Sugar: the Bitter Truth

[avandonk]

A very good video of a talk that explains a lot about diet and obesity and many lifestyle illnesses such as diabetes type II.

It also opens up the real facts and evidence at a biochemistry level.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM


If you ever wondered why 'diets' do NOT work. This explains why.

Well worth a look.

Bert

[jjjnettie]

Cheers Bert.

[Mick]

Bert,

Thanks for posting this link.

[Lester]

Thanks Bert. Very interesting.

[traveller]

Thanks Bert, for those of you interested, another link with well known and peer reviewed researcher.
http://www.yaleruddcenter.org/who_we_are.aspx?id=329
The comparative effects of sugar on the brain is almost on par with cocaine and nicotine :scared:.
Cheers,
Bo

[adman]

yep sugar is not good - especially fructose

[michaellxv]

Very interesting.
I've just done a quick search through our food suply and from labelling we get I can only assume that any fructose content is in the 'sugars'. ie we are not told how much fructose is in anything we eat.

[Shiraz]

thanks Bert - most useful post. Regards Ray

[Barrykgerdes]

Gee I love sugar by the spoonful.
Three heaped in my coffee
Love to eat lollies
Buy canned drinks by the carton
add extra sugar to many foods:lol::lol:

Why don't I get fat. Why don't I have diabeties
However I am not sure about my brain. I don't think it is addled yet but other may not agree.:shrug:

Barry

PS I do get regular medicals and a blood test every 6 months

[snas]

Here is some information from a reputable source.

http://www.nutritionaustralia.org/national/frequently-asked-questions/fructose

Just beware of the name of the institution involved here at the beginning of the youtube video: the Osher Centre for INTEGRATIVE MEDICINE.

So called "Integrative medicine" is a combination of genuine "real science" medicine and unproven pseudoscientific alternative therapies. Integrative medicine is a "nice" way of saying we have some real doctors and scientists here who have gone across to the dark side of pseudoscience and believe that quackery such as Reiki, homeopathy etc are valid treatments. In other words, integrative medicine is quackery mixed up with a small amount of real medicine to try to give the quackery a degree of credence that it does not deserve in any way. Remember that alternative medicine is alternative because there is no scientific evidence that it works. If an alternative medicine is found to be truly effective, it ceases to be alternative and becomes conventional medicine.

This does not prove that Dr Lustig is a quack, although his association with an institution of integrative medicine raises concerns.

While I am not claiming to be an "expert", I can say that fructose is regarded as being a suitable sugar for diabetics to consume due to its low GI of 19. This is the lowest GI of any naturally occurring sugar. Low GI is defined as <55. Also, since fructose is much sweeter than sucrose or glucose, diabetics can use less fructose to provide the same degree of sweetening than if they used sucrose or glucose.

I respect the people on this site, the vast majority of whom know far more about astronomy than I. But I suspect that this youtube video has fooled some of our members (no disrespect) who maybe have less knowledge of biology that I do. (no disrespect there either, biology is my job)

Should the information in the video ever be proven to be true, I will happily say that I was wrong. At this time the "real" science says that will not be the case.

Regards

Stuart

[Shiraz]

thanks very much for the caution Stuart. I found the lecture to be interesting (the lecturer was annoying, but so what), since it presented a compact summary of aspects of endocrine chemistry that I had not seen before. Like any "the establishment view is wrong" lecture, the message seemed to me to be a little bit glib, but the assertion that something is messing with our feedback mechanisms to cause infant obesity is disturbing. Regards ray

[adman]

fructose is no longer recommended to diabetics as an alternative sweetener due to the effect is=t can have of raising serum triglyceride and LDL levels, and high fructose intakes may be partly the cause of obesity, type 2 diabetes and heart disease.



Adam

[gregbradley]

A fabulous video Bert. Thanks for that. I known for ages the damaging effects of sugar and for a little while about the US corn syrup industry dominating their foods and the connection to obesity there. But there were some other points in that video that clarified a few things. Like the 2 different types of LDL cholesterol. Some naturopaths assert cholesterol is not bad for you and no doubt this has been clouded by the fructose/sucrose issue.

Greg.

[avandonk]

snas the guide that the nutrinionists have is exactly the same as that advocated in the video.


The premise is not that fructose and or sucrose is bad per se but that purifying and adding it to foods so that they taste better is very bad for your long term health.

If you notice very carefully he did not talk about the natural content in normal food but the added intake due to purification of corn sugar added to soft drink and many other processed foods to an average of about 130 pounds per annum!

He has shown the metabolic pathway where fructose is the equivalent of ingesting fat.

What really scared me is that a can of beer is as bad as a can of coke nutritionally.

Bert

[TrevorW]

Everything in moderatrion is OK, excess is the killer

[adman]

Dr. Lustig is also not associated with the integrative medicine centre - it looks like they are a centre within UCSF which is the university at which he is a Professor of Clinical Paediatrics, and they have simply used one of his recorded lectures. He is the walking definition of mainstream medicine - very widely published in respected peer reviewed journals, head of a few national and international 'task forces' on obesity in children. Definitely not quack material.

Adam

[snas]

Adam

Fair enough then re Dr Lustig. I'll let him off the hook then. :)

In my veterinary surgery I am constantly exposed to "new information". For example, in mid 2009 I received some information re a new flea control. It's going to do this and do that and....and I almost laughed at the claims. They just seemed to be too good to be true. But, of course, the manufacturer cannot publicly promote claims if these claims have not been proven to the satisfaction of the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority.

The product arrived on the market about September 2009 and we ordered in a couple of each size package just to see how it went. Well, it went so well that I am convinced that this is the best flea treatment we have ever seen. (Hmmm, shades of "anecdotal evidence " on my part there!)

So my approach to this new information was not to dismiss it out of hand because it just sounded "too good to be true". Instead I gave it a go and listened to the reports of my clients. This is good science. Bad science would have been to dismiss it out of hand or to just accept the claims at face value.

So when I look at stories like this, I always try to take a look at both opinions (this is good information or this is bad information) and assess each.

However, I am still unconvinced re some of the stories of the dangers of fructose vs sucrose/glucose. Obviously any sensible person would try to limit their intake of sugars (yes, that is an admission that sugars can be bad for you, just like water can be), but are the various stories of fructose being so dangerous really true? While I may be a biologist, like anyone, when I step just a little outside of my field, I have to follow up information to verify its accuracy and decide what is good and what is bad information. The trouble with internet is that there is SO much information out there that it is very hard to decide the veracity of the info if it is even slightly outside of your own field.

Dr Harriet Hall (medical doctor) of the New England Skeptics Society has this to say on Science Based Medicine blog:

High fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is also being demonized. “High” fructose isn’t really so high. HFCS is 55% fructose. Sucrose (table sugar) is 50% fructose and 50% glucose. Honey is 50% fructose. Apples have 57% fructose; pears have 64%. Fructose has been blamed for obesity, diabetes, heart disease and a wide variety of other illnesses, but the evidence is inconclusive. Avoiding fructose would mean avoiding all sources of fructose, not just HFCS. Avoiding fruit is probably not healthy. An International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) Expert Panel concluded that “there is no basis for recommending increases or decreases in [fructose] use in the general food supply or in special dietary use products.” HFCS is 25% sweeter than sucrose, so you can use less of it and get fewer calories. Limiting total calorie intake is healthy, and both HFCS and aspartame can contribute to that goal.

Is she right (she is only one person after all) or is Dr Lustig right????? I guess that good scientific debate is an important part of science. My brother, who is a doctor, has said to me that......"There is no recognized danger in fructose. One serve of fruit 3 times a day is recommended. People who worry about such things also believe that living within a kilometer of a mobile phone tower gives you brain cancer, and that all natural products are good for you and so forth."

So who is right?

And as I said in my initial post on this, if I am proven wrong on this, I'll happily jump ship to the other side.

Regards

Stuart

[snas]

Trevor
I agree wholeheartedly re moderation!

Bert
In my post at 10.09 you'll see the comment from my brother re 3 serves of fruit a day. I suspect that that is a very reasonable amount of sugars to ingest. Personally I do not touch soft drinks because I just don't like them and whether there is any relationship between fructose and diabetes, high triglycerides and LDL's or not, I just wouldn't want that amount of sugar in my diet. The difficulty with nutrients like sugar and sodium is the difficulty of avoiding their "unseen" presence in almost all foods and therefore the difficulty in keeping your intake to an appropriate level.

Regards

Stuart

[snas]

This from Dr Steve Novella, neurosurgeon in the US, founding member of New England Skeptics Society. Does he have a "barrow" to push? Yes he does. His barrow is attempting to prove real vs pseudoscience. (note: not accusing anyone of pseudoscience in this debate)

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/high-fructose-corn-syrup-the-latest-nutritional-boogeyman/#more-568

In particular, note the following:

Simple chemistry helps put HFCS into some perspective. Table sugar is sucrose, which is a combination of fructose and glucose – two common simple sugars. Corn syrup is mainly glucose, but HFCS is manufactured to have about 50% fructose and 50% glucose – the same ratio as sucrose or table sugar.

There are metabolic differences between fructose and glucose. Often studies showing that pure fructose can alter sugar and fat metabolism are presented as evidence against HFCS, missing the point that the ratio of fructose to glucose in the American diet has not changed with the introduction of HFCS.

A recent review of the literature published in the Journal of Nutrition, regarding the association of HFCS and obesity, concluded:

The panel concluded that evidence from ecological studies linking HFCS consumption with rising BMI rates is unreliable. Unlike some prominent epidemiologists, the expert panel concluded that the evidence from epidemiologic studies and randomized controlled trials is inconclusive. They also noted that there were inadequate data available that distinguish between HFCS consumption and sucrose consumption with respect to weight gain. Further, they acknowledged that while the sweetener level and type have changed over time, the fructose:glucose ratio in the U.S. food supply has remained the same for 50 y. Finally, the panel concluded that HCFS did not contribute to weight gain any differently than other energy sources.

An interesting debate and unfortunately one that we mere mortals cannot conclusively put to bed.

However, I really think that these final two paragraphs of Steve's are the most pertinent:

The bottom line is that HFCS is sugar. It is high calorie and has no other nutritional value other than as fuel. It should be consumed, like all sugars, in moderation. People should be aware that HFCS = sugar, and not be confused by this on food labeling.

But we will not impact the rise in obesity by treating HFCS as the culprit, or by replacing it with other sugar-based sweeteners. We need more evidence-based public health measures to fight obesity – making healthy choices easier, making portion control easier, and disclosing calories on menus so that people know how many calories they are consuming. We don’t need boogeyman scare tactics.
Regards

Stuart

[adman]

The whole problem lies with the complexity of the problem. This is not something that the average layperson without some grounding in biochemistry and physiology can understand. But that is exactly who 99.9% (figure plucked unashamedly from mid-air :)) of people who are comsuming these foods are. I have a reasonable grounding in both biochemistry and physiology - but it is still not enough to tell me which of these groups to believe.

I guess I am going with my gut instinct on this - and I know that is not good science, but without doing further study, or conducting some of the research myself - its the best I've got. My gut instint is derived from the following:

Professor Lustig is one man with his considerable professional reputation and credibility on the line, and I am guessing that he would not use words like 'poison' lightly. The pathways that he laid out are well known, and he makes a good case for his claims. But again who is to tell who is right - but I think that over the course of time the evidence will come down on the side of Lustig and co.

The other big reason I believe he is right is that there are a lot of people making a lot of money out of fructose. Its big business. And reasons they use it is because it is cheaper, and the more they put in, the more people buy of their products. It is not because it is better for you, or does you no harm over the long or short terms. It is simply to make more money. Now, where someone is making a big pile of cash out of something, and they are telling us "its fine, this stuff is safe as houses" it sounds a little to much like the tobacco companies for my liking, and makes me wary.

Now, nowhere in any of the recommendations regarding fructose does anyone advocate stopping eating fruit. Lustig says that the good thing about fruit is that it comes packaged with fibre which acts to limit your intake and provides you with an essential nutrient (not quite the right word, but cant think of a better one...). Think about a glass of fruit juice - contains the fructose of about 8-10 oranges. Nobody is going to sit down and eat 8-10 oranges, but I have certainly had 2 glasses of juice before - 20 oranges worth.

As for the lady from the Skeptics Society - I don't really care whether she is a doctor or not. I know some pretty dodgy doctors - it is not automatically an indication of propriety or impartiality. The fact that she is a member of the Skeptics actually detracts from her credibility in my opinion. The Skeptics reason for existence is to doubt the claims of others - it says it right there on the tin! They need something to doubt, otherwise they are worthless.

She says that HFCS is 'not that high' and compares the percentages of various foodstuffs, such as apples to it. It is NOT about the percentages, it is about the actual quantities consumed. Nobody is eating 140lb of honey in a year (I hope) - but that is the quantity of fructose that westerners (and many other cultures) are getting.

Apples by the way are not 55% fructose. They contain only 10% carbohydrate, about 85% water and a few other bits like fibre etc. Of the 10% - say maximum half of that is fructose 5% (although looking up the actual figure - it was more like 1.5% by weight fructose). If you eat 3 apples a day say 100g each - gives somewhere between 5 and 15g fructose a day - about 1.5 to 5kg a year - a far cry from the totals that Lustig is talking about.

Adam

[snas]

Adam
I completely agree with almost everything you have said. And in particular your first line re complexity.
Two minor points though. Harriet Hall wasn't saying that apples contain 57% fructose, she was saying that the sugar content of apples is 57% fructose. She could have worded it better.
Also, the skeptics society is not out to prove everything wrong. They are out to prove, as far as is possible, real science over junk science. The people writing the blogs are only looking for truth, as compared to some of those who reply to the blog.

Regards

Stuart

[adman]

Another Skeptic I see ;).





Its not about the ratio - its about the absolute amounts consumed. I haven't seen any arguments that relate to the ratio of glucose:fructose as being the culprit



Yes - fructose is a sugar. However it is very clear that it is used by the body in very different ways to glucose. There is no debate about the mechanisms of it's metabolism - just whether these pathways are responsible for chronic disease.

Adam

[adman]

I guess I am just sceptical of the Skeptics :lol:

[avandonk]

I agree with snas. This has to be approached with the usual sceptical attitude that defines the scientific method.

The simple precis of this video is

Fat is bad as it leads to fatness or obesity

Flog the punters 99% fat free food.

Hold on fat tastes nice. Let's replace it with a cheap source of sugar!

Do not tell the punters that sugar turns into fat. It gets burned off by pressing the remote!

I do not know about anyone else but a 1kg pack of sugar lasts about one month or more at my place for tea and coffee even with lots of visitors.

Lustig is simply saying that on average each american consumes 140+ lbs of 'added hidden sugar ' more per year than natural food will give you. This is almost one kg per week! This is an average!

The point of differentiating fructose vs glucose was made to stop any simple denialist reaction. Such as 'it is natural'. So is tiger snake venom!

Without pointing out the vast food company names, as we all know who they are, I will just simply say that the original post was only to bring awareness to a problem that is very obvious anywhere you look in our 'advanced society'.

Only you and your doctor can really work out what you should do.

If you watch the video Lustig has a few simple rules for the overweight children he is treating.

Only drink water and pure milk.

Lots of fresh fruit and vegetables. Yes with fructose!

TV or internet time can only be earned by exercising for the same amount of time.

Sound sensible to me.

Excuse me while I go out and run around the backyard as my time has expired.


Bert

[gregbradley]

There is a similar industry wanting to expand its economics situation in the soy industry. In the US a successful ad campaign made many Americans believe drinking soy milk etc was good for their health. I see the same ad campaign here.

See this:

http://www.naturalnews.com/022630.html

Asians always ate fermented soy not unfermented. So you can't say its good for you because Asians are healthier and they eat soy whilst promoting unfermented soy.

Additionally Genetically Modified Soy is mentioned in this article. That is a whole topic in itself.

Greg.

[Barrykgerdes]

The "diet" industry is a multi billion dollar goldmine. All sorts of charletons want a piece of the action. All they need is a good catchy advertising campaign and a supply of gullible people.

The human digestive tract is capable of turning just about any fuel that contains carbohydrates into the energy required to live. The bodies bio system has a wealth of repair mechanisms that have been acquired as necessary or can be developed to combat all sorts of problems.

The ony way to get fat is to eat more than is required to sustain the system. Problems arise here from hereditary problems that were acquired to handle irregular diets that tend to store fuel in the body as fat to sustain the system in times of famine. Not everyone has this problem so some can eat as much as they like and not store fat. The surplus is just discharged as waste.

Sugar is just another carbohydrate that works great as fuel and if you let the body tell you by your palate you will know when you are eating too much of it.

Barry

[kinetic]

Barry,

just look at the advertisements in the right margin of the link Greg
posted :)

Thanks Bert for the original link too.....interesting stuff.
If this is all true...it would be bigger than....:D


Steve

[avandonk]

Barry I smoke a packet of White Ox a day and drink far too much beer. I always try to eat fresh food. Last time I went for a medical my numbers all looked very good. Not because of my lifestyle but in spite of it. Some of us are gifted genetically to be almost immune from the ravages of self abuse. The medico had never seen such a low cholesterol reading (3.2) with such a high ratio of good to bad. He suggested a second test as the result could be flawed. It was not. There is also very strong component that also contributes such as your environment whilst growing up. We are talking about diet and exercise here, not how nice your suburb was. Your mental attitude to life is also a major factor.

There is just no simple answer for all of us. The real point is, one should have control over what one eats and not be fooled by any unknown additive that makes our decisions as to what we eat almost meaningless.

Bert

[Barrykgerdes]

Hi Bert
Yes some of us had the right parentage. However when I was young there weren't a great deal of obese people (food rationing). But our meals were prepared in the old home cooked style without modern trimmings. We drank water out of the tap. Milk (unpasturised) that came in a can from real cows (with added water if the milkman was running low), etc. Sugar was rationed also but we always had plenty. three spoons in your tea (coffee was not drunk by refined people). Breakfast cereals drowned in milk and about three desert spoons of sugar.

We never had cars, walked everywhere played footy, cricket etc. Never did any homework because it interfered with recreation time. When we got to about 12/13 we were allowed to save up for a pushbike. I came off mine at speed many times never wore protective gear and only got grazes. This of course did terrible damage to clothes that resulted in punishment worse than the pain of grazes.

My cholesterol reading is 6.2 so the doctor makes me take some garbage. This I do to keep him happy. This drops it to 4.9 but I doubt if it is that important my parents never did anything about cholesterol and it probably helped cause their demise in their late nineties, like most of the rest of my relations. Only my great aunt made it past 100. She got to 104

I don't smoke and drink very little. But The money I save goes on other vices like telescopes, mounts, cameras etc.

Gee I do rave on. Maybe I do have brain damage.

Barry

[avandonk]

If you are doubting your sanity you are fine Barry!

The fondest memory I have of moving to Eltham in 1959 was that we used to get milk still warm straight from the cow just down the road. We used to pour it on our weetbix or make porridge. This practice is fine as long as the cow is healthy.

This milk was full cream and my mother used to take off the cream and make butter with it.

As time went on we had to make do with bottled milk.

The abomination now that passes for milk is the best we can get.

Bert

[Barrykgerdes]

a bit off topic but about street fooball. This was a game played in the street (up to a kilometer long) It was started about the middle and the idea was to kick the ball as far as possible and make your oponent chase it because he had to return the kick from there. Catching on the full gave you a three yard bonus. It was called "forcings back" The game would end if you got called to tea or ran out of street.

Barry

[Rob_K]

I'm having great difficulty keeping down the 1.23kg of snapper or 1.1 kg of tuna I need to eat every day to stay alive. Should I bail out and take 9 standard fish oil tablets, or the yummy spoonful of Omega 3 fish oil? This is obviously a life and death matter or it wouldn't be on the tellie - all advice gratefully received.

Cheers -

[Barrykgerdes]

I think the best solution is the spoonful of fish oil but make sure you have a spoonful of sugar to make the medicine go down!

Barry

[snas]

Bert

re your message as follows "The fondest memory I have of moving to Eltham in 1959 was that we used to get milk still warm straight from the cow just down the road. We used to pour it on our weetbix or make porridge. This practice is fine as long as the cow is healthy."

In 1990 and 1991 I went to work in England. (I am assuming that the Eltham you are talking about was the one in southeast London, although I have just discovered that there is one in Victoria too, so maybe that's where you grew up). I was working as a vet in Sidcup. I was called out to a "farm" in Eltham. The farm was several acres in size and had been much larger once. It belonged to a Dr Bush and his wife, the parents of Kate Bush. Mrs Bush (sorry, forgotten her first name) was almost a dead ringer for Kate.

I'd hate to think what several acres in Eltham in London would be worth.

regards

Stuart

[marki]

Makes sense to me. If your blood sugar levels are stable your body will not discard the excess energy source but will store it in a more compact form eg triglyerides or fat if you like. Much of the obesity problem we see stem from our own evolution. Some people are much better at storing fat than others and in times past this would have been an advantage during times of famine, the fat lived, the skinny died. Still the amount of extra sugar stuffed into many modern food stuffs is obscene and at the rate we consume the junk and generally sit on our RS's it is little wonder we are all getting on the heavy side. 1Kg of raw sugar would last 5 years here.


Mark

[avandonk]

Stuart it was Eltham Victoria Australia. I live there still. You should see what my block in Eltham is worth compared to what I paid for it in 1976. When I croak the house and observatory will be bulldozed and four or five tacky townhouses will be squeezed onto my corner block. Hopefully all my astro gear would have been removed.


Bert

[brian nordstrom]

:shrug: so a perfect ripe apricot , with natures Suger in her is bad for you ???
OUCH wrong ,, It is what they are feeding the trees that grow this fruit , that is the problem, ask the Chicken's ., Our 12 year old's are what ? ...
Ask the chicken farmers ...
Brian.

[adman]

Not in that form, no. It comes packaged with fibre and water and other micronutrients. In the form of a piece of fruit, it is almost impossible to take in too much fructose in one sitting. So don't stop eating fruit.

From an evolutionary perspective, humans would not have had access to a never-ending supply of fructose, but it is a very good source of energy, so our bodies became very efficient at extracting it from the foods we eat. Nowadays people are more or less drip-fed fructose from first thing in the morning to last thing at night, and it is possible that this is at least partly responsible for some long-term health issues.

Adam

[snas]

Sorry to bring up the sugar thing again, but I had a look on a packet of cornies and a packet of Special K. Kellogs advertises Special K as being "good for your waist line". So how come Special K contains twice as much sugar and twice as much fat as cornies???


Regards

Stuart

[RobF]

I'd have to back up most of what Adam has argued here. We've had a couple of plenary lectures on fructose and urate over the last few years at Australian clinical biochemistry conferences. People are complex systems so always difficult to isolate individual causative factors without lots of peer reviewed research. In general, glucose is the sugar our bodies can most effeciently burn. Every sucrose molecule however consists of one glucose and one fructose molecule. Metabolically our bodies can't do anything with fructose until its transformed in some way - that means a trip to the liver for a re-arrangement of the fructose or simply shunting it off to fat stores if your body already has plenty of energy. All this activity messes with other metabolic activities.

Anyway, enough gross generalisation - the issue these researchers are flagging is indeed the excess of fructose we consume in foods which are historically speaking unusually rich in fructose - fruit drinks, sugar in foods, HFCS in many processed foods (which also tend to include excessive salt levels to fight blandness).

I'm hungry talking about this. I wish I hadn't eaten the last of the ice-cream last night. :(

The French seem to have it pretty right actually - lots of walking to public transport or bikes, not afraid to eat stacks of yummy sweet things, but in moderation. I was amazed how few obese people I saw in the streets of Paris last year (excepting American tourists of course). It's surprising with all the yummy bread, patisseries, cheese and wine they gobble, albeit in moderation. There's hope for us food hedonists after all.