Posted on 04/03/2012 8:40:17 PM PDT by chessplayer
Sugar is a “toxin” that is killing the unwitting masses, according to an April 1, “60 Minutes” hosted by CNN’s chief medical correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta.
Gupta and all of the medical experts that he interviewed argued that sugar leads to heart disease, cancer (by leading to the creation of insulin, which cancer cells use to trigger their growth), and that sugar can actually be compared to certain drugs, like “cocaine,” in that it triggers the pleasure centers in the brain.
“New research coming out of some of America’s most respected institutions is starting to find that sugar, the way many people are eating it today, is a toxin,” Gupta said at the start of the segment.
Dr. Robert H. Lustig, MD, University of California San Francisco Professor of Pediatrics, was the primary expert in piece. Lustig told Gupta that he believes sugar should be treated the same way as tobacco and alcohol, substances which are still legal, but regulated.
“Ultimately, this is a public health crisis, and when there’s a public health crisis you have to do big things and you have to do them across the board. Tobacco and alcohol are perfect examples … I think that sugar belongs in this exact same wastebasket,” said Lustig.
A few additional points:
1. Instead of “OJ” (now sure what Lustig defines as Orange Juice.. there are many types of “OJ” i.e. orange juice, including concentrated ones) have an Orange —> the fruit itself.
2. The sugar found in the largest amount in oranges is sucrose. And, the 2nd largest amount of ‘natural’ sugar in oranges is Fructose, followed by slightly less Glucose.
3. Fructose (in fruit and by eating fruit) is absorbed more slowly into the bloodstream and doesn’t cause as rapid a fluctuation in blood sugar levels. IOW, it has a very low Glycemic Index (GI Index) - That can be a plus.
4. Fructose (’natural’ sugar) in fruit & by eating fruit, should not be used interchangeably or be confused with the much maligned high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS). The syrup sweetener comes from corn and is made up of 40 to 90 percent Fructose.
Nothing against Mr Lustig & his credentials, but these compounds & intakes need to be considered in context, and as part of a balanced dietary requirements, lifestyle & general health of an individual, which, in turn, can also vary from person to person.
Are you afraid of the answer?
So what if I don’t eat wheat and sugar.
I couldn't care less. Your diet; your problem.
It is my free choice.
I agree.
Interesting that you put it that way, though ... "fructose (etc) is POISON" rhetoric is that basis of the nanny-state effort to take away free choice.
While you can indeed die (eventually) from too much sugar, you can die a whole lot faster from the lack of sugar. Toxic? Get real. It is an essential food. They don’t call me an oxygen and sugar technician for nothing.
Man-made global warming is a myth. The obesity epidemic in the western world is not a myth. Anyone with a working set of eyes who gets out in public can determine that. Very likely the cause of the obesity epidemic is lack of exercise coupled with dietary changes that have taken place over the last 30 or so years. It’s not unreasonable to suspect that sugar intake plays a role in the overall equation.
In other words not everything the government or media say is a lie. Just much of it is.
I saw the piece. FWIW the “cancer” part of their argument was weak to the point of being bogus. But the “obesity” part of the argument I don’t think can be rejected out of hand.
>L A R D! And real open pit mesquite wood grilling.
Trans-fats, I embrace you! (about 3 times a year)...<
The lard sold in grocery stores has hydrogenated fat because they want to store it on shelves. Rendered pure lard, that must be refrigerated, is simple saturated fat. It is far less unhealthy than Crisco or margarine.
http://www.livestrong.com/article/365504-is-cooking-with-lard-healthy/
>Do you want to put a gun to my head (or have a government agent put his gun to my head) and try to force me to do the same?<
My diet is very close to SatinDoll’s. But, being a conservative that leans close to libertarianism, I will defend to the end your right to eat what you want, to drink alcohol (as long as you stay the heck of public roads) and to smoke legal substances.
That said, sugar is unhealthy in the amounts consumed by the average American and no amount of wishing will change that fact.
OK.
But, being a conservative that leans close to libertarianism, I will defend to the end
Good.
sugar is unhealthy in the amounts consumed by the average American
And whose problem is that? What (if anything) do you wish to do about it?
>And whose problem is that? What (if anything) do you wish to do about it? <
First, I take care of my family (I don’t bring junk food in the house - if they don’t see it they don’t eat it ;).
There is a very, very big difference in educating people and in legislating away rights. I favor education. Most low-carb people I know (and I’m on a list or 2) respect freedom unlike the low-fatters such as Mooshelle. We won’t even talk about militant vegetarian/vegans.
Huh? You said:
That would mean fruit and honey are really bad, unless you think there is a lot of fiber in honey.
everywhere you get Fructose in nature it is accompanied by Fiber, which is the only known antidote to Fructose
Antidote for fructose?......it's stuff like this that gives me headaches. This is crazy talk and you should stop. Fiber neutralizes the damaging effects? Crazy talk squared. Honey doesn't have fiber but people have been eating it for thousands of years.
I'd ask how fiber is able to forestall the toxic effects of fructose but I really don't want to know. It's all nuts, and Lustig is the nut king.
1) HFCS is apx 90% Fructose and only 10% Glucose
Huh? In what products? HFCS is commercialized in two formulas. One has 42% fructose and 55% glucose, while the other is 55% fructose and 45% glucose. This composition is almost identical to sucrose (table sugar).
2) only 20% of Glucose is metabolized by the liver leaving 80% for other processes
Huh? This makes no sense.
but 100% of Fructose is metabolized by the liver
So what? The liver easily converts fructose to glucose.
Only the liver can metabolize Fructose. Since the purpose of the human liver is convert glucose to glycogen, to produce bile to break down fats, and to filter foreign substances that can’t be metabolized by other processes, this is the basis for the assertion is Fructose is a toxin.
But the liver easily converts fructose to glucose. That being the case, it's clear that the liver was designed to to that very thing. Therefore, I don't have any idea what you're talking about.
He goes on to show that the average person is consuming 15% of his/her daily caloric intake from Fructose (particularly HFCS) as it is in all kinds of pre-prepared food, fast food and packaged ready-to-eat foods.
Fructose is also found in sucrose (table sugar). It accounts for 50% of the total make up of sugar. Does that mean that regular old sugar is also highly toxic? Since you can't explain how fiber negates the toxic impact of fructose, I'd say that Lustig has an agenda that has nothing to do with sound science.
The average person in America consumes over 140 lbs of sugar (glucose, fructose, sucrose et al) each year.
Again, so what? That consumption isn't all that much different than it was 40 years ago. Maybe our sedentary lifestyle has something to do with the problems you see?
There is a clear correlation between the increase in sugar intake and the increase in Cardiovascular and Metabolic diseases (diabetes, heart disease, and dislipidemia etc, where we know Diabetes leads to increased risk of heart attack and stroke
There is also a clear correlation between obesity and the maladies you cite. I trust you've heard the old adage about correlation and causation?
To me this is a clear link between sugar and the heart
Based on what, feelings? There is also a clear correlation between obesity and heart disease. There is also a clear correlation between family history of heart disease and heart disease. This statement of yours is ridiculous.
When “they” told us to reduce fat intake, the substitution of Fat for Sugar may have been seriously detrimental
One reason they told you to reduce fat intake is because fat offers more than twice the calories, per gram, as carbs and amino acids.
Its impossible really to burn calories.
Yet we do it every day through necessary metabolic processes and exercise. I can't imagine that Lustig would ever say something as silly as this.
He claims this is worse than the other two options in terms of creating and storing fat.
And people without any understanding of the subject eagerly purchase his books. In the meantime, rational people continue to understand that if you burn more energy than you consume, you will lose weight. Same as it ever was....
He claims Sugar and Ethanol both metabolize the same way, except that Ethanol has an effect on the brain (you get drunk) and sugar doesn’t.......He is really trying to compare Ethanol metabolisis to Fructose matabolisis.
Yeah, right. Lustig likes saying that fructose is ethanol without the buzz. He does claim that they are both metabolized in the same manner. That's idiocy. Ethanol and fructose utilize completely different pathways. Alcohol converts to acid aldehyde and then into acetyl CoA. To do so, an enzyme called alcohol dehydrogenase is employed. This enzyme doesn't even figure in fructose metabolization. The metabolization of fructose and ethanol are not similar at all. Prolonged excessive consumption of ethanol can lead to liver fibrosis. Fructose consumption will not lead to this kind of organ damage. Lustig is grasping at straws to promote some unknown agenda. It is boggling that anyone with a basic understanding of human nutrition would give any credibility to what he says.
Fructose is essentially not a carb but actually is essentially a fat
If Lustig said this then you need to run fast and far from this guy. You shouldn't be listening to anything the guy says. It's all crap.
I can’t shed these excess 30 lbs despite well over a year on a low cal diet, (I quit smoking 6 years ago, went from 190lbs to 240lbs on a 6 foot frame) if you have any special knowledge or expertise that disputes these issues I am interested to hear it.
I'm no weight loss expert but I do understand the first law of thermodynamics -- you cannot get something from nothing. Therefore, if you burn more energy than you consume, you will lose weight. You may have to fight a stubborn metabolism, but if you exercise more, and eat less, you should be able to eliminate that 30 lbs.
People want to believe that weight gain/loss is more complicated than it is. People selling diet advice have learned that others will pay for their books if they complicate the issue by demonizing one macronutrient over another or confuse the biochemistry and physiology like Lustig does. They learned a long time ago that simply telling people that they should burn more calories than they consume to lose weight is not the kind of advice people willingly pay for.
But as soon as it's made illegal your "defense" drops? That's hardly "to the end."
It's clear, the fiber jumps out of your gut and floats over to the liver and gives it a good scrubbing. Then it jumps back into your gut.
Thank goodness for Lustig!
That is what Lustig also claims, but not sure if Mase, who bitterly disagrees with his overall thesis, agrees.
“Diabetes runs on both sides in my family. I don’t need refined sugar, period, and I am allergic to wheat.
Get the idea NOW! I intend to LIVE, period, and don’t give a damn what anyone else does or doesn’t do.”
The point is, my dear, that other people are trying to control what we do as individuals. they are taking away our freedoms and your reply is to agree with them that sugar is bad. Well that isn’t the point. When you jump right in with a post telling us how sugar is bad, it in all actuality has nothing to do with the point.
The point of the article being here on FR has NOTHING to do with sugar or if it is bad for any particular individual, or if we “need” it or anything else.
I don’t actually think you get the point.
Where's the Colon Blow™ when you really need it?
That is what Lustig also claims, but not sure if Mase, who bitterly disagrees with his overall thesis, agrees.
Since both sucrose (cane sugar) and HFCS are made up of the same two chemicals (glucose and fructose), and appear in almost identical proportions, how is it that one can increase triglyceride levels while the other does not?
Lustig doesn't offer a "thesis." He offers junk science based on some personal agenda or incredible ignorance. Either way, we should refer to it as "crap."
Pretty much covers the entire argument.
But sometimes, that extra piece of fried chicken just cannot be left alone!
If you are interested in the actual explanation for why he claims, it is in that video I posted to above at around the 1:06:08 mark. Obviously I cannot do it justice the total explanation is in the 1:03:40-1:07:00 mark or so, so if you have 3 minutes to spare you can see the exact explanation, and more if you are so inclined.
However the jist of his claim is that when Glucose and Fructose are metabolized they turn, in part, to the Protein kinase JNK1. With Glucose, that protein breaks down to create, in part, Tyrosine IRS1. But with Fructose, JNK1 breaks down into Serine IRS1, which is an inactive agent (I assume these are amino acids by the descriptions).
Insofar as the LDL/vLDL, he claims that Fructose, at the 1:03:45 mark, through metabolisis breaks down into Xylose Phosphate, which breaks into at least 3 enzymes which stimulate novolipogenesis (new fat cell creation) which ultimately ends up packaged to vLDL creating dislipidemia. Again, it's his theory, if you can watch it for 3 minutes he can explain it better than I obviously.
Also, re-emphasizing my other point in #100: So, even though too much sugar is not good for us, the body seems to handle it better than HFCS.
Since both sucrose (cane sugar) and HFCS are made up of the same two chemicals (glucose and fructose), and appear in almost identical proportions, how is it that one can increase triglyceride levels while the other does not?
Firstly, to make it clear, it isn't my personal opinion, but what is claimed by various professionals (experts, researchers, etc..) in Australia too:
HFCS, is derived from highly processed corn, a starchy grain. The glucose yielded from the processing is further processed to produce a high percentage of fructose. HFCS has the same sweet taste as sucrose from cane sugar, but its production process is chemical-laden and much more complicated.
Sucrose (from cane sugar) is a 50-50 mix of glucose and fructose bound together tightly as a disaccharide. It must be broken apart in your digestive tract. HFCS, at minimum, is a 45-55 mix of glucose and fructose Not bound together. Each is a separate monosaccharide.
Why separate monosaccharide (not bounded together) make it worse? Because both are absorbed into your bloodstream more rapidly than when they need to be unbound in your digestive track. The fructose goes right to your liver where it is converted into triglycerides. Triglycerides are carried through your blood to fat cells for storage. Triglycerides contribute to inflammation and plaque build-up. If HFCS intake is reduced we'll also cut down on belly fat.
The glucose, meanwhile, spikes blood sugar and creates a rapid insulin response. Constant insulin spikes can lead to insulin resistance which is the basis of Type II Diabetes. During the insulin response the hormone Grehlin is suppressed. This is the hormone that signals the brain that you are full. No satiety signal, no need to stop eating..
Free fructose from HFCS (and not fructose found in fruit) steals ATP from your intestinal lining causing body-wide inflammation. Inflammation causes damage to artery walls. Cholesterol, produced in your own liver, is forced to repair this damage. The build-up of cholesterol in arteries is known as plaque. When plaque ruptures, it causes a blood clot. A blood clot in a coronary artery causes a heart attack. A blood clot in the brain causes a stroke.
In summary, HFCS spikes your blood sugar (diabetes), elevates your triglycerides (heart disease, body fat), causes inflammation (heart attack and stroke), and causes you to eat more (obesity). Regular sugar does all of this except cause body-wide inflammation, and it just doesn’t do it quite as rapidly.
Don't know if you're familiar with Princeton University Research? Two experiments were with Rats, but the results are interesting. Excerpts below:
Rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained significantly more weight than those with access to table sugar, even when their overall caloric intake was the same.
"Some people have claimed that high-fructose corn syrup is no different than other sweeteners when it comes to weight gain and obesity, but our results make it clear that this just isn't true, at least under the conditions of our tests," said psychology professor Bart Hoebel, who specializes in the neuroscience of appetite, weight and sugar addiction. "When rats are drinking high-fructose corn syrup at levels well below those in soda pop, they're becoming obese -- every single one, across the board. Even when rats are fed a high-fat diet, you don't see this; they don't all gain extra weight."
This creates a fascinating puzzle. The rats in the Princeton study became obese by drinking high-fructose corn syrup, but not by drinking sucrose. The critical differences in appetite, metabolism and gene expression that underlie this phenomenon are yet to be discovered, but may relate to the fact that excess fructose is being metabolized to produce fat, while glucose is largely being processed for energy or stored as a carbohydrate, called glycogen, in the liver and muscles.
So, I don't know.. but guess "moderation" as always is the other factor.
typo = not bounded together = not bound or bonded together
How long do you think it takes to "unbind" sucrose?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.