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