Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

‘60 Minutes’ Attacks Sugar as Toxic, Like ‘Cocaine’
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mike-ciandella/2012/04/03/60-minutes-attacks-sugar-toxic-cocaine ^

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.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: drugs; drugwar; sourcetitlenoturl; warondrugs; wod; wodlist; wosd
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-126 last
To: monkeyshine

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.


101 posted on 04/05/2012 4:49:05 AM PDT by odds
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll
Take your true and false question and ram it you know where.

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.

102 posted on 04/05/2012 5:37:39 AM PDT by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

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.


103 posted on 04/05/2012 5:41:34 AM PDT by tioga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

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.


104 posted on 04/05/2012 5:49:12 AM PDT by 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

>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/


105 posted on 04/05/2012 5:51:08 AM PDT by Darnright ("I don't trust liberals, I trust conservatives." - Lucius Annaeus Seneca)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ArrogantBustard; SatinDoll

>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.


106 posted on 04/05/2012 5:59:58 AM PDT by Darnright ("I don't trust liberals, I trust conservatives." - Lucius Annaeus Seneca)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Darnright
My diet is very close to SatinDoll’s.

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?

107 posted on 04/05/2012 6:15:25 AM PDT by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: ArrogantBustard

>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.


108 posted on 04/05/2012 6:25:28 AM PDT by Darnright ("I don't trust liberals, I trust conservatives." - Lucius Annaeus Seneca)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: monkeyshine
I never said that fruit and honey were bad.

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.

109 posted on 04/05/2012 8:15:10 AM PDT by Mase (Save me from the people who would save me from myself!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Darnright
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.

But as soon as it's made illegal your "defense" drops? That's hardly "to the end."

110 posted on 04/05/2012 12:49:15 PM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Mase
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.

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!

111 posted on 04/05/2012 5:11:37 PM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Math is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: odds; Mase
HFCS is not widely used in Australia and in for example soft drinks. Instead we use cane sugar - here it is thought that when the body turns HFCS into energy, it creates too-high levels of the unhealthy triglyceride fats in the process.

That is what Lustig also claims, but not sure if Mase, who bitterly disagrees with his overall thesis, agrees.

112 posted on 04/05/2012 5:47:53 PM PDT by monkeyshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

“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.


113 posted on 04/05/2012 8:33:33 PM PDT by Nik Naym (It's not my fault... I have compulsive smartass disorder.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
LOL! Who new fiber was so versatile? All those poor folks suffering from liver disease must not be aware that they can cure themselves simply by eating a higher fiber diet.

Where's the Colon Blow™ when you really need it?

114 posted on 04/06/2012 8:32:42 AM PDT by Mase (Save me from the people who would save me from myself!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: monkeyshine; odds

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."

115 posted on 04/06/2012 8:41:17 AM PDT by Mase (Save me from the people who would save me from myself!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Mase
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.

Pretty much covers the entire argument.

But sometimes, that extra piece of fried chicken just cannot be left alone!

116 posted on 04/06/2012 8:42:21 AM PDT by going hot (Happiness is a momma deuce)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Mase; odd
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?

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.

117 posted on 04/06/2012 12:11:01 PM PDT by monkeyshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Mase; monkeyshine
As for general diet & exercise, I agree with you: "they (people) should burn more calories than they consume to lose weight".

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.

118 posted on 04/06/2012 7:13:01 PM PDT by odds
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

typo = not bounded together = not bound or bonded together


119 posted on 04/07/2012 12:00:17 AM PDT by odds
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: odds
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.

How long do you think it takes to "unbind" sucrose?

120 posted on 04/07/2012 8:25:15 AM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Math is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: odds

But your body handles hydrolyzed sucrose (sugar) and HFCS in the same manner. Your body doesn't know the source of the fructose and glucose nor does it care.

HFCS has the same sweet taste as sucrose from cane sugar, but its production process is chemical-laden and much more complicated.

Chemical laden? LOL!

The end result is glucose and fructose. Unless you think the glucose and fructose in sucrose is somehow different than the glucose and fructose in HFCS?

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

You forgot the formula of HFCS, used mostly in processed food and baking, that is 42% fructose and 55% glucose. Is this version of HFCS better for our health than regular old table sugar that is a 50-50 split?

Because both are absorbed into your bloodstream more rapidly than when they need to be unbound in your digestive track.

How much more rapidly? I ask because the glycemic index for sucrose and HFCS fall into the same range (55~60). It is also a fact that the satiety profiles of sucrose and HFCS are the same. I'd be happy to link you to the studies that make this clear.

The fructose goes right to your liver where it is converted into triglycerides.

And for decades our institutions of higher learning have taught that the liver converts fructose to glucose.....the things one can learn on FR.

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.

Really? Then I suppose you can offer up a study that shows us how the consumption of caffeine also leads to Type II diabetes. Since caffeine consumption stimulates the release of insulin, it shouldn't be a problem for you to show us the studies that implicate caffeine consumption in causing insulin resistance and Type II diabetes. Or, you might just be wrong.

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.

Is that right? How is it then, that the satiety profiles of sucrose and HFCS are the nearly identical?

Free fructose from HFCS (and not fructose found in fruit) steals ATP from your intestinal lining causing body-wide inflammation.

This is quality nonsense....and incredibly wrong.

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.

No wonder you think sugar/HFCS is just like cocaine and needs to be regulated. You are extremely confused about biochemistry, human nutrition and human physiology. According to your sources, we should be a nation of disease ridden invalids. Instead, we're living longer and healthier lives than at any other time in our history. You need new sources...or at least one that understands that glucose and fructose from hydrolyzed sugar is managed no differently by your body than glucose and fructose from HFCS.

As for your Princeton study.......that's the kind of nonsense you end up with when a Professor of Psychology runs an experiment that should have been left to the biochemistry department.

The Princeton study is rife with problems. First of all, ad libitum feeding is notoriously unreliable for ensuring same calories consumed. The authors also don't seem to be concerned with the inherent unreliability of rat studies translating to humans.

The researchers found that rats fed HFCS for 12 hours a day gained more weight. That being the case, why didn’t the rats fed HFCS for 24 hours also gain more weight? They were fed HFCS for a full 12 hours more, yet didn’t gain any more weight than the rats fed HFCS for 12 hours. This is a serious inconsistency in the results that the researchers could never explain away.

When converting the rat intakes of HFCS to human proportions, the calories gained from high fructose corn syrup would be equivalent to about 3000 kcal/day from that one single source. To compare, adult humans consume about 2,000 calories per day from all dietary sources. The rat intakes in this study would be equivalent to a human drinking a total of 20 cans of 12 ounce sodas per day. How many people do you know that drink 20 cans of soda per day? If you overwhelm the body with anything, bad things can happen. People die from drinking too much water, after all.

The Princeton findings were attractive to those who care little for the truth and only want to create alarm. It also plays well to the agenda of those who demonize a particular food ingredient without any knowledge of food science or nutrition. But, best of all, research like this creates enough concern that the fedgov makes money flow to the authors so that this "problem" can be studied further. That's exactly what's going on here. Junk science, fear creation, and the subsequent money grabbing that can make a professor's life so much more comfortable in the world of academia. There are rats both inside and outside of the cages.

121 posted on 04/07/2012 11:45:32 AM PDT by Mase (Save me from the people who would save me from myself!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Mase
As I said in #118, the summary there is not my opinion, but the position that various health professionals, researchers, medical doctors, nutritionists, and biochemists take, not only in Australia, but also some in the US too.

As it is stated in the link (#118), the Princeton research was a joint effort by Princeton Department of Psychology & the Princeton Neuroscience Institute - the results were published in the journal Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior. Bart Hoebel is a psychology professor, who specializes in the neuroscience of appetite, weight and sugar addiction.

However, you speak with distinct personal authority on these subjects, so would be interested to know your profession, specialties, credentials, and any related experiments and/or research you've conducted, perhaps the ones that have been published in bona fide medical journals?

Did you offer your expertise & 'formal', or even 'informal' critique of the Princeton research to the people who conducted the experiments, or those who published the results? Did you discuss it? What was the outcome?

Since you also offered, why don't you provide links to some of those studies that support your claims & points that you pose as questions?

No wonder you think sugar/HFCS is just like cocaine and needs to be regulated.

Really?! Can you quote where I said that?

Personally, I'd welcome those who have proven expertise in certain areas, want to impart knowledge or be critical of others work or findings in a professional manner. After all, there is still much to be discovered, shared & learned. But the tone in your post is derogatory & your response comes across as not only obviously dismissive, but also politically motivated.

Interesting that, for the most part in this thread, you've consistently accused others, whose position is different to yours, of having an agenda or being nuts.

122 posted on 04/07/2012 4:52:07 PM PDT by odds
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Mase
P.S. -

According to your sources, we should be a nation of disease ridden invalids.

Not "disease ridden invalids", but the focus is on "obesity", and it wasn't "my" sources, but your own in the US. Had you read the link in #118, you would've noticed this:

In the 40 years since the introduction of high-fructose corn syrup as a cost-effective sweetener in the American diet, rates of obesity in the U.S. have skyrocketed, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In 1970, around 15 percent of the U.S. population met the definition for obesity; today, roughly one-third of the American adults are considered obese, the CDC reported. High-fructose corn syrup is found in a wide range of foods and beverages, including fruit juice, soda, cereal, bread, yogurt, ketchup and mayonnaise. On average, Americans consume 60 pounds of the sweetener per person every year.

There are many articles you can find on the web, written by various American health professionals, who make similar claims based on percentages.

I travel regularly to the US since my husband is American and we've family in different parts of the US. So, even by simply looking around, we see many more "obese" people in the US than we see in Australia. Whether it is solely due to HFCS intake or not, I don't know, but, comparatively speaking, it is very obvious.

123 posted on 04/07/2012 5:58:29 PM PDT by odds
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: odds
As I said in #118, the summary there is not my opinion, but the position that various health professionals, researchers, medical doctors, nutritionists, and biochemists take

Normally, when quoting someone else, one would place quotation marks around the quotes, or post the words in italics. If these weren't your words then I think it is safe to say that you agree with the summary.

As it is stated in the link (#118), the Princeton research was a joint effort by Princeton Department of Psychology & the Princeton Neuroscience Institute - the results were published in the journal Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior.

Thanks.

Bart Hoebel is a psychology professor, who specializes in the neuroscience of appetite, weight and sugar addiction.

Too bad ol Bart can't explain why the rats fed HFCS for 24 hours didn't gain more weight like the ones fed HFCS for 12 hours. You'd think that being fed HFCS for a full 12 hours more, that they'd gain more weight than the rats fed HFCS for 12 hours. They didn't. So much for his conclusion.

I also see where ol Bart never bothered to explain why he was feeding rats the human equivalent of drinking a total of 20 cans of 12 ounce sodas per day. Forcing lab animals to consume quantities of an ingredient that has no relationship whatsoever to real world human consumption is a problem, don't you think? If you overwhelm the body with anything, bad stuff will happen. Research scientists are guilty of doing this far too often....but they get the desired result and the grant money continues to flow. Absurdity and wretchedness it is.

....research you've conducted, perhaps the ones that have been published in bona fide medical journals?

I need to be published in "bona fide" (LOL) medical journals to be able to point out the fallacies in Bart's research and the obvious and inherent problems with rat studies translating to humans? Only published scientists have enough grasp of food science to know that glucose and fructose from sucrose is no different than glucose and fructose from HFCS? Lustig is an idiot for claiming that ethanol is a carbohydrate and that fructose is metabolized in a similar manner. Anyone who buys what he's selling, when he can't even get this right, is also an idiot. Good grief.

Since you also offered, why don't you provide links to some of those studies that support your claims & points that you pose as questions?

You'd think someone interested in learning the truth about HFCS would be able to search for this information on their own. But that's the thing about dealing with a fixed mentality. You aren't interested in anything that takes issue with your fixed view on the subject. Someone with impressive credentials, and who sounded highly technical, said things you agree with so it must be true.

Even though it won't do any good, here are a couple of references you should probably consider. They certainly don't support Lustig, or any of the other posters who blindly agree with him, but here they are.

Sugars and satiety: does the type of sweetener make a difference?

Really?! Can you quote where I said that?

Yeah, really. Here's what you said in a previous post:

Sounds pretty grim. Sugar/HFCS is clearly deleterious to our health. Just look at all the afflictions these evil sweeteners are inflicting mankind! Heart attacks and strokes, obesity and diabetes, body wide inflammation.....someone should be regulating something so dangerous, don't you think?

Or, you could just be buying into what you want to believe, either because you want to believe it's true, or because you don't understand much about human nutrition. Either way, it's unfortunate.

I'm dismissive of people who come to the forum and offer their opinions as facts when they don't even understand the information they've accepted as articles of faith. Making broad pronouncements about anything, when you don't even have a rudimentary understanding of the subject, can sometimes be aggravating for those of us who actually took the time to learn it. Junk science is alive and well today because people willingly accept crap as truth as long as the charlatan appears to know what he's talking about. Allowing the alarmists to dictate reality is why we have a power hungry nanny state that is eager to tell us what we can and cannot do. Michelle Obama is counting on folks like you. Grant desperate junk scientists are counting on you. They have an agenda and it kills me to see that they have so many useful folks willing to assist them.

I think Michelle Obama, CSPI, the food Nazis and the nanny statists are nuts. I also think anyone who stands with them is nuts. But then again, I'm a conservative.

124 posted on 04/08/2012 8:37:56 PM PDT by Mase (Save me from the people who would save me from myself!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: odds
Obesity in this country is a problem just like it is in countries where they use no HFCS (England/Mexico). Rates of obesity have skyrocketed because we've become a sedentary society. Trying to blame it on a sweetener we've used for thousands of years (honey), that is essentially the same as HFCS, is nuts. It's also nuts trying to blame it on fructose when many countries that use little fructose in their diets are experiencing similar problems with obesity, insulin resistance and diabetes.

It doesn't require much in the way of critical thinking skills to realize that anyone trying to blame a food ingredient for the obesity epidemic is grasping at straws either because they're stupid or because they have an agenda.

Now, if you want to talk about the potential dangers of reactive carbonyls found in HFCS, then I'm all ears because it is a legitimate concern. But that's not the kind of conversation I expect from people who think fructose is a poison that can only be stopped by fiber, or that fructose destroys ATP in the gut....or whatever the hell that nonsense was. That's all crazy talk and it should be pointed out by those of us who support legitimate science. The HFCS issue gets discussed often on the forum and it is always a wonder to hear what the alarmists have come up with to be afraid of next....or what the food Nazis are blaming obesity and diabetes on now, so they can turn us in to good little collectivists. No thanks.

125 posted on 04/08/2012 8:51:32 PM PDT by Mase (Save me from the people who would save me from myself!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Mase

Just my observation that it seems you don’t fully read what is written, choose/quote bits even from the same sentence or paragraph that you want to hone in on out of (overall) context, and also make huge assumptions. Don’t have the time to go through every part of your posts, but below are 2 examples.

When it is stated upfront, and before the summary: “Firstly, to make it clear, it isn’t my personal opinion, but what is claimed by various professionals (experts, researchers, etc..) in Australia” - it means just that. It should be sufficient to understand what I mean.

Equally, even if the following: — “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.” — was my opinion, it is too weird for you to conclude that I meant or think “sugar/HFCS is just like cocaine and needs to be regulated.”! That’s quite an assumption on your part.

If you want to know my opinion, then ask! Alternatively, you could’ve read my posts in this thread, including the ones to you, where I have said that exercise, lifestyle, a balanced diet, moderation, and general health of an individual are important factors. In fact I’ve used the word “moderation” several times in this thread.

My personal views: I am not in favour of TOO MUCH Sugar or TOO MUCH HFCS intake. Nor am I in favour of eating TOO MUCH fat. Emphasis on TOO MUCH. I am COMPLETELY against Cocaine. There lies the difference in what I think about Cocaine versus Sugar or even HFCS.

Furthermore, I fully realise that HFCS, Sugar & Fat are not necessarily the cause of obesity, all or most ailments, but, in excess, can be strong contributors.

As for Mrs Obama, am not a fan, and have had an overdose of hearing about her and her adventures regarding health and other stuff, and I don’t even live in the US.

I am also well aware of the politics of it all, particularly the US gov’t sugar tariffs and quotas starting in 1970s, hence cheaper alternative HFCS, and that the price of corn is kept low through US gov’t subsidies paid to growers, in turn, making it attractive for the food & beverage industry as well as the Corn Refiners Association to push HFCS instead of sugar. So, I don’t think Mrs Obama will attempt to ban HFCS, no worries there for those concerned about her activities. It is also my understanding that the mentioned Association and Industry fund a fair bit of research on HFCS ... have a very strong PR presence in the US, have professional associations w/ some physicians, health professionals, researchers, and “Junk Scientists”, etc.. and lobby hard. Not drawing any conclusions, simply indicating my understanding of related economics & politics.

Thanks for the link. I am familiar with that one, as well as more recent research done in the area. Here is one for you:

“Two Common Sweeteners Have Different Effects On the Body, Study Suggests” (published January 23, 2012)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120123175707.htm

Have a good night.


126 posted on 04/08/2012 11:52:26 PM PDT by odds
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-126 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson