As well as more reason for me not to sell candy any more ...
I’m not kidding about that. I want to help people, not hurt them—and after watching this video, I find it very hard to justify my candy–making ways. I thought by that avoiding high fructose corn syrup in my treats, I was doing okay (knowing that candy will never be a healthful food). Not any longer.
A few observations before getting under way: yes, it’s a long vid. It contains some biochemistry in the middle. Stick with it: it isn’t that complex, and listening to the biochem part will aid one’s grokking. Dr. Lustig has a very annoying vocal tic, which will be obvious fairly early on—ignore it as best you can. Other than that, he is an excellent speaker and almost all that he says here is very important for anyone who wishes to improve his health.
(Direct link to the vid on YouTube, for those who prefer that)
An Excellent Investment of 1.5 Hours for Your Health’s Sake
»
- Sunni's blog
- Login to post comments
Like taking candy from a grown-up
AIIEEEEEE!!!! WAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!
Okay, okay, I'll watch the video -- it'll probably be a couple days before I get through it all.
I like the principle of "moderation in all things, including moderation itself". Making a meal out of your caramels on a regular basis is sure to be bad, but I find it hard to believe that having one for dessert, on top of a generally good diet with adequate fiber, could really be a serious health issue.
But I'll watch the video...
I can wait.
With your background, I suspect any comments you might wish to make will be especially cogent. I’ll even do my best to be patient.
Of poisons and doses and processings ...
Anticipating comments that remind me of the adage “the dose makes the poison”, and also piggybacking on tzo’s wry observation in a previous conversation —
Lustig’s comments toward the end of his talk make it pretty clear that sugar works the same way. However, something he only indirectly addresses has me wondering about the role of processing in turning natural substances into poisons or carcinogens. He talks about this some with sugar, stating that nature includes the antidote to the poison (in this case, fiber in the fruit).
Processing has taken many foods far from their origins; and as food science and technology have advanced, in many cases a molecule has been called upon to perform duties in other foods far removed from its natural source. One example is casein, an animal protein that is becoming nearly ubiquitous in processed foods because it functions well as a binder (it’s also found in glues and paints). Claims that casein is a cancer “switch” have begun to spring up.
But, as far as I understand it, cancer wasn’t nearly as prevalent 150–200 years ago, and many people back then depended heavily upon animal products, especially milk and cheeses, in their diets. If casein were such a strong and simple switch, why have cancer rates risen only relatively recently? My explanation is that it is only fairly recently that casein was introduced more widely into the processed food supply ... and if one eats a lot of processed foods along with a variety of dairy items, one may take in much more casein than is typical. Again, the dose may be the primary factor contributing to illness.
A final note on the China study, for those who read that article about casein: it is an epidemiological study. Typically, epidemiological research is not true experimental research, viz., independent and dependent variables are not operationally defined, manipulated, and measured to conduct a test of some hypothesis. Instead, it looks for associations among variables in extant large databases; it relies on self–report questionnaires and possibly, certain objective measures collected concomitantly (e.g., blood work, weight, body–mass index); or their research may combine reliance upon self reports and extant databases.
The important thing to keep in mind about such research is that most of the time, cause and effect statements cannot be accurately made based on their results, because they do not control the independent variable(s) to test for an effect upon the dependent variable. And, as the comments on the China study make clear, if the questionnaire doesn’t accurately distinguish groups or subgroups, then the data become that much murkier.
Re: 150 - 200 years ago
I'm not going to say anything about the video, I've not watched it.
But I do want to point out that while the cancer rate may have been lower a century ago, the mortality rate and particularly the infant mortality rate was much, much higher.
It would be a mistake to do a straight comparison between disease rates now and disease rates then. Many widespread diseases today come because people are living longer and the parts just wear out.
I agree.
Absolutely—I agree completely with you on that. However, one area which seems to eliminate some of those confounds are cancer rates in children. Haven’t they been increasing on a per capita basis for a few decades? Of course, if that’s accurate other factors besides sugar/fructose consumption certainly contribute, too.
I don't have the articles in
I don't have the articles in front of me, so I'm using my admittedly biased memory. The good news is that I've banned the part of my memory that claims to be unbiased from the discussion…
Anyway, I remember there were what were called nesting conditions that were actually multiple diseases. So for example condition A might kill someone in early childhood, condition B caused serious problems from adolescence on, and condition C would be troublesome but wouldn't show up until late in life. The thing is, no one with nesting condition ABC would live past a certain age until A was cured or prevented.
Meanwhile, conditions B and C don't show as much because a certain number of people with ABC never live long enough to show B or C.
Cure or control A and more people survive longer to show B and C, even if B or C have no other causes.
Obviously this doesn't apply in every case, but it is something to keep in mind.
It's quite possible that,
It's quite possible that, with the multiplicity of infectious diseases, children and young adults with early stage cancers or other debilitating diseases were simply weakened enough to be killed by other things before the more basic, underlying problem could be noticed given the poor diagnostic abilities of the era.
Diet and exercise
I haven’t seen the video yet, either, but I agree with your assessment in “Of Poisonings and Doses and Processings”.
Scientific studies on any single property is questionable, anyway (to what degree they ARE scientific these days). You can’t take a factor from its natural habitat and expect it to act in the lab as it would under normal conditions. This is true of other nutrients, and it’s true of casein. (Also true of animals in the zoo, and I see there might be a connection to PETA there.)
You mentioned fiber in fruit. People 150-200 years ago were also eating more fiber in general, in fresh vegetables, fruits and whole grains; and they worked harder and longer, getting more exercise daily — those in town walked to work and did manual labor otherwise, those on farms worked sunup to sundown in the fields, washed clothes by hand, hunted and gathered for many of their foods. The animals were grass-fed, free-ranged, leaner, better able to fight off whatever bacteria that might invade them. Veggies, fruits and grains were heirloom-tough and unmolested by Monsanto. All these factors might help to “prevent” cancer then, as well as modern factors tending to “cause” cancer now.
Re sugar: I believe diet and exercise are the two best things to counteract the effects of sugar imbalance, even in diabetics. And sugar was largely “neutralized” by exercise and diet 200 years ago.
“Case study” in the 70’s: A doctor I knew put all of his diabetic patients on high protein-low carbohydrate diets and walk-walk-walk exercise, even while in the hospital. (We could spot which were his patients by the activity in the halls.) He lowered the need for subcutaneous insulin in about half his patients, and actually eliminated oral insulin in some cases, during the six years I was there. This doctor was a scientist himself, in Germany, studying diabetes control, when he came to America shortly before Germany invaded Poland. He became a doctor here in the States and treated his patients based on his own studies. The results were very impressive. I’ve never trusted or respected traditional diabetes treatment since.
But all that doesn’t eliminate the need for a truffle now and then. :-)
Much wisdom in your words
Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle applies far beyond atoms, it appears.
At the end of Dr. Lustig’s presentation, he summarizes his clinic’s approach to treating “metabolic syndrome” in children; it is quite simple ... but probably ohhhhh so hard for some of them, who have probably drunk nothing but sweetened (artificially or otherwise) drinks all their lives. A key component is “buying” video–game or movie–watching time, minute for minute, with activity. While researching fasting, I uncovered a fair bit of evidence suggesting it can reverse type II diabetes (I’m fuzzy on the details). I wonder how that mechanism works ... Anyway, huzzah to your colleague for sticking to his practices against such a strong headwind.
I'd always thought a sugar was a sugar ...
Another friend recommended this to me a couple of days ago and I watched the whole thing - wow, it was an eye opener to me. He goes through the metabolic chemistry to show why fructose isn't broken down in the same way as glucose, which is something I'd never heard of before. I'd wondered why the seemingly excess negativity about kids and juice - now I at least get why the medical community doesn't consider calcium fortified OJ a substitute for milk.
This won't mean we don't have an occasional candy, but the available drinks here now are milk, water, and tea with an occasional OJ or lemonade treat.
Rapadura
Check out the "whole food" version of sugar, Rapadura. Unprocessed, has all the original plants' fiber and minerals intact.
(jump halfway down the article to the 'Rapadura' head)
http://editor.nourishedmagazine.com.au/articles/sweet-sustenance
[Edited by Sunni to make link hot]
I've also been trying out Stevia
It seems to pass for making a drink like lemonade - it's incredibly sweet and noncaloric. Interestingly, there's some talk about it being useful for regulating insulin.
Stevia
I've always kept a bit of Stevia in the herbal cabinet for a couple decades now since a friend brought me a sample. Very useful stuff though I don't really have much of a desire for sweetened foods. Not eating a lot of sweets to begin with - an apple or carrot is plenty sweet for me - even a tomato has a lot of sweetness.
What I find humorous (in a maddening sort of way) and fairly predictible is that I'm now seeing commercials for products "made with the goodness of Stevia". Does the average consumer really need a cardboard box with fancy graphics and a recognised logo for them to give a product a go? Maybe people prefer the 'dissolveablility' of a factory produced product vs tiny little green flecks floating in their lemonade (fiber!).
The properties of Stevia are well-known yet the raw product seems to have all the appeal of cod liver oil with the average person...
Rapadura and stevia
Hey, I’ve heard of rapadura before—had no idea exactly what it is, though. The article says that jaggery is an Indian equivalent ... I’ve used that a fair bit and really like its flavor. Will have to check out the availability of either one ‘round here.
I have friends who use stevia, and seem to like it; a bonus is that it can be grown across a fair portion of the USSA. I have a vague memory—which means it may or may not be accurate—of tasting it and finding it somewhat artificial–tasting ... rather like aspartame or somesuch. Maybe if my diet were lower in sugar the taste would be different, though.
Oh, and on the candy–making thing ...
For those of you who responded to that bit of angstiness, thank you. Today my head is telling me that my previous attitude stems from an enduring propensity to over–nanny. Given that my candies do not have preservatives, nor HFCS, and as far as I can accomplish it, do not have artificial flavorings and/or colorings, they are a relatively healthful alternative to candies that are churned out on factory lines, and sit in warehouses and on store shelves for weeks or months ...
And I may be making some truffles in early March. No flavor thoughts yet; as always, I’m open to suggestions/lobbying.
Yesssss!
I'm interested in any of four flavors that's convenient for you to make:
Inca Gold
Mint Julep
Key Lime
Raspberry Cordial
Or whatever else you might come up with.
Whew!
Yes, dear. Moderation in all things. :)
Happy Happy Joy Joy!
Okay, I watched most of the video. (I skimmed through the conspiracy stuff, but watched all the biochemistry in the middle!)
Not to discourage your candymaking (YAY CANDY!), but I think one of the important take-home lessons from the lecture is that, metabolically, there's almost no difference between sucrose (regular sugar) and HFCS (glucose+fructose mixture), because the former is broken down to the latter almost instantly. (He could have also included honey, which is basically bee-created HFCS with a few extra ingredients.)
I think he successfully made his point that fructose (from whatever source) is worse for you than glucose. (FYI, starch is broken down into glucose, which is why grains and pasta are "safe" -- I'm not sure he made this clear in the lecture.)
I see one really troubling flaw in his biochemical argument.
For glucose, he says that 80% of it will be used by all the organs of the body, and 20% will be metabolized by the liver, mostly into benign glycogen.
For fructose, because the body's organs cannot utilize it directly, essentially all of it will be metabolized by the liver into Bad Stuff -- except in the case of glycogen depletion due to heavy exercise, in which case it'll mostly get burned up in the TCA Cycle.
Fine, except he's comparing two different situations. The body isn't going to be utilizing that 80% of the glucose unless it's in the middle of some sort of heavy exercise. If you eat some glucose that you don't currently need, it will be closer to 100% that's metabolized into glycogen and fat, not just 20%. So he has overinflated the wonderfulness of glucose vs fructose by a factor of 5, in my opinion.
But the rest of his argument seems valid. Excess glucose is stored mostly as glycogen, but excess fructose is stored mostly as a particularly bad sort of fat, plus fructose causes other assorted problems. Okay, I'll accept that.
I'll be rethinking my diet a bit. Thanks for bringing the video to my attention, Sunni. :-)
Sorry, I have to disagree
Sorry, I have to disagree with some of this.
Fructose IN ITS NATURAL STATE is generally not bad for us. It is found in many fruits, berries, and some vegetables (as well as honey) and — *in conjunction with fiber* — is a preferred sugar for all of us, includng diabetics. (BTW, fructose found on the grocery shelf made from corn is NOT natural fructose, no matter what it says on the label.)
Most of glucose/dextrose we take in is man-made, manufactured commercially as white or brown sugar, corn syrup, molasses, etc. By the time it reaches us from the lab, it is “not worth s**t” as they say — and is certainly dangerous to diabetics.
Natural fructose in foods, though it breaks down fast (in order to reach the brain quickly and give energy for work, play, fight or flight), is held in check by fiber and other factors in the whole foods in which it occurs. This is why foods in their natural state are better for us than manufactured foods (which aren’t really foods at all by the time they reach us). Fiber, and to some degree protein as well, acts as a brake on the rapidity with which fructose is metabolized.
The human body is complex enough that it can ordinarily counteract a decent amount of sugar intake, but not loads and loads of non-nutritional “white” foods (non-fibrous breads, pasta, cereals, pastries, candy, sodas, etc, i.e. a pure, simple carbohydrate intake) over many years. And add alcohol to that list. This is where sugar becomes the culprit — though it’s really we who abuse it by not monitoring our intake, and the food manufacturers who abuse us by slipping multi-types of sugar into foods, over and beyond what the food should contain, or what we should eat.
Besides, I for one have a hard time believing that grains and pasta are all that “safe”. The history of foods indicates that our digestive system has been compromised over the past 10,000 years since agriculture began. Grains have done more damage to our bodies than have roots and greens, fruits, beans, nuts and seeds — and more damage than protein and fat as well.
We ceased trying to eat naturally the day we discovered we could plant anything that tasted good. We stopped trying to determine for ourselves what tasted good the day Kellogg, Graham, et al began to manufacture food for us.
Progress is fine, but don’t mess with the basics: don’t convert fake into real, and don’t establish false criteria for determining what is healthy or not. That is what many scientists are doing today in the food chain.
Unclear
Sorry for the late reply, but I wanted to look up a few things first before I commented.
It is a very good video and he makes a strong case. But as Mr. Bill points out, tends to over state it. This rebuttal presents different information and claims that Lustig is being alarmist. Lustig has replied in the comments.
All in all I tend to share most of Michael Pollan's views on food, although i find his politics, especially his food politics, appalling.
Basically, if you are around my age (early 50s) then eat things that someone from your grandparent's generation would have recognized as food. If you are younger, add the appropriate number of years or generations.
Then again, as more than one person has noted, all things in moderation.
Thanks for the pointer
I skimmed much of that thread, but I do have to side with those who say Lustig didn’t defend his position very well.
I am only passingly familiar with Michael Pollan—I suspect because I encountered his politics first and was turned off.