| Not all things labeled 'junk science' are junk. In this case, there is NO money in it for researchers or endocrinologists to OPPOSE sugar. The sugar lobby is huge and super powerful, and our chance of eliminating taxpayer subsidies for sugar are almost zero.
I understand the comments on this thread are almost 100% against this author, but he/they are basically correct. Sugar IS a mild poison because the fructose that is 50% of every 'table sugar' (sucrose) molecule is toxic in that form. It MUST be detoxified by our livers into other compounds, and human livers can only detoxify a certain amount of fructose per day (roughly 25-30 grams of fructose if you are a full grown adult in good health). Most of the world now eats two or three times that amount or more because sugar is so cheap, and thought to be harmless. Children have smaller livers and can only detoxify even smaller amounts than healthy adults.
Over time, the excess fructose damages our livers, leading to metabolic syndrome, diabetes, heart disease, and a host of other diseases. Type TWO diabetes used to be called 'adult onset diabetes', but it is now happening to younger and younger sugar addicts, even children.
Newt Gingrich took a beating after FL debates for even mentioning the possibility of someday eliminating the sugar subsidy, and that was after Newt's answer that the sugar lobby was too powerful and it would be almost impossible. [and he was right about that]
Sugar and Salt, white death, I use as little of both as possible.
I agree with you and want the sugar subsidy eliminated, along with all agricultural subsidies, but that is not relevant to regulating sugar. The federal government should put out the information and then let us decide. With lower taxes and less government, we would have more time to make informed decisions and more money to afford healthier foods. My family, including my children, eat only a very small amount of processed sugar. We buy almost nothing with added sugar, and we read labels very carefully when we do buy packaged food. I agree with your point on health. I just believe it is not the government’s place to regulate sugar for us - that is my job as a parent.
Because it's the main source of energy for our cells? Or because you don't understand biology and chemistry?
I noticed you cited Dr. Lustig, but as I pointed out in a previous post, his criticism of fructose was based on a limited study, with only a pediatric spectrum, for a relatively short time.
Here is a concise set of criticisms against Lustig’s histrionics:
That’s approximately one half of a glass of orange juice per day.
You make a more convincing case than the author does. Of course, you didn’t waste valuable words trying to impress anyone with your resume.
No one gets out alive
I have no problem eliminating the Sugar subsidiy.
However Education is greatly needed. I also have no problem if they required the Glycemic index be posted on processed foods.
Bread, Pasta, Starch are basically reduced to sugar in the body and are just as bad. I see people eat huge amounts of the above having no idea what they are doing to their body.
So Sugar is just part of the problem.
He also says that fructose is a toxin. It is not. The liver easily converts fructose to glucose. Of course, if you overwhelm the body with anything, bad things can happen.
Anyone with Lustig's background should know better than to promote the silliness he does, but there it is. He has an agenda, but I have no idea what it is. Who cares. If you're going to demonize sugar of any kind, you should probably find a source who knows what he's talking about.
Your entire post ignores the crux of the issue:
It is the domain of the individual to choose one’s food, not that of the state. The Utopian fantasy that all will be slim, beautiful, and obedient will have us all forming long lines outside the main gate to the camp. Don’t be fooled.
I prefer to have the choice as to what goes on my plate and into my mouth. That’s the essence of Liberty.
But the issue here isn't whether sugar is good for us or not. It is whether, being bad for us, the government has the obligation -- or even the right, for that matter -- to regulate it. We are grown people. We can make our own decisions as to what we will eat and in what quantities. We don't need a nanny state telling us how to behave.
Thanks for that info. I will try to learn more.
As someone else has probably already explained, we are not questioning the science, just mocking the call for more government. Like the use of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs, I would prefer that people be allowed to make their own decisions and, if they chose to poison themselves, suffer the consequences thereof without sticking me with bill. Private insurance companies can work that out. Government does not need to be involved in regulation or in paying for bad habits.
I certainly appreciate your information, and I am all for voluntarily educating people about the dangers of sugar. Or alcohol or riding a motorcycle without a helmet. I would never ride a bike without a helmet, but I oppose laws that require helmets.