Go Back   IceInSpace > General Astronomy > Astronomy and Amateur Science

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
  #1  
Old 13-01-2012, 08:50 AM
avandonk's Avatar
avandonk
avandonk

avandonk is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 4,786
Sugar: the Bitter Truth

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
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 13-01-2012, 09:11 AM
jjjnettie's Avatar
jjjnettie (Jeanette)
Registered User

jjjnettie is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Gladstone
Posts: 16,730
Cheers Bert.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 13-01-2012, 10:36 AM
Mick's Avatar
Mick (Michael)
11

Mick is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Oz
Posts: 1,077
Bert,

Thanks for posting this link.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 13-01-2012, 11:04 AM
Lester's Avatar
Lester
Registered User

Lester is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: E.P. S.A.
Posts: 4,963
Thanks Bert. Very interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 13-01-2012, 11:25 AM
traveller's Avatar
traveller (Bo)
Not enough time and money

traveller is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2,127
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 .
Cheers,
Bo
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 13-01-2012, 11:39 AM
adman (Adam)
Seriously Amateur

adman is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,279
yep sugar is not good - especially fructose
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 13-01-2012, 02:15 PM
michaellxv's Avatar
michaellxv (Michael)
Registered User

michaellxv is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 1,578
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.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 13-01-2012, 08:26 PM
Shiraz's Avatar
Shiraz (Ray)
Registered User

Shiraz is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: ardrossan south australia
Posts: 4,822
thanks Bert - most useful post. Regards Ray
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 14-01-2012, 06:35 AM
Barrykgerdes
Registered User

Barrykgerdes is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Beaumont Hills NSW
Posts: 2,900
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

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.

Barry

PS I do get regular medicals and a blood test every 6 months
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 14-01-2012, 07:26 AM
snas's Avatar
snas (Stuart)
Registered User

snas is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: wellington point
Posts: 131
Here is some information from a reputable source.

http://www.nutritionaustralia.org/na...tions/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
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 14-01-2012, 11:43 AM
Shiraz's Avatar
Shiraz (Ray)
Registered User

Shiraz is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: ardrossan south australia
Posts: 4,822
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

Last edited by Shiraz; 14-01-2012 at 02:13 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 14-01-2012, 02:55 PM
adman (Adam)
Seriously Amateur

adman is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,279
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by snas View Post
Here is some information from a reputable source.

http://www.nutritionaustralia.org/na...tions/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
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 14-01-2012, 08:46 PM
gregbradley's Avatar
gregbradley
Registered User

gregbradley is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 16,411
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.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 14-01-2012, 10:06 PM
avandonk's Avatar
avandonk
avandonk

avandonk is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 4,786
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
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 14-01-2012, 10:21 PM
TrevorW
Registered User

TrevorW is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 7,122
Everything in moderatrion is OK, excess is the killer
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 14-01-2012, 11:19 PM
adman (Adam)
Seriously Amateur

adman is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,279
Quote:
Originally Posted by snas View Post
This does not prove that Dr Lustig is a quack, although his association with an institution of integrative medicine raises concerns.
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
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 15-01-2012, 10:09 AM
snas's Avatar
snas (Stuart)
Registered User

snas is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: wellington point
Posts: 131
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
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 15-01-2012, 10:21 AM
snas's Avatar
snas (Stuart)
Registered User

snas is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: wellington point
Posts: 131
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
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 15-01-2012, 10:51 AM
snas's Avatar
snas (Stuart)
Registered User

snas is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: wellington point
Posts: 131
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/i...yman/#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
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 15-01-2012, 11:33 AM
adman (Adam)
Seriously Amateur

adman is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,279
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
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 04:01 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement
Testar
Advertisement
Limpet Controller
Advertisement
NexDome Observatories
Advertisement
Astronomy and Electronics Centre
Advertisement