Sugar: The Bitter Truth

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: KingGheedora
That ridiculous. How can this Dr. Kennedy NOT be on the cereal company's payroll? I can't believe a doctor would actually say that. This is what's wrong with the US. I like to think that people are too smart to fall for this but sadly there are those out there who will. This is so blatantly a marketing ploy.

Never underestimate the stupidity of people. And Doctor's are people too. There is a decent chance Dr. Kennedy and others like her actually believe the harmful crap they spew.

And I was one of those people who thought natural sugar was a better alternative to HFCS before watching this video. Now I know better, not because the horrible things said about HFCS weren't true, but because they go for natural sugar as well.

 

[StageLeft]

Thanks, i may check this out. Fructose, like artificial sweeteners, are something i rely on but wish i didn't

 

[JellyBaby]

Good to see a full thread on this subject. It?s funny, I used to drink a ton of soda and blew off the organic section of the grocery store. Now, my nutrition plan changed as a result of watching this and reading some other material. I stopped buying foods high in sugar and take in much more fiber now.

The diet change combined with about 1 to 1.5 hours of moderate exercise each day literally changed the way I feel. What?s really interesting is that I NEVER used to be a morning person. I was always tired, cranky and hated mornings. Now I wake up before the alarm and I?m alert and ready to go eat breakfast (which I always blew off too, now I eat one everyday, no exceptions as I find I eat less throughout the rest of the day not to mention it helps get the blood sugar balance off to a good start).

My only regret is not knowing about all of this sooner.

 

[JellyBaby]

Anybody care to link me to one of these HFCS studies? All I am aware of is an association with obesity, not a specific biological mechanism _unique_ to HFCS AND obesity/weight gain. The entire argument that fructose bypasses satiety mechanisms is interesting, but not particularly enlightening.

The fructose research is very new with some of the more detailed studies coming out as late as 2007. More are on the way. The UCSF team already launched a more in-depth study on HFCS specifically because there certainly is enough concern to warrant further discovery.

The key point to all of this is our diet changed for the worse with higher fat, higher glycemic index, more fructose, less fiber and less dairy products. The result is obesity and consequently all the nasty ill-effects with heart disease, diabetes, and so forth.

In particular, sugar sweetened drinks seem to account for much of the problem. One can of soda is 150 calories with up to 50g of sugar. Drink a can a day for a year and that adds 15 pounds to your gut alone.

 

[Kipper]

Originally posted by: JellyBaby

The fructose research is very new with some of the more detailed studies coming out as late as 2007. More are on the way. The UCSF team already launched a more in-depth study on HFCS specifically because there certainly is enough concern to warrant further discovery.

The key point to all of this is our diet changed for the worse with higher fat, higher glycemic index, more fructose, less fiber and less dairy products. The result is obesity and consequently all the nasty ill-effects with heart disease, diabetes, and so forth.

In particular, sugar sweetened drinks seem to account for much of the problem. One can of soda is 150 calories with up to 50g of sugar. Drink a can a day for a year and that adds 15 pounds to your gut alone.

Then the elephant in the room is calories, not HFCS - which is ALWAYS what the problem has been. I believe we would face the same public health problem irrespective of whatever sweetener you put in the products - HFCS, "evaporated cane juice," (that one still cracks me up) molasses, honey, brown sugar, whatever.

This fixation on a single ingredient in many foods is typical of modern nutrition research - we try to micromanage ingredients instead of looking at the big picture, which is that people are eating too much. The fructose may contribute to obesity, but when people are favoring energy-dense foods in general, how much of a difference does one sweetener make?

It's just like the obsession with trans-fat. Sure, trans-fat is bad but the replacement is liable to be just as bad and the bans don't really accomplish much to solve the bigger problem of heart disease. For all the energy, money, and political capital legislators and public health officials expend over trans-fat bans, it would be far easier to implement any one of a dozen different public health initiatives that would arguably do the same thing.

Don't get me wrong, I'm open to the position that HFCS and its ilk may be a problem - but I just think there are bigger fish to fry.

 

[JellyBaby]

That's fair and why I wrote the second paragraph. I agree it's best to focus on our diet problem as whole.

 

[KingGheedora]

Originally posted by: Kipper

Originally posted by: JellyBaby

The fructose research is very new with some of the more detailed studies coming out as late as 2007. More are on the way. The UCSF team already launched a more in-depth study on HFCS specifically because there certainly is enough concern to warrant further discovery.

The key point to all of this is our diet changed for the worse with higher fat, higher glycemic index, more fructose, less fiber and less dairy products. The result is obesity and consequently all the nasty ill-effects with heart disease, diabetes, and so forth.

In particular, sugar sweetened drinks seem to account for much of the problem. One can of soda is 150 calories with up to 50g of sugar. Drink a can a day for a year and that adds 15 pounds to your gut alone.

Then the elephant in the room is calories, not HFCS - which is ALWAYS what the problem has been. I believe we would face the same public health problem irrespective of whatever sweetener you put in the products - HFCS, "evaporated cane juice," (that one still cracks me up) molasses, honey, brown sugar, whatever.

This fixation on a single ingredient in many foods is typical of modern nutrition research - we try to micromanage ingredients instead of looking at the big picture, which is that people are eating too much. The fructose may contribute to obesity, but when people are favoring energy-dense foods in general, how much of a difference does one sweetener make?

It's just like the obsession with trans-fat. Sure, trans-fat is bad but the replacement is liable to be just as bad and the bans don't really accomplish much to solve the bigger problem of heart disease. For all the energy, money, and political capital legislators and public health officials expend over trans-fat bans, it would be far easier to implement any one of a dozen different public health initiatives that would arguably do the same thing.

Don't get me wrong, I'm open to the position that HFCS and its ilk may be a problem - but I just think there are bigger fish to fry.

Did you watch the lecture in the OP? Doesn't sound like you did. I don't think anyone here is singling out HFCS as a problem over other sweeteners. Basically fructose doesn't signal your body to shut down the feeling of hunger. So when you drink a 150 calorie soda, your body only really acknowledges about 75 cals of it, and continues to signal to you that you are still hungry for 75 calories.

The whole point is that fructose ( which is in all the sweeteners you listed, so no one sweetener is getting blamed more than others) leads people to eat more, so it is causing them to eat more calories. The average american is slave to their hunger and doesn't have all the info to make informed decisions on what to eat. There is too much conflicting information, and it doesn't help that now we have research showing that the USRDA recommendations for a low fat diet, which was supposed to help people avoid obesity and heart disease may have actually done the opposite by driving people to consume more carbs.

If you don't have time to watch the lecture I recommend you read brikis' new york times article link in the other sugar thread that's active in the Health & Fitness board right now.

 

[PricklyPete]

A little back story: I grew up with a mom who was basically a food-hippy (staunchly conservative otherwise...it's quite the juxtaposition). We grew up eating unbelievably healthy based on current trends (only honey, complex carbs, more raw/less cooked, oils, etc). For years (especially through high school/college when I was finally getting out of her grasps) I thought she was a quack. But over the last 8 or so years since I've been out of school...I actually have migrated back to her eating habits. Not only do I feel healthier (better athletic performance, better sleeping, more regular, more energy) when I eat the way she does...but she is 70 this year and is the youngest 70 year old I've ever met. I'm amazed at how healthy she is.

My mom would always put down juices...even 100% fruit juice saying it was much better to just eat the fruit. I hated that when I was a kid because I loved OJ. But when I realized how much juice I could consume in so little time...I started to realize how right my mom was. I've been trying to cut my juice consumption down...and the best way for me to cut...is to not buy. So I've been trying to tell my wife this...but she has always maintained that juice has to be healthy. I'll definitely watch this with my wife...it will give her a better perspective. I'm sure we'll still buy some juice...but I think she will not hold it up to the same level of "healthiness".

 

[kalrith]

Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: KingGheedora

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged
I just finally got around to watching this lecture. To be perfectly honest, I'm amazed that it has taken 30 years for someone, let alone a doctor, to explain why sugar and specifically fructose is bad for your health. All the pathways listed are required to be known by undergraduate nutrition majors. I'm an exercise biology major and have taken several biochem classes on top of one upper division nutrition class and I understood exactly where he was going. Nobody put this together before? Apparently people did as the lecturer talks about Pure, White and Deadly. I don't believe he had the evidence that we now do though. Why does the FDA continue to ignore these things?

I completely agree with what he says. My nutrition lecturer was actually doing research on this and found that fructose was terrible for people and that they gained weight, had health problems, etc much more readily than others. If you mix this along with what The Zone Diet author Barry Sears states, then the following is what is required for optimal health: high fiber, no refined sugar, no refined vegetable oils, balance of omega-3s and omega-6s. To be perfectly honest, if I could afford it, I would probably go paleolithic. However, watching this lecture and recently watching Dr. Sears talk on inflammation and the Zone, I feel it is in my best interests to start making some changes. Perhaps the first step is limiting my sweets. Perhaps a small treat once a week reduced to once every two weeks would do. I don't know, but what I'm saying is that if you wanna be healthy and perform well, popular nutrition will not really be helping you.

don't tell amused about this... she'll just sit there and call you names until you realize it's not worth your time to even try talking with her.

If I recall, I linked to this thread yesterday from a thread in OT where you and amused were arguing over HFCS vs. table sugar. You claimed HFCS was worse for people than sugar, and Amused was arguing against you. Amused said that HFCS is no worse than sugar, which is supported by the link in the OP. What you just quoted here that SociallyChallenged said does not go against what Amused said at all, if anything SC would support Amused point. Everything in this thread supports what Amused was saying and goes against what you were saying.

I dunno, I'm kind of confused by this post unless you are referring to somethings Amused said in a thread other than this one: http://forums.anandtech.com/me...AR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear

hfcs = 55% fructose
sugar = 50% fructose (sans insulin resistance)
honey = ~35-40% fructose

amused said that the difference between hfcs doesn't matter because it's the same as sugar. it's not. yes, biochemically, it breaks down the same as sugar because it's fructose and glucose, but the way your body reacts to it is different. by the way, next time you see a large hfcs study, read up on who funded the study. most of the time, it's corn refiners association. that's like me pulling out a study funded by the american chiropractic association to prove to you chiropractic is helpful for chronic low back pain.

oh, by the way, i'm not eitis. i'm eits. eits. e, i, t, s. explosions in the sky. eits.

I agree with both you and Amused. At low levels, it really doesn't make a difference whether you eat sugar or HFCS. However, the extra 5% does make a significant difference when people consume high levels of it. That's 5% extra calories that get stored as fat, run injurious mechanisms, etc.

Btw, honey is badass. Raw honey is the best source of sugar you can find out there, IMO. I use a very small amount (probably 0.5 tbsp) each day. Had good vitamins, antioxidants, minerals, amino acids, etc. Tastes good as well. I bet if everyone used honey instead of sugar, we'd be way less in the crapper now. But then again, maybe not.

OK, I'm at a turning point in my diet, and I'm going to be applying a lot of anti-fructose (other than in whole fruit) things in my diet. I understand and agree with everything that's been mentioned here, but I don't quite grasp why honey is better than sucrose. It's true that honey has a lower percentage of fructose, but I think that's because it contains lots of things besides just fructose and glucose. According to Wikipedia the composition of honey is as follows:

* Fructose: 38.5%
* Glucose: 31.0%
* Sucrose: 1.0%
* Water: 17.0%
* Other sugars: 9.0% (maltose, melezitose)
* Ash: 0.17%
* Other: 3.38%

So, while it's true that it contains the afore-mentioned 35-40% fructose, it's also contains 1% sucrose and 17% water. If you mixed sucrose with water so that water was 17% of it, then it would only contain 41.5% fructose. If you did the same thing with HFCS 42, then it would only contain 34.9% fructose. Also, since fructose is honey's main sweetener, then I would think that you would have to add more honey to get the same amount of sweetness than with sucrose, which would therefore result in the same amount of fructose regardless of which sweetener is used.

I know that honey is not processed, which is a good thing and makes it a better choice that sucrose. I didn't watch the lecture (hopefully I'll get to watch it in a few days), so it might talk a lot about unprocessed foods being > processed foods. However, if we just deal with the issue of fructose without the presence of fiber as being a very bad thing, then I don't see how honey does ANY better in that regard than sucrose, and it seems that it might even do a WORSE job than HFCS 42.

 

[JellyBaby]

You have a great mother! It's easiest to make dietary changes when it's just you otherwise getting stuff through the "committee" is often frustrating. Still, the health benefits when you manage sugar intake effectively are unquestionable. I see a lot of people on the boards here (including me) who feel tons better after improving diet (and exercise). It's how we were meant to live and feel.

I'm down to water, milk and ice tea in moderation although I have apple juice in the fridge for making fruit smoothies (I use about 4oz). Ideally, I should drop the ice tea as it's sweetened with sucralose and replace it with green/black tea + honey. That's on my list for the next grocery trip.

I find making small dietary changes over time instead of an instant "this is how it is now, NO more from now on" works best for me.

 

[JellyBaby]

kalrith, I believe honey is a bit sweeter tasting compared to sucrose so all else equal you can use a bit less to get the same result.

 

[kalrith]

Originally posted by: JellyBaby
kalrith, I believe honey is a bit sweeter tasting compared to sucrose so all else equal you can use a bit less to get the same result.

That would make sense. So, it sounds to me like honey is the lesser of the fructose evils. If I had to, say, bake some brownies or sweeten some pancakes, then honey would be the best choice out there.

Does that sound right?

Edit: Obviously no brownies or pancakes would be the best choice, but I'm trying to make healthier choices that I can live with rather than going cold turkey into a fully healthy diet. I've done that in the past, and it doesn't work because I just give up on it. Like JellyBaby, I need to ease into dietary changes.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Is there some reason one couldn't substitute brewer's/corn sugar (dextrose) for anything that calls for sugar and avoid fructose altogether?

 

[kalrith]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
Is there some reason one couldn't substitute brewer's/corn sugar (dextrose) for anything that calls for sugar and avoid fructose altogether?

Yeah, I've been looking for alternatives to sugar and found that barley malt syrup and brown rice syrup contain no fructose. I wonder how readily available they are, if there are any health problems with them, and if they would actually be a better sucrose substitute than honey.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Originally posted by: kalrith
OK, I'm at a turning point in my diet, and I'm going to be applying a lot of anti-fructose (other than in whole fruit) things in my diet. I understand and agree with everything that's been mentioned here, but I don't quite grasp why honey is better than sucrose. It's true that honey has a lower percentage of fructose, but I think that's because it contains lots of things besides just fructose and glucose. According to Wikipedia the composition of honey is as follows:

* Fructose: 38.5%
* Glucose: 31.0%
* Sucrose: 1.0%
* Water: 17.0%
* Other sugars: 9.0% (maltose, melezitose)
* Ash: 0.17%
* Other: 3.38%

So, while it's true that it contains the afore-mentioned 35-40% fructose, it's also contains 1% sucrose and 17% water. If you mixed sucrose with water so that water was 17% of it, then it would only contain 41.5% fructose. If you did the same thing with HFCS 42, then it would only contain 34.9% fructose. Also, since fructose is honey's main sweetener, then I would think that you would have to add more honey to get the same amount of sweetness than with sucrose, which would therefore result in the same amount of fructose regardless of which sweetener is used.

I know that honey is not processed, which is a good thing and makes it a better choice that sucrose. I didn't watch the lecture (hopefully I'll get to watch it in a few days), so it might talk a lot about unprocessed foods being > processed foods. However, if we just deal with the issue of fructose without the presence of fiber as being a very bad thing, then I don't see how honey does ANY better in that regard than sucrose, and it seems that it might even do a WORSE job than HFCS 42.

What? What are you even doing with the water %? Are you just taking the water out? The thing about the water is that it actually decreases the fructose density, which is a good thing. You eat 1 tbsp of honey compared to 1 tbsp HFCS, you are going to get less sugar. That's why the water is included.

Honey contains a large amount of other factors such as amino acids, antioxidants, minerals, vitamins, etc. HFCS is straight sugar, no vitamins whatsoever. Honey is less calorie dense and is very sweet, making it very easy to use small amounts. The reason why I mentioned my affinity for honey is because I use ~0.5 tablespoons a day almost always in my oatmeal or as a dressing on my spinach salad. Half a tablespoon has 8.5g of sugar. That converts to 3.27g of fructose. My oatmeal has 4g of fiber in it while my spinach has a fair amount as well. On top of that, I eat this with a whole meal, which includes a fair amount of fat - whether it be animal fat, olive oil, seeds, nuts, whatever. That slows digestion ever more. Seriously, if my only sugar intake besides fruit is 8.5g of sugar and it is from a honey source... I'm gonna be just fine.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Originally posted by: kalrith

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
Is there some reason one couldn't substitute brewer's/corn sugar (dextrose) for anything that calls for sugar and avoid fructose altogether?

Yeah, I've been looking for alternatives to sugar and found that barley malt syrup and brown rice syrup contain no fructose. I wonder how readily available they are, if there are any health problems with them, and if they would actually be a better sucrose substitute than honey.

Keep in mind, they are still extremely processed. Any sugar that is processed to hell in likelihood is not the best source of calories. Eat natural foods. Quit looking for ways around it.

 

[kalrith]

Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged

Originally posted by: kalrith
OK, I'm at a turning point in my diet, and I'm going to be applying a lot of anti-fructose (other than in whole fruit) things in my diet. I understand and agree with everything that's been mentioned here, but I don't quite grasp why honey is better than sucrose. It's true that honey has a lower percentage of fructose, but I think that's because it contains lots of things besides just fructose and glucose. According to Wikipedia the composition of honey is as follows:

* Fructose: 38.5%
* Glucose: 31.0%
* Sucrose: 1.0%
* Water: 17.0%
* Other sugars: 9.0% (maltose, melezitose)
* Ash: 0.17%
* Other: 3.38%

So, while it's true that it contains the afore-mentioned 35-40% fructose, it's also contains 1% sucrose and 17% water. If you mixed sucrose with water so that water was 17% of it, then it would only contain 41.5% fructose. If you did the same thing with HFCS 42, then it would only contain 34.9% fructose. Also, since fructose is honey's main sweetener, then I would think that you would have to add more honey to get the same amount of sweetness than with sucrose, which would therefore result in the same amount of fructose regardless of which sweetener is used.

I know that honey is not processed, which is a good thing and makes it a better choice that sucrose. I didn't watch the lecture (hopefully I'll get to watch it in a few days), so it might talk a lot about unprocessed foods being > processed foods. However, if we just deal with the issue of fructose without the presence of fiber as being a very bad thing, then I don't see how honey does ANY better in that regard than sucrose, and it seems that it might even do a WORSE job than HFCS 42.

What? What are you even doing with the water %? Are you just taking the water out? The thing about the water is that it actually decreases the fructose density, which is a good thing. You eat 1 tbsp of honey compared to 1 tbsp HFCS, you are going to get less sugar. That's why the water is included.

Honey contains a large amount of other factors such as amino acids, antioxidants, minerals, vitamins, etc. HFCS is straight sugar, no vitamins whatsoever. Honey is less calorie dense and is very sweet, making it very easy to use small amounts. The reason why I mentioned my affinity for honey is because I use ~0.5 tablespoons a day almost always in my oatmeal or as a dressing on my spinach salad. Half a tablespoon has 8.5g of sugar. That converts to 3.27g of fructose. My oatmeal has 4g of fiber in it while my spinach has a fair amount as well. On top of that, I eat this with a whole meal, which includes a fair amount of fat - whether it be animal fat, olive oil, seeds, nuts, whatever. That slows digestion ever more. Seriously, if my only sugar intake besides fruit is 8.5g of sugar and it is from a honey source... I'm gonna be just fine.

I guess I was going under the assumption that 1g of fructose in honey equals the same sweetness as 1g of fructose in sucrose. Under that assumption, MORE honey would have to be used in order to achieve the same level of sweetness since the honey contains water. My water example was a round-about way of explaining it, but obviously I used asinine reasoning to reach my assumption.

I now know that my previous assumption is incorrect. Since honey not only contains less fructose than sucrose but also requires less to achieve the same level of sweetness, I'll use quite a bit less fructose by using honey instead of sucrose. The light bulb for this came on when I was looking up sucrose alternatives in baking. One website claimed to use 3/4 cup of honey in place of 1 cup of sucrose (and cut out 1/4 cup of water as well), which would result in 42% less fructose for using honey instead of sucrose. That means that I can bake 42% more and achieve the same level of fructose! (I kid, I kid)

Hopefully my wife will support me in this regard. Her SIL has been on an anti-HFCS kick for a couple months, but she doesn't know what the heck she's talking about and she goes about with a holier-than-thou attitude looking down her nose at everyone who eats something with HFCS in it. Hopefully her attitude and the fact that my wife's sick of it doesn't hinder my good intentions for me to increase the nutrition level of my family.

Edit: And I'm starting to (albeit slowly) catch on that processed = bad. It sucks that going unprocessed takes a toll on the pocket book, but I guess I shouldn't be putting a price tag on my health. One of my excuses for eating poorly lately is because of our financial problems, and some not-so-good-for-you-food (i.e. Ramen noodles every day for lunch) is extremely cheap.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

If your wife's SIL is on an anti-HFCS kick without being on an anti-sucrose kick, she is really not changing anything. Think of your situation this way though: you pay more in groceries now. Because you are healthier and your body is in better condition to fight off disease or even completely avoid it, you save money most would pay in medical bills later in years. It is a good investment and you save in the long run. That doesn't mean you can't go bargain shopping or start growing your own stuff. Those are both good to do, especially on a tight budget.

 

[kalrith]

Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged
If your wife's SIL is on an anti-HFCS kick without being on an anti-sucrose kick, she is really not changing anything. Think of your situation this way though: you pay more in groceries now. Because you are healthier and your body is in better condition to fight off disease or even completely avoid it, you save money most would pay in medical bills later in years. It is a good investment and you save in the long run. That doesn't mean you can't go bargain shopping or start growing your own stuff. Those are both good to do, especially on a tight budget.

Yeah, that's exactly what the SIL is doing. She does this stuff all the time: gets really gung-ho about something (usually because a friend is into it), knows nothing about it but thinks she's an expert, then tells everyone else that they should do the same thing and looks down on them when they don't. She probably has a friend who told her that HFCS is of the devil and is the sole cause of obesity in America, and therefore she avoids HFCS like the plague. She doesn't know why she avoids it, and she doesn't avoid sucrose, so she's not really doing anything other than annoying everyone. Anyways, she's never gung-ho about anything for more than a few months, so I'm guessing it'll be over any day now .

Sorry to get OT a bit. Yeah, I need to see healthy eating as a requirement, and not even give myself the choice between a cheap, unhealthy food and a more-expensive healthy food. Then, I'll just look for the best deal possible among the healthy choices and not waste energy with the decision of whether to buy healthy food or buy absolute crap.

Unfortunately I'm going camping with the in-laws (not the SIL) this weekend, and they're bringing all the food. I originally thought it was great because of money reasons, but now I realize that they're probably bringing lots of unhealthy food, because that's practically all they eat.

I guess one weekend won't kill me, and it's not like I decided I need to eat healthily until a day or two ago. I'm kind of in a transition period in my life and have been rethinking things all week. Healthy eating and exercise were a huge part of my life several years ago, but it hasn't been that way in a long time. Part of the restructuring of my life is to bring them back to the forefront as requirements, rather than things that I try to work in my life as time and money allow.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

There is potentially one reason to avoid HFCS specifically and not sucrose. Unfortunately for me it knocks out brewer's sugar as well. The whole reason I initially started avoiding HFCS was because of a strong (and continued) suspicion of having a corn intolerance. Now trying to avoid anything with corn in it this day and age, that's fun stuff.

 

[Kipper]

Originally posted by: KingGheedora
Did you watch the lecture in the OP? Doesn't sound like you did. I don't think anyone here is singling out HFCS as a problem over other sweeteners. Basically fructose doesn't signal your body to shut down the feeling of hunger. So when you drink a 150 calorie soda, your body only really acknowledges about 75 cals of it, and continues to signal to you that you are still hungry for 75 calories.

The whole point is that fructose ( which is in all the sweeteners you listed, so no one sweetener is getting blamed more than others) leads people to eat more, so it is causing them to eat more calories. The average american is slave to their hunger and doesn't have all the info to make informed decisions on what to eat. There is too much conflicting information, and it doesn't help that now we have research showing that the USRDA recommendations for a low fat diet, which was supposed to help people avoid obesity and heart disease may have actually done the opposite by driving people to consume more carbs.

If you don't have time to watch the lecture I recommend you read brikis' new york times article link in the other sugar thread that's active in the Health & Fitness board right now.

You're oversimplifying the biochemistry - I really don't see anywhere that drinking a 150 kcal soda causes your body to "expect" 150 calories and force you to consume accordingly. It's never that simple because people don't sit around and eat foods in a vacuum. Soft drinks may be consumed alone but are naturally accompanied by high-calorie snacks (rich in fat, for example), meals, and such. Pointing only at fructose oversimplifies what is in fact an incredibly complex medical issue.

But your "magic bullet" is fructose. Fructose produces no insulin response and has no regulatory biochemical pathway associated with it, which will allegedly cause massive, massive weight gain. Sorry, but I don't buy it - not the science, but this alleged "theory." That's because it's too simple, and obesity is anything BUT simple. There are so many inputs that go into the etiology of the disease that pinning it all on fructose is unrealistic. Are you saying that the massive expansion of the calories per day available to every citizen of the US is attributable ONLY to consumption of sugar? How much sugar are these people taking in? Hard to believe. What about sugar's cheap cousin, fat? We don't just get sugars from commodity crops, you know.

I find the economic arguments (such as those put forth by Michael Pollan) more persuasive, for one. Fructose may play a role, sure but it's a much smaller player in the picture than you'd like to believe. If anything, it is secondary. Socioeconomics and politics plays a much bigger, primary role.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

You really need to watch the video.

You might be interested in this one too, it goes into other obesity factors:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qk4UKD00aOo
But it's a damn sight harder to sit through than the sugar one.

 

[r31ncarnat3d]

Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged
I just finally got around to watching this lecture. To be perfectly honest, I'm amazed that it has taken 30 years for someone, let alone a doctor, to explain why sugar and specifically fructose is bad for your health. All the pathways listed are required to be known by undergraduate nutrition majors.

It has less to do with common sense and more with scientific study. After all, the people in the scientific community (as I'm sure you must have noticed by now), are extremely anal and want every detail and possibility covered before a report is published. This doctor may just be the first real doctor who studied in depth something that is regarded as general fact.

Another good example of this is an article I read about two months ago on how scratching itches releases endorphins in your brain. Again, something very simple and known by all, but the scientific study still had to be done before it's official.

 

[KingGheedora]

Originally posted by: Kipper

Originally posted by: KingGheedora
Did you watch the lecture in the OP? Doesn't sound like you did. I don't think anyone here is singling out HFCS as a problem over other sweeteners. Basically fructose doesn't signal your body to shut down the feeling of hunger. So when you drink a 150 calorie soda, your body only really acknowledges about 75 cals of it, and continues to signal to you that you are still hungry for 75 calories.

The whole point is that fructose ( which is in all the sweeteners you listed, so no one sweetener is getting blamed more than others) leads people to eat more, so it is causing them to eat more calories. The average american is slave to their hunger and doesn't have all the info to make informed decisions on what to eat. There is too much conflicting information, and it doesn't help that now we have research showing that the USRDA recommendations for a low fat diet, which was supposed to help people avoid obesity and heart disease may have actually done the opposite by driving people to consume more carbs.

If you don't have time to watch the lecture I recommend you read brikis' new york times article link in the other sugar thread that's active in the Health & Fitness board right now.

You're oversimplifying the biochemistry - I really don't see anywhere that drinking a 150 kcal soda causes your body to "expect" 150 calories and force you to consume accordingly. It's never that simple because people don't sit around and eat foods in a vacuum. Soft drinks may be consumed alone but are naturally accompanied by high-calorie snacks (rich in fat, for example), meals, and such. Pointing only at fructose oversimplifies what is in fact an incredibly complex medical issue.

I think you're misinterpreting what I said. I didn't say that a soda causes a certain amount of hunger. John Doe is hungry for X amount of calories. He drinks a soda, 75 calories of which comes from fructose, which doesn't contribute to diminishing his hunger. Hence he will most likely continue eating more calories, until he no longer feels hungry. The additional calories could come from carbs, fat or protein, doesn't matter. The point is that he ends up eating more total calories. Which as you said is the ultimate problem.

But your "magic bullet" is fructose. Fructose produces no insulin response and has no regulatory biochemical pathway associated with it, which will allegedly cause massive, massive weight gain. Sorry, but I don't buy it - not the science, but this alleged "theory." That's because it's too simple, and obesity is anything BUT simple. There are so many inputs that go into the etiology of the disease that pinning it all on fructose is unrealistic. Are you saying that the massive expansion of the calories per day available to every citizen of the US is attributable ONLY to consumption of sugar? How much sugar are these people taking in? Hard to believe. What about sugar's cheap cousin, fat? We don't just get sugars from commodity crops, you know.


I find the economic arguments (such as those put forth by Michael Pollan) more persuasive, for one. Fructose may play a role, sure but it's a much smaller player in the picture than you'd like to believe. If anything, it is secondary. Socioeconomics and politics plays a much bigger, primary role.

Whatevs man, I'm not saying any of what you just said. I was responding to your first paragraph, in which you said things that are basically congruent with the video in the OP's link, but it didn't seem like you were aware of that. Which is why I asked if you watched the video.

The lecturer in the OP's link also says exactly what you said, that fructose isn't "evil because it's evil", but because it's economically evil. I'm not sure anyone has claimed sugar as the only cause of obesity, but there is a compelling argument that it has played a significant role (definitely agree with you that it's not the only factor).

I still recommend you watch the video, I don't think you'll disagree with most of it. The theory in the video is one piece in the higher level puzzle that you are looking at.

I just read the wiki on Michael Pollan and am gonna pick up his book later today.