Robert Lustig, despite his considerable bona-fides, is an alarmist who uses hack science and a number of unsupported suppositions to make his (telegenic) points. When you call something like fructose 'toxic', you are doing the public a disservice.
It all depends on the amount. Water is toxic, beyond a certain intake level.
Sugar is a nutrient, provided that intake is within acceptable ranges. But most people in the West are eating way too much of it, due to lack of information, lack of will power, etc. When something causes heart disease and diabetes, what do you call it? "Healthy food"? Not at this intake level, no - it's become a toxin.
His contention is that it's as toxic as alcohol, although alcohol has immediate effect on the brain and therefore is more self-limiting. You can also check out his video where he goes through the biochemical pathways:
At one point, he asks what you call a substance that primarily gets metabolized in the liver and when presented in excess (not an extreme excess either), gets metabolized into products considered harmful to the body.
I should also note that every objection you make is unsupported and ad hominem ('alarmist', 'hack science'). If you want to counter his claim, point to a study where fructose is shown not to be correlated with the diseases in question. There are certainly a lot of studies as far back as the 50s that support his claims. I personally am on the hunt for well-controlled studies with reasonable duration (years to a decade) that involve sugar/fructose.
Fine, you're right. Let me de-hominenize. His claims are alarmist and the word toxic is unsupported by the available science and opens him up to claims of media-seeking hackery. He's probably on the right path in untangling the effects of the godawful modern diet but to single out a specific sugar and call for its regulation is still a big stretch.
Fructose in the diet must be metabolized by the liver, which creates excessive amounts of palmitic acid which induces fat to deposit in the liver which causes abnormal insulin response which leads to metabolic syndrome (an umbrella term including diabetes and obesity) which leads to poor personal health which means poor social health which means fructose is toxic.
The science available can support this: fructose in the diet is metabolized by the liver, which at some point of saturation (in animal studies, at outrageous levels of pure fructose intake) causes excessive creation of palmitic acid which is deposited into the liver as a fat. This liver fat is moderately to strongly implicated in abnormal insulin response which can progress to diabetes which is comorbid with obesity.
Thus, actual science is a long long long long way from ~Fructose is Toxic And Must Be Removed From The Foodstream~. There's also the problem of sucrose, which immediately decomposes into… drumroll… fructose and glucose.
Glucose in this story is beyond reproach - it is the foundation of animal life. Which means that the Fructose Is Toxic hypothesis needs to take into account sucrose consumption. Which his argument doesn't.
This guy isn't completely full of shit, and I don't think his heart is in the wrong place. But he's screaming fire in a very crowded theater.
You are imagining his explanation of the biochemical pathways is the sole supporting science. That's incorrect. There are many studies supporting the direct effects of sugar, including measured lipids in students who are asked to drink sugar-laden soda vs controls. Given the many studies, he gives his hypothesis on the pathways that contribute to metabolic syndrome. Full-blown diabetes does not have to be present for there to be bad effects. Studies on the effects of hyperinsulinemia and increased insulin receptors suggest a whole list of bad outcomes, including a cellular environment that fosters cancers.
He does not claim obesity is the main disease. It's another sequella of the underlying issue: excessive fructose metabolism.
Exactly. I wonder when we'll get the 'water is toxic' meme going. After all thousands of people have died from water over doses [1]. And what is worst, the younger people are the more likely they are to succumb. Think of the children!
Just to be clear, it seems you are advocating for regulation of alcohol using the same sorts of standards often applied to foods and consumer products in general.
Since sugar is already regulated in that way, I doubt that is what the author's meant, e.g. one must list sugar on the nutrition label of a packaged food, one cannot sell sugar as saccharin, etc.
At least in the US, government regulation of food and alcohol was a response to the (in)effectiveness of market-based self-regulation. You can certainly disagree on whether things were all that bad, or that the particular degree of, or programs of, our government regulations are not the best way to do it.
But it's not like government forced itself into this position on a whim. Society experienced the alternative to government regulation and decided it wasn't sufficient.
I disagree. Alcohol is claiming more and more lives from liver disease and throat and stomach cancer in the UK [1] and Ireland. It's not just drink driving that's a problem, but also the death toll from alcohol abuse over the long term which also places increasing pressure on health services.
>"Balance's figures found 189 hospital admissions for 30 to 34-year-olds"
Those people are adults, and the numbers of cases is so small that one might question its statistical significance.
Furthermore, what evidence is there that regulation would be a more effective way of dealing with the problem (if it exists) than alternatives such as education or public awareness campaigns?
While I dislike paternalism, I find pure libertarianism to be problematic as well, because it rationalizes away the fact that individuals have akrasia and/or ignorance in many areas of life.
>and the numbers of cases is so small that one might question its statistical significance.
You clearly miss the point. The fact is that liver disease is increasingly significantly in age groups it was not historically a problem in. This was widely reported in the UK last year, I may not have picked the best article.
The rate of occurrence may be increasing, but the rate at which persons are being diagnosed may also play a role, as may changes to the rates at which person's seek treatment.
In other words, a 32 year old with a beer belly might be more likely to be diagnosed based on a doctor's increased awareness, or may be more likely to be diagnosed because of more frequent visits to the doctor.
And even if those do not play a role, a case has not been made that special regulations with regard to alcohol are a better solution than other alternatives.
Just what society needs.. more fat controllers bossing everyone around for some arbitrary 'good'. Maybe some people prefer liver disease to sobriety. Maybe they should be allowed to drink themselves to death if they want? It is their choice. Let people take care of themselves and their loved ones, and let them suffer the consequences of their own actions, or be supported through hard times by their loved ones.
I would like a law that lets some people out of both welfare and laws that prevent a person from damaging themselves.
> Alcohol shouldn't be regulated, endangering others while intoxicated and other irresponsible acts should be.
Once a substance impairs your judgement, good luck "regulating" anything that may happen as a consequence. Regulation should intervene before reason flies out the window. Doing otherwise is illogical - just another ivory-tower, human-nature-ignorant, "liberty trumps everything" nonsense.
I believe that drunk drivers should not (in the typical case) lose their driving privileges when convicted of driving while intoxicated.
After all, they're not bad drivers (when sober), they're bad drinkers. That is to say they have demonstrated that not only are they unable to behave responsibly after using alcohol, but also that they are unable or unwilling to anticipate and plan for this inability before using.
Instead there should exist the concept of a "drinking license" that can be revoked if an inability to act responsibly with respect to alcohol is demonstrated. (We already have regulations and penalties to keep alcohol out of the hands of certain classes of people in the US, but currently we use an age threshold instead of a more sensible set of criteria -- it's far from airtight but is a decent balance of effectiveness versus intrusiveness).
"Acting responsibly" could include anything from "not committing a crime under the influence" to "not endangering one's health" to "not becoming dependent on welfare".
In principle this could be extended to other recreational drugs, beginning with cannabis and possibly extending to harder drugs.
Unfortunately some degree of damage to society will happen before it can be demonstrated before a judge that a person is acting irresponsibly, and even what's broadly agreed upon as "responsible use" of recreational drugs would cause some damage to the physical and mental health of some individuals. So some level of "sin tax" is probably still justified.
The problem is, they do that because people buy more of the product when it has sugar in it.
On the whole, I don't think pressuring the producers is going to get us anywhere. There may be specific cases where such pressure might work -- vegetable soup, perhaps -- but even then, that can only happen if enough consumers refuse to buy products containing gratuitous sugar.
No, I think educating the public is really the only strategy available to us. Even regulation and taxation, which could be beneficial, can't happen without a certain number of informed consumers pushing for it.
Educating the public will be hard as well. People lobby the government on behalf of sugar companies.
Stevia, a low calory, low GI sugar substitute was unavailable in the US until very recently because the sugar companies lobbied the FDA to classify it as a 'drug' or a supplement and needed to be tested ad nauseum before it became available. All this allowed sugar and sweetener companies to prolong the entrance of Stevia into the market and not hit their profits.
In addition to actually getting it classified as a drug, there is paid propaganda research out there saying that it is actually bad for you. Some handwaving arguement is presented without much evidence and a giant leap in order to frighten people.
When asked about dangers of stevia, this author says that it is dangerous, because it is not approved by the FDA. Hence, there is this vicious circle that even people who will seek out to educate themselves will come across these claims and perhaps continue to use sugar.
Educating the public against products of the giant companies is an uphill battle. I am Canadian and Canadian doctors and nutritionists chuckle at this "not approved by the FDA - hence bad" arguement about stevia, but I am sure that if we were a major sugar country that it would be the same here as well.
Well, some of that is happening already. As people become educated about healthy eating, they investigate the ingredients lists more for what they're buying (becoming more health-conscious), and rejecting bad foods - letting their money do the talking. But I agree that health education in the US is the pits, and is the key to turning it around.
It's good to watch his talk but keep in mind this is hyperbole and propaganda mixed in with science. He uses alarmist words to push his ideas which is pretty unscientific.
I agree that his word choice at points is unscientific, and that he no doubt has an agenda especially being Professor of Pediatrics. But I still feel it's a hugely informative talk in which the science greatly outweighs the sensationalism.
I appreciate your sarcasm, but there is a fine line between "regulations" (in terms of general public safety) and "free will". For example, you could smoke as many cigarettes as you want to, but is that in the interest of the general public?
Yeah, and caffeine is a drug, do you need a prescription for that. I have no doubt that some lobbying special interest group is behind this "research".
His reason for regulation is fructose acting very similarly to alcohol as far as reactions go. Be forewarned that video takes about 20-30 minutes to pick up. But he gets into cell biology of what fructose and sucrose do in cells.
Now does anyone have links to criticism that actually argues his points biologically? I can't help but agree that we eat too much sugar in our modern diets.
Why, the artificial sweetener industry, of course! In seriousness, there is surely a bunch of money to be made here, even if that isn't the objective of the researcher. Step one, declare that eating X will kill you. Step two, develop a book all about how not to eat X. Step three, profit. Note that there is no "..." step, because there are always people dumb enough to jump on the latest food craze.
The researchers propose regulations such as taxing all foods and drinks that include added sugar, banning sales in or near schools and placing age limits on purchases.
It's for the children, of course.
And for your own good, because you, yes you, are clearly irresponsible and can't think for yourself.
Funny ol' world where supposedly smart guys can't think of a better solution for a problem than to ask the government to step in.
> And for your own good, because you, yes you, are clearly irresponsible and can't think for yourself.
I really dislike a nanny state. But I also dislike a state where people don't take care of themselves and then clamor for better healthcare for their preventable diseases and expect the public to pay for it. Not sure what the answer is.
The guy in that talk is the principal investigator of the study. But it has nothing to do with HFCS in particular, and everything to do with added sugar in general. Sugar made from cane and beets is just as bad as HFCS.
>> Sugar made from cane and beets is just as bad as HFCS.
That is false.
Refined sugar (that is, sucrose) is made up of a molecule of the carbohydrate glucose, bonded to a molecule of the carbohydrate fructose — a 50-50 mixture of the two. The fructose, which is almost twice as sweet as glucose, is what distinguishes sugar from other carbohydrate-rich foods like bread or potatoes that break down upon digestion to glucose alone. The more fructose in a substance, the sweeter it will be. High-fructose corn syrup, as it is most commonly consumed, is 55 percent fructose, and the remaining 45 percent is nearly all glucose. It was first marketed in the late 1970s and was created to be indistinguishable from refined sugar when used in soft drinks. Because each of these sugars ends up as glucose and fructose in our guts, our bodies react the same way to both, and the physiological effects are identical. In a 2010 review of the relevant science, Luc Tappy, a researcher at the University of Lausanne in Switzerland who is considered by biochemists who study fructose to be the world’s foremost authority on the subject, said there was “not the single hint” that H.F.C.S. was more deleterious than other sources of sugar.
The fructose component of sugar and H.F.C.S. is metabolized primarily by the liver, while the glucose from sugar and starches is metabolized by every cell in the body. Consuming sugar (fructose and glucose) means more work for the liver than if you consumed the same number of calories of starch (glucose). And if you take that sugar in liquid form — soda or fruit juices — the fructose and glucose will hit the liver more quickly than if you consume them, say, in an apple (or several apples, to get what researchers would call the equivalent dose of sugar). The speed with which the liver has to do its work will also affect how it metabolizes the fructose and glucose.
I don't see anything in there which refutes the statement that refined sugar from cane and beets isn't significantly different to HFCS in terms of their effect.
Nor do I see anything offered that HFCS IS equivalent to sugar.
Substituting the random manufacturer chemical is what should go through safety tests; you shouldn't have to prove it's dangerous, it should have to prove it is safe.
Fructose is metabolized primarily in the liver. Glucose is metabolized through many other (supposedly less deleterious) processes. HFCS is primarily fructose. Refined sugar is a mix of about 50-50 fructose-glucose. Thus, refined sugar is significantly different that HFCS.
Because each of these sugars ends up as glucose and fructose in our guts, our bodies react the same way to both, and the physiological effects are identical.
I'm not sure you read this before you copied and pasted it. The sentence I've quoted specifically agrees with jganetsk's claim.
The bigger thing I remember from that video was that high fructose corn syrup and sugar weren't far of compositionally. That and how close fructose itself is to alcohol in its side effects.
In another similar "regulatory" move, taxes on cigarettes have been shown to be effective for reducing smoking in "new smokers" and young adults (18 - 24) but with almost no effect in other age groups:
Not too long ago a link was posted here regarding some research that suggested bodies that had been overweight will process foods differently to try to return to that weight, even after a person had lost weight via diet and exercise. The gist was that a person who was, say, 200 pounds and lost weight down to 160 pounds had to eat ~20% fewer calories to maintain that weight than someone who was at 160 without ever being overweight.
If that research is upheld upon further examination, then any policy which prevents young people from becoming obese in the first place would be perhaps the most promising way to obtain objective progress against societal obesity.
I'm not suggesting that taxes are the right way to go, but if taxes merely discourage the young from developing obesity, that's not a mark against it.
I find it hard to believe such ideas. It would mean that, somehow, a body that has not been overweight wastes 20% of its energy intake every day.
Moreover, if you subtract the energy loss that must take place due to the temperature difference between body and air, the muscle efficiency of such persons must be extremely more efficient.
Surely, evolutionary pressure must have been able to optimize that away?
I find it more likely to believe that people who become overweight tend to be less inclined to be active, and that that does not change when they do lose weight.
It's entirely possible the study had flaws, but the idea is not without evolutionary precedent. It's my understanding that some orangutans are similarly specialized to prioritize rebuilding fat stores, given an environment of intermittent plenty.
Idea was to have a sticker on each and every product, so you wouldn't have to check the back of products for kcal, sugar, fat etc, like so http://i.imgur.com/F8T7P.jpg
I highly recommend watching King Korn [1], a documentary about growing corn in the USA and the subsidies that come with it.
At one point, they make High Fructose Corn Syrup in their home kitchen - The chemicals involved and the process is mind blowing. It's amazing it's considered "food".
It's a simple basic hydrolysis of sucrose. If that scares you, I suggest you don't take vitamins either because that process would really freak you out.
To paraphrase one of the linked videos in this thread:
"fructose is a poison, but fruits package it together with its antidote: fiber"
The liver processes fructose quite well as long as it has a chance to do it slowly in small quantities. Fruit is bulky, which limits the amount you can eat in one sitting, and contains a good amount of fiber, which slows down its digestion.
Note that this is less true for modern fruits which are significantly sweeter and easier to eat than the fruits that our ancestors ate due to Mendellian selection.
It should be noted that in bread, sugar is mostly food for the yeast (and anyway there's very little of it; my bread recipes call for an oz of honey to two pounds of bread flour and a pound and a half of water). This is why using sugar substitutes is a bad idea--the yeast isn't on a diet.
I mean Oreos, which are chocolate cookies with shortening and sugar in the middle, taste fantastic too. But that doesn't mean we can eat them all the time and stay healthy.
The point was to show that one cannot simply "add fiber" to a candy bar and make it comparable to fruit. Their individual nutritional values are not correlated because they both have sugar. Nor would they be if fiber was added to the candy.
>You need fats to aid in the absorption of vitamins and minerals[1],
Would this hypothetical diet consist of only snicker's bars? Otherwise I don't understand the argument.
No, you're missing my point: I'm saying you should not remove all fats from your diet. As the linked article I provided suggests, you need fats in your diet.
And I did not suggest a hypothetical diet of only snicker's bars. Any healthy diet needs a balance of fats, fibers, minerals and vitamins.
Suggesting that all fats should be removed is not accurate. (And I'm simply providing information that you need fats in your diet.)
It wouldn't be healthy, but it would not be "toxic" the way the video describes.
But you'd have to add a lot of fibre. Take a third of a snickers bar. Now add enough fibre and filler to make it the size of an apple. Imagine eating 3 apples as a snack.
I guess the downvote means the answer is "Of course not", so fiber isn't the concern here. So, people here claim that sugar is bad except when it's in fruit, and the fiber in fruit doesn't make sugar good.
"Well, there go our traditions, and culture, and family values," libertarians proclaim. "How dare you infringing on my essential right to throw my sister-in-law on the funeral pyre after my brother dies?"
Sugar is as essential to the body's functioning as water and air.
Such a tax will not eliminate sweet foods. Basic uncontroversial economics is sufficient to know the result of such a tax will be that manufacturers will switch to saccharine, Aspartame and other synthesized sweeteners which are not so taxed. Whether their deleterious health effects are real or conspiracy theories and if real are more harmful over the long run than sugar I will leave to the curious reader's further research.
That's just flat out wrong. Sugar, as in sucrose, is not at all necessary for the body's functioning. Other sugars are used by the body, but they can easily be synthesized from fruits and vegetables.
