Honey, where did you put the sugar? http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=magazine ... In the early 20th century, many of the leading authorities on diabetes in North America and Europe (including Frederick Banting, who shared the 1923 Nobel Prize for the discovery of insulin) suspected that sugar causes diabetes based on the observation that the disease was rare in populations that didn’t consume refined sugar and widespread in those that did. In 1924, Haven Emerson, director of the institute of public health at Columbia University, reported that diabetes deaths in New York City had increased as much as 15-fold since the Civil War years, and that deaths increased as much as fourfold in some U.S. cities between 1900 and 1920 alone. This coincided, he noted, with an equally significant increase in sugar consumption — almost doubling from 1890 to the early 1920s — with the birth and subsequent growth of the candy and soft-drink industries. Emerson’s argument was countered by Elliott Joslin, a leading authority on diabetes, and Joslin won out. But his argument was fundamentally flawed. Simply put, it went like this: The Japanese eat lots of rice, and Japanese diabetics are few and far between; rice is mostly carbohydrate, which suggests that sugar, also a carbohydrate, does not cause diabetes. But sugar and rice are not identical merely because they’re both carbohydrates. Joslin could not know at the time that the fructose content of sugar affects how we metabolize it. Joslin was also unaware that the Japanese ate little sugar...
If people didn't tend to consume such massive amounts of the stuff, it wouldn't be a problem. Next time you feel like having a can of pop (soda?), find out how much sugar is in it. Then spoon that amount into a bowl, just to see what it looks like. Still thirsty? Have a glass of sugar-free aspartame-free zero-calorie diet water.
In my mother tongue, the word we use to describe thirst translates into English literally as "thirst for water". This led my father, when we first came to the US years ago, to observe, "People over here aren't 'thirsty for water', they're only 'thirsty for coke'!"
Any substance abused to the extreme can be considered toxic - it's just the amount that's in question. Hearing of this, my first though is 'what is this guy selling?'
Exactly my thoughts. Oxygen is a deadly toxin at higher pressures. Comments like this thread title are silly, misleading, and not useful for constructive discussion. Suggestions for a better thread title: 1) Is refined sugar bad for people? 2) Does refined sugar contribute to diabetes? 3) Does refined sugar cause diabetes? Tom
The article is long but explains a lot. The main thrust hinges on the relationship between fructose and sucrose, how the body metabolizes those two substances differently. Also how fat in the liver is linked to cancer. The thread title is the title of the article itself, btw.
If I dropped a pallet of Snickers on you, well that would lead to more than Diabetes problems. .... If you have a Snickers once in a while, the pallet would last longer and so would you! You are what you eat!
Is water toxic? If you answer no, then what about those 4,000 drowning deaths each year? Is the sun toxic? Many people would answer no as they're on the way to the beach to work on their tan... and yet will whine and complain when they come home with a sunburn.
Pretty obvious that you made this comment without reading the article. The point is that there is such a prevalence of sugar in the Western diets, especially in the US, that most people aren't even aware that they're over consuming sugar, especially the high-fructose stuff.
I suspect he was responding to the title, which, by itself, is inflammatory. The story may explain the thinking behind the title, but it doesn't make the title any better. Tom
I didn't make it up. I suppose the author wanted his title to grab people's attention. A pretty typical journalistic device. But let's not get so hung up on the freaking title, when it is the content of the story itself that deserves attention.
I wasn't blaming you. I was only trying to help you understand some of the replies. You made a comment that one of the posters did not read the article, else they wouldn't have so replied. In fact the reply was related to the title, not the content. The title was indeed a typical journalistic device. When I see such a device, I tend to discount the value of the entire piece. Good journalism is a vanishing art, not that journalists ever did well with scientific topics. Tom
Understood. In this case the title is actually a valid question that needs to be answered. We may not have a definitive answer yet, according to the FDA at least, but the evidence is strong. In our household we switched to using honey several years ago. Intuitively we kinda knew that sugar was bad, but articles like this help further our understanding of its role in diseases such as diabetes in cancer. More research is needed, as pointed out in the article, but it doesn't hurt to err on the side of caution. BTW, a nine-page story in a reputable paper is certainly not slapdash journalism in this day and age.
Actually, there are those who feel that high-fructose corn syrup is actually the culprit: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM]YouTube - Sugar: The Bitter Truth[/ame] It's a very long presentation, but it's very well-delivered and extremely educational. If you're interested in this topic I'd definitely give it a look.
One thing I've noticed about diet fades is that they're quick to dismiss the other group of calories that they focus on. All foods have 3 basic components: fats, proteins, and/or sugars (which includes starches and carbohydrates...which are all kinds of saccharides). It's always controversal about how the human body is most optimized for metabolizing these components. Personally, I'm more conservative and believe that since many healthy cultures have quite varied diets...it's more about overall calories and basic mineral intake then whether your diet is too high in fats, proteins, or sugars. When you look at human civilizations before processed foods...you'll see quite varied diets. I think the worst thing in some diet fads is that they just focus on one thing...the best example is the "low fat" fad. Most foods that advertised "low fat" were actually higher in calories because they replaced the fat with sugars.
Not so fast there's . . . . . . news that may make some diet soda devotees think twice: Not only has a regular consumption of diet soda been linked to Type 2 Diabetes, stroke, weight gain and an increased risk of low bone mineral density in women (which leads to osteoporosis, a nagging problem for females to begin with), but it turns out that once you start drinking it regularly it can be very hard to stop. Can you get hooked on diet soda? - CNN.com Daily diet soda tied to higher heart attack risk - Health - Diet and nutrition - msnbc.com
I missed this. You're absolutely right. Because there is no recommended daily allowance for sugar (which should be a red flag right there -- NO amount is technically good for you), it's hard to tell how much you are getting. Check some stuff in your fridge or the supermarket, though. My daughter wanted to get some Yoplait Dora the Explorer yogurt (you know, the stuff with the neon colors, haha) and I checked the sugar content -- almost 1/4 of the content of the little cup was sugar. It's amazing. For you tl:dr people:
