    No longer being able to rely on the body's built-in and subconscious process for regulating eating makes it more difficult for people to manage their own weights, Small and Swithers agreed.
    "They might actually have to read labels, pay attention to how many calories are in things because they've lost this easy process," Swithers said.
    Last month, Nicola Kettlitz, president of Coca-Cola Canada, told CBC News that artificial sweeteners are safe and approved by Health Canada, adding aspartame has been used for 30 years.
    "If you have to pick an evil, I'd pick the diet pop over the regular pop," said Dr. Yoni Freedhoff, director of the Bariatric Medical Institute in Ottawa. "But ideally it shouldn't be either."
    Small said she tells everyone she knows not to use artificial sweeteners. "It's better to use a small amount of regular sugar than it is to use artificial sweeteners in your foods."
    At a food court in Toronto, patrons recognized that diet drinks aren't ideal.
    "It's good for people who are watching their weight," said Withya Ganeshalingam, who was sipping a diet Sprite, which she considers a "free drink" because of the zero calories.
    "I feel like it kind of goes back and forth, this one's bad, this one is better for you," said Jason Costa. "Regular is what I do if I am going to drink it."
     
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2013
  5. newcastlefan

    newcastlefan גֵּרְשֹׁם VIP

    Reputations:
    136,080
    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2011
    Messages:
    57,696
    Likes Received:
    17,010
    i read this one but it doesn't seem to hold for me: i use sucralose exclusively and have for at least the past year. i still find foods like beets, carrots, and red peppers to be intensely sweet and i love eating them. sucralose is basically still sugar; its just not digestible.

     
  6. HeinousMark

    HeinousMark Creepy-Ass Cracka VIP

    Reputations:
    9
    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2011
    Messages:
    19,629
    Likes Received:
    3
    Sugar is not evil. Extreme amounts of sugar on a regular basis is evil.

    Maybe it doesn't help, but I've taken to getting sodas etc. with real cane sugar and avoiding high fructose corn syrup.

    Regardless of what some scientists may say, I avoid artificial sweeteners vehemently. If I'm gonna put strange chemicals into my body, I want to get a good buzz out of them.
     
  7. stripes

    stripes Active Member Banned User

    Reputations:
    76
    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2011
    Messages:
    24,560
    Likes Received:
    17
    & salt, its a conspiracy i tell ya.:dontknow:
     
  8. newcastlefan

    newcastlefan גֵּרְשֹׁם VIP

    Reputations:
    136,080
    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2011
    Messages:
    57,696
    Likes Received:
    17,010
    i agree about the corn syrup though. i think it is far worse than cane, which i find is self limiting and satisfying. when i was drinking sugared sodas (long ago) i could easily drink a 2 litre bottle of coke, but i could never drink 2 liters of cane sugared soda in one sitting.
     
  9. ohmicah

    ohmicah Real Gad About Town

    Reputations:
    455
    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2012
    Messages:
    8,291
    Likes Received:
    3,707
    This is as good (or bad) as it gets, the closest thing to causation and a smoking gun that we will see. (To prove “scientific” causality you’d have to completely control the diets of thousands of people for decades. It’s as technically impossible as “proving” climate change or football-related head injuries or, for that matter, tobacco-caused cancers.) And just as tobacco companies fought, ignored, lied and obfuscated in the ’60s (and, indeed, through the ’90s), the pushers of sugar will do the same now.

    The original article is pretty one-sided, to the point of wondering who funded this study. Looks like it was funded by someone who considers the sugar industry as "pushers".

    And what's all this about being scientifically unable to prove climate change, tobacco related cancer or football related head injuries? This article seems to indicate all that stuff falls somewhere between wives's tales and urban legend. Much as I've suspected all along. Nice to see it in writing though.
     
  10. newcastlefan

    newcastlefan גֵּרְשֹׁם VIP

    Reputations:
    136,080
    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2011
    Messages:
    57,696
    Likes Received:
    17,010
    i think that, by "proof" he means a 1:1 correlation which you're just not going to get because there are too many variables involved.
     
  11. gilaet

    gilaet Xanax Service Dog Staff Member

    Reputations:
    242,712
    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2010
    Messages:
    88,547
    Likes Received:
    21,512
    Overindulgence :salute:
     
  12. ohmicah

    ohmicah Real Gad About Town

    Reputations:
    455
    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2012
    Messages:
    8,291
    Likes Received:
    3,707
    All the variables involved might actually prove the study to be horseshit too.

    Gee, I'd like a little "PROOF" before calling something "Public Enemy #1". Could it be that article was written by someone with a financial interest in the sale of artificial sweeteners?

    The article I posted points out that there is a 59% increased chance of diabetes with artificial sweeteners as opposed to using sugar. That was from a study where they actually followed the diets of subjects for years.

    Whereas the original article says they couldn't be bothered to follow the diets of subjects for a study. Yet they reach a conclusion without scientifically studying the effects on people.
     
  13. Boss Ono

    Boss Ono New Member Banned User

    Reputations:
    -6
    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2010
    Messages:
    21,398
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeah salt. Deli meats and anything in a can. :facepalm:
     
  14. Boss Ono

    Boss Ono New Member Banned User

    Reputations:
    -6
    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2010
    Messages:
    21,398
    Likes Received:
    0
    Real cane sugar? Not beets? Which ones you get? I noticed that some of the diet soda stream flavorings say no artificial sweeteners too. I'm curious.
     
  15. Boss Ono

    Boss Ono New Member Banned User

    Reputations:
    -6
    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2010
    Messages:
    21,398
    Likes Received:
    0
    Skyrim?
     
  16. Gomez

    Gomez Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    34,302
    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2011
    Messages:
    20,893
    Likes Received:
    5,604
    They'll have to take the sugar from my cold, dead hands
     
  17. HeinousMark

    HeinousMark Creepy-Ass Cracka VIP

    Reputations:
    9
    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2011
    Messages:
    19,629
    Likes Received:
    3
    Well like for sodas, I got on a real kick with Jarritos for a while:

    [​IMG] (Mexican sodi-pop)


    Then I tried these out and they're Godlike:


    [​IMG] They also have grapefruit and blood orange. If they had lime, I'd order it by the pallet.....
     
  18. Boss Ono

    Boss Ono New Member Banned User

    Reputations:
    -6
    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2010
    Messages:
    21,398
    Likes Received:
    0
    Blood Orange reminds me of Dexter. Now i keep hearing that juice from concentrate is no good because all the dietary fiber is removed. :nooo:

    I don't want soda with pulp though either. :banghead:

    In Colombia they sell a Coca-cola product like Fresca called Quatro. I wonder if that had real sugar?
     
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2013
  19. HeinousMark

    HeinousMark Creepy-Ass Cracka VIP

    Reputations:
    9
    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2011
    Messages:
    19,629
    Likes Received:
    3
    Try them and I'll bet you like them. The Jarritos Toronja/Grapefruit soda reminds me exactly of circa 1970 Fresca, my grandma always had it around....
     
  20. Snake Plissken

    Snake Plissken New Member Banned User

    Reputations:
    -6
    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2012
    Messages:
    201
    Likes Received:
    0
    :colinpowell: