Slashdot Mirror
How the Sugar Industry Tried To Hide Health Effects of Its Product 50 Years Ago (theverge.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: About 50 years ago, the sugar industry stopped funding research that began to show something they wanted to hide: that eating lots of sugar is linked to heart disease. A new study exposes the sugar industry's decades-old effort to stifle that critical research. Researchers at the University of California, San Francisco, recently analyzed historical documents regarding a rat study called Project 259 that was launched in 1968. The study was funded by a sugar industry trade group called the International Sugar Research Foundation, or ISRF, and conducted by W. F. R. Pover at the University of Birmingham. When the preliminary findings from that study began to show that eating lots of sugar might be associated with heart disease, and even bladder cancer, the ISRF pulled the plug on the research. Without additional funding, the study was terminated and the results were never published, according to a study published today in PLOS Biology. The study in question investigated the relationship between sugars and certain blood fats called triglycerides, which increase the risk of heart disease. The preliminary results from the research, called Project 259, suggested that rats on a high-sugar diet, instead of a starch diet, had higher levels of triglycerides. The rats that ate lots of sugar also had higher levels of an enzyme called beta-glucuronidase in their urine, which at the time was thought to be potentially linked to bladder cancer, says study co-author Cristin Kearns, an assistant professor at the UCSF School of Dentistry.
And yet, the same people who want to tell us that climate change is a hoax, want us to believe that the "research has shown" that all GMOs are perfectly healthy and that you shouldn't be allowed to know whether or not the food you buy is from GMOs.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Read some of crusader Gary Taube's books to find out how institutions like Harvard and many more succumbed to industry research money that makes sugary foods an integral part of today's diet and yes, the ubiquitous Food Pyramid. Bought.And.Paid.For.
Sugar's an addictive drug, like opoids, nicotine, even social media and gaming. This is one of the US's favorite business models: addiction-- Profit!!
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Started out as a kid, before I knew it was hooked on Cap'n Crunch. Within a few years it was harder stuff - twinkies, mars bars, ju jubes. There's no end. Before it hit me, I was buying up chocolate bunnies after easter and binging on them for days and was looking forward to Christmas only for the delicious Turtles. And they say it's not a drug. They're crazy.
Everything in moderation.
My sister raised her kids on candy, cookies and baking goods. She wanted to please them but they all ended up with a lot of cavities and they're fat. Along with the sugar is fat. Lots of it. They love to smother things with cheese. Also the baked goods have a lot of fat (mostly butter). When we were raised, our mother liked to bake and the products were pleasing delicacies It was fun but I got more cavities than I should have.
Now, I drink a couple of sodas per day but not to excess. I get some exercise and don't eat high fat foods. I'm doing fine. Just had my checkup and my physician commented that my cholesterol and blood work looks fine.
I despise artificial sweeteners. They leave bad aftertaste IMHO.
Again, moderation is the key. Sugar ain't all that bad.
He knew this since the 40s, and in the following decades, published studies with over 50,000 patients that themselves went over several decades.
The sugar industry alternately called him a Jew, a Nazi, then a Jew again.
I only heard of it in the 2000s, through one of his books ("Zucker, Zucker") shortly before he died.
Yeah...I EAT MEAT!
Low Carbohydrates and pretty much any meat I want.
I just WORKS!
If you like fat, eggs, and butter, listen to the lies that the egg and dairy industry tells you.
I don't know. I'm an ovo-vegetarian, smoke cigars three or four times a week, and every day for breakfast I take four eggs and a tablespoon of butter and make an omelette with blue cheese and chives. I had my blood work done a couple of months ago and I'm sitting at around 110 mg/dL as bad cholesterol goes.
Why did you include salt?
Whatever works for you dude. Eating fats upon fats upon protein works great for me. Salt + butter + not-carbs, and I am great. Add carbs into any of that, your "processing" doesn't even begin to factor into it, and all get it is fat, sick (constant allergy/flu-like symptoms) and depressed probably from the first two.
My first venture onto a keto/atkins diet, I had my blood pressure drop from medium high to "wow you're doing just fine", my triglycerides went from 390 to 95, weight from 235lbs to 190lbs, and I got completely off all diabetes-related medication - all within the span of 10 weeks. Apparently that's simply the way my body was designed to eat. Might not be the way your body was designed to eat, that's all fine and dandy, good luck with figuring that out. But they're going to have to pry the salt and saturated fats from my cold dead hands.
The only thing I know for sure is that when it comes to food, I really can't trust studies. Take any stance you want, and somebody has a study to "prove" it. Such useless BS. Dr Atkins nailed it when it comes to the uselessness of nutritional science in America in the mid-to-late 1900s, and I sure am glad as hell he spoke up.
The sugar industry and the AHA and FDA have already been responsible for so many thousands upon thousands of man-years lost to diseases like type II diabetes, do you really want to keep shoveling that shit for them? Haven't people figured out why health care costs are so bloody much higher than the rest of the world? Hint: it's what you put in your mouth, and it ain't butter.
First it was liquor and tobacco were bad for you now it is also sugar. How is anyone to live a vegan lifestyle?
Why do they have to imprison and assault animals in the name of science? Why can't they get volunteers? They need to figure out how to communicate with animals first, before forcing them into experiments.
Eat only bread and fish. Drink only water and wine. I call it the Jesus diet. Have you ever seen a Jesus statue that wasn't lean with 6 pack abs? Of course, longevity only ensured for 30-35 years, YMMV.
This can affect the health of millions of people. They should be put on trial and jailed when found guilty.
Table-ized A.I.
Industries need more control to protect their profits. "Facts" like these are costing shareholders money and spreading them should be illegal.
Sugars are a subset of carbs.
Athletes favor eating complex carbs over simple carbs like sugars.
And did you know his father, Jack Cassidy, died by burning alive^W to death in his home. Cigarette was blamed.
Lessons learned: 1) sugar kills, and 2) cigarettes kill.
You're right. It's amazing that people with a net calorie intake near zero when you take into account exercise (endurance athletes) or food eaten (poor people in less developed countries) wouldn't end up with illnesses that come from over-eating ANY specific kind of food.
Iff all the macronutrients you consume are being used to keep your body alive there isn't going to be enough left to cause other issues. That being said, there are plenty of cases of marathon runners giving themselves diabetes through constant carb loading with simple sugars.
https://www.theonion.com/study...
Table-ized A.I.
Take someone with an LDL of 50-70 (ideal, hunter-gatherer levels), feed them saturated fats and/or cholesterol, and cholesterol skyrockets.
Hunter gatherers didn't eat meat or eggs ?
What scientists (and athletes) have known for some time now is that a calorie is not just a calorie, and a carbohydrate is not just a carbohydrate. The nature of the nutritional source matters, even if the end product of its metabolism is the same caloric energy equivalent. And the reason, quite simply, is because different nutrients are converted to energy through different metabolic pathways in the body. In the past, the importance of this fact was not well-appreciated; even though some researchers had sought to point this out, they were largely regarded as being on the fringe of mainstream nutritional science. Much has changed, however, with the elucidation of these specific pathways and the more recent revelation of the relationship between the human gastrointestinal system and the microbiome that it contains.
To address your specific points, the energy content of a "complex" carbohydrate (e.g., what we commonly think of as starches or long-chain polysaccharides) is extracted more slowly than a simple carbohydrate (e.g., what we think of as "sugars" which are generally mono- or disaccharides). Comparatively, insulin levels do not rise as quickly in the digestion of the former; there is more "processing" to be done by the body to break those long chains down and ultimately get to the glucose that cells then directly utilize to create ATP. So the first lesson is that anything that slows the rate of gastric emptying, or the rate at which blood glucose elevates after a meal, is going to have a beneficial effect on insulin regulation. The second thing to understand is that fructose is a pentose sugar that is exclusively metabolized via the liver, unlike glucose. Sucrose (table sugar) is composed of one glucose and one fructose molecule. High fructose corn syrup is essentially sucrose with a higher proportion of fructose, making it sweeter (as fructose is sweeter than glucose). Complex carbohydrates are not high in fructose. But we now have ample evidence that the consequence of long-term, excessive fructose consumption in a low-fiber diet causes liver damage in the form of hepatic steatosis and inflammation. The liver and pancreas work overtime and can't keep up. In fact, this is precisely what foie gras is: overfeeding geese with corn mash until their livers turn to fat, except in humans, this result is self-induced due to the neurochemical effects of sugar consumption.
Regarding endurance athletes, I would not say that they are necessarily healthier: they have optimized their bodies for physical exertion (higher VO2max, lower resting HR, greater muscular efficiency, higher lean muscle to fat ratio, etc), but this does not exactly translate to better overall health as measured by factors like total longevity and disability-free lifetime. In fact, we know that many of these athletes suffer from long-term health complications as a result of their training and competition, such as arthritic disease. In any case, if we are talking about how they are able to consume vast quantities of food yet remain lean, this is simply a matter of energy consumed versus energy expended. Yet the quality of the diet remains important even if there are no obvious signs of metabolic damage--sure, they might not get a fatty liver because gluconeogenesis kicks in, but even they know that they can't just drink 10 liters of soda to carb load.
The main driver of obesity in the United States is gross overconsumption of food relative to the energy needs of the average sedentary American. This is the imbalance in the basic caloric equation (energy in > energy out). And I say it is "gross" not in the "yuck" sense, but in the "it's REALLY WAY over the top" sense, because we're seeing people eat upwards of 3500-4000 calories per day when their expenditures are in the 2000 range. The secondary driver, which is what we might think of as "kicking the liver while it's down," is the extreme preponderance of calories from refined sugars, which do not trigger the satiety response as quickly as the equivalent energy co
To address your specific points, the energy content of a "complex" carbohydrate (e.g., what we commonly think of as starches or long-chain polysaccharides) is extracted more slowly than a simple carbohydrate (e.g., what we think of as "sugars" which are generally mono- or disaccharides)
There's actually not much difference. Even a complex carbohydrate like bread or pasta will start to raise blood sugar within 15 minutes.
My first venture onto a keto/atkins diet, I had my blood pressure drop from medium high to "wow you're doing just fine", my triglycerides went from 390 to 95, weight from 235lbs to 190lbs, and I got completely off all diabetes-related medication - all within the span of 10 weeks.
Keto doesn't do anything for dieting, that's not how it works or what it's "designed" to do. It's used as a panic-move energy source for your brain when you are out of bloodsugar since fats cannot pass the blood-brain barrier.
If you started at 235lbs then you were at the upper echelon of overweight at least (unless you're 7"+ tall), and basically any change in diet would reduce your weight.
This is a well-known problem and is the reason why so much diet research is shit - when you include extreme outliers in your study (you take a bunch of obese people for your tests) you can expect results simply from taking them away from their pre-existing diet. I.e. if you take a 300lbs man away from his regular schedule, he will lose weight just from that. If you feed a 300lbs man print ads from your local newspaper, he will lose weight simply because he doesn't have enough time to eat like he usually does. But consuming print ads will not do much for a normal person.
Finally, no body is designed to eat ketons on a regular basis since the construction of those is destructive to your muscle mass and overall health.
Starts to rise, but doesn't spike up and then crash. So yes, a difference.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Starts to rise after 15 minutes, peaks around 1 hr, drops after 2. Pretty much all carbs do that.
Weight for weight, a slice of bread peaks your blood glucose higher than table sugar.
Just as bad is the egg and dairy industries. They spend millions on phony research that tells people that dietary saturated fat and dietary cholesterol don't increase serum cholesterol. They do.
This is irrelevant, because high cholesterol is not dangerous. If your blood cholesterol is high, lots of cholesterol is being transported. Excess cholesterol is excreted though, no real problem unless you have a rare cholesterol-related condition. Those people are the only ones needing 'to do something about their cholesterol levels.' Ordinary people without this condition don't need to. (They can still get obese - but that is not a cholesterol problem.)
The only connection between cholesterol and heart problems, is that women with very low cholesterol levels have a slightly higher risk of heart problems. With higher levels of cholesterol, the risk get a bit lower. For men, there is no connection at all. The cholesterol-heart curve for men is completely flat. Yet, people are conned into using statins to lover their cholesterol for no benefit (and slightly increased risk of heart attack.) Add to this that statins have side-effects of their own.
My first venture onto a keto/atkins diet, I had my blood pressure drop from medium high to "wow you're doing just fine", my triglycerides went from 390 to 95, weight from 235lbs to 190lbs, and I got completely off all diabetes-related medication - all within the span of 10 weeks.
Keto doesn't do anything for dieting, that's not how it works or what it's "designed" to do. It's used as a panic-move energy source for your brain when you are out of bloodsugar since fats cannot pass the blood-brain barrier.
If you started at 235lbs then you were at the upper echelon of overweight at least (unless you're 7"+ tall), and basically any change in diet would reduce your weight.
This is a well-known problem and is the reason why so much diet research is shit - when you include extreme outliers in your study (you take a bunch of obese people for your tests) you can expect results simply from taking them away from their pre-existing diet. I.e. if you take a 300lbs man away from his regular schedule, he will lose weight just from that. If you feed a 300lbs man print ads from your local newspaper, he will lose weight simply because he doesn't have enough time to eat like he usually does. But consuming print ads will not do much for a normal person.
Finally, no body is designed to eat ketons on a regular basis since the construction of those is destructive to your muscle mass and overall health.
Wow, you have constructed a nice army of straw men! I will not bother to knock them down as you are doing a great job of that, but I will toss you this lifeline: Everyone who exercises and loses weight by burning stored body fat has some measurable level of ketones, full stop. So you are saying that burning stored body fat is un-natural and destroy muscle?
Okay, so not an outlier. I dropped a couple of inches of waist and maybe 15 lbs. going keto. I'm now I'm 5-10 and 160lbs, but was not obese before. I also dropped triglycerides from "you're going to die tomorrow" to normal and brought up my good cholesterol to normal levels. Everything they can measure in a blood test got better. I've been eating this way for ~7 years. No problems with muscle mass. I have more endurance and strength than I had on a more traditional diet. Energy level is more consistent, I sleep better, the acid reflux went away (and comes right back if I have a big carb meal so I know it wasn't weight), and I'm not fucking hungry all the time. Stuff I didn't even realize was a problem got better. Bacon, eggs, butter, sausage, a little cheese, and nuts are the staples in my diet.
Not saying it's for everyone (the wife does terrible on a high fat/low carb diet), but some folks do really well on it.
There are several top ultra-marathon runners that do low carb....
http://www.thelivinlowcarbshow.com/shownotes/12099/944-zach-bitter-is-an-ultramarathon-world-champion-fueled-by-lchf/
love is just extroverted narcissism
Not for me. A bagel or a couple of pancakes will leave me ready to pass out in an hour or two. Eggs and bacon I am good all day and can skip lunch if I want.
love is just extroverted narcissism
This is a well-known problem and is the reason why so much diet research is shit - when you include extreme outliers in your study (you take a bunch of obese people for your tests) you can expect results simply from taking them away from their pre-existing diet. I.e. if you take a 300lbs man away from his regular schedule, he will lose weight just from that. If you feed a 300lbs man print ads from your local newspaper, he will lose weight simply because he doesn't have enough time to eat like he usually does. But consuming print ads will not do much for a normal person.
Finally, no body is designed to eat ketons on a regular basis since the construction of those is destructive to your muscle mass and overall health.
That just proves you haven't actually read any of the studies. They do this thing called a control group, and that gives them something to compare 2 or more groups against each other. It's all relative in the end, and double-blind is impossible unless your human subjects are all unconscious and unaware of what you are feeding them, but it's the best possible way to conduct any scientific research so there you have it.
Bodies don't really "eat" ketones, they are mainly produced internally. Glucose is too by the way, though it often isn't since there is excess in the typical diet already. Though you most likely will not believe it, ketone metabolic processes are generally more efficient than glucose and result in fewer free radical by products.
But by all means don't take my word for it. I spent over a year reading various biology textbooks and research papers before deciding what I want to believe.
And finally, it's a poor panic-move to feed the brain if it takes several weeks for your body to adapt. Your liver can produce glucose much easier as I understand it. Ketones are simply the preferred fuel when conditions and resources permit. It's a complex interaction throughout the body with insulin and several other signal hormones.
Actually it turns out eating too much protein is bad, too. It inhibits weight loss and can cause kidney problems. But the fat is still fine, and mixing fat with carbs is still the worst. French fries are the devil's dicks. (Of course it's plural dicks. He's the devil.)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The people suppressing information like this for their own profits should be labelled MASS MURDERERS, and history should remember them that way. If they are still alive, they should be punished for their crimes against humanity.
Same applies to the folks at Exxon who knew decades ago what their product would do to the world.
Don't forget the Tobacco industry.
Read Taubes' book The Case Against Sugar. Some of the same people who "worked" the PR for Tobacco did the same for the sugar industry.
Do you know why people can inhale cigarette tobacco so easily and deeply? It's by using tobacco blends, and by soaking the leaves in .... sugar.
Tobacco was for adults. Sugar is for everyone. It's part of every special occasion, it's now woven into the fabric of our society. Tobacco is expensive, sugar is cheap.
And most importantly, we all know tobacco is harmful. We all think sugar is harmless.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Fuck, they're still doing it RIGHT NOW!
Just how much sugar was the study considering "high amount"? Everything from water to the air you breath is toxic at "higher" concentrations/quantities. As far as I am concerned this news is nothing but FUD from sugar hating Liberal fascists until it is clarified what the report considered to be "high" amounts of sugar.
-==- Buy a Mac and leave me alone!
I can see why this can be addictive. The brain gets a chemical satisfaction response, just like with a drug, so why not keep it buzzing happily?
In the end, it comes down to knowing your body and how it deals with caloric intake vs what is burned. Some people have inefficient digestive systems and can eat without weight gain. Some have efficient systems that extract more energy from the food, so they need to reduce the amount of that food to avoid weight gain. If the food amount is difficult to reduce, then eat food with less calorie density (more veggies). I try to eat a balanced diet (with an occasional treat) and exercise regularly. I've been disciplined (or lucky) to be the same weight for the last 25 yrs.
Keto doesn't give you muscle mass problems when you ingest it, it's the body's own way of producing keto-bodies that is the muscle-destroying variant. It will also cause horrific breath.
Now, when you say you went on keto, does that mean you also started counting calories and lowered your daily intake? And perhaps started exercising a bit more?
I'm another datapoint. Keto with intermittent fasting (cycling fasting and feasting) is magic.
Cholesterol? Fixed.
Waistline? Shrunk.
Energy Level? Sky-high.
Read and learn, tons of articles: idmprogram.com/blog
FDA Official: "Just Eat a Goddamn Vegetable"
I second the scary strawmen critique. How do meat-eating cultures survive? Read this: http://www.diagnosisdiet.com/all-meat-diets/
We've had this article up since May of this year: https://www.nerdfitness.com/bl... The history of sugar, and what they're doing today to take advantage of current market trends.
Everybody is different. But I found the same success as above. Cut out all carbs and you'd be surprised I think but just try it for your self
This is irrelevant, because high cholesterol is not dangerous. If your blood cholesterol is high, lots of cholesterol is being transported. Excess cholesterol is excreted though, no real problem unless you have a rare cholesterol-related condition
Yes. Active people never accumulate cholesterol in the blood vessels. The cholesterol number for them is irrelevant.
It's actually amazingly difficult to find peanut butter that doesn't have added sugar. Recently I was in the store and had to grab 4 or 5 brands before I found one that didn't have sugar in it, and the print is small enough to be hard to read.
An amazing amount of work input simply to not be sugared up.
Sir,
You are factually inaccurate. It is not acid which cleaves sucrose into fructose and glucose. Instead, an enzyme in the small intestine called sucralase does this, and splits a water in order to do it. It doesn't take significant energy.
Reference:
http://healthyeating.sfgate.co...
Take a look at studies that only look at mortality in relation to diet. I find these to be the most useful.
How many people do you know who are not over 7 inches tall?
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
You've clearly not spent much time with athletes, we eat a LOT of sugary food. Forgetting that, explain why energy gels, which are pretty much liquid sugar, are an essential item? Why aren't the top runners keeling over from a heart attack after each race despite consuming the equivalent of many tablespoons of sugar? (Yes, this is dramatic, but it stands that athletes, despite consuming loads of sugar, rarely suffer from heart disease during their careers.)
Is sugar causing heart attacks, or is this article flat-out wrong? Because we have people in their late 30's having heart attacks with an increasing frequency, and almost none of them are endurance athletes who eat a lot of sugar. So you CAN eat sugar and not increase your rates of heart disease. So it likely isn't a central part of the cause, because many of the biggest consumers of sugar aren't showing any sign of the effects.
Agree with pretty much everything you've written, not sure why my post was modded down..
The point being: sugar itself is definitely not 'the cause' as the article suggests. The athletes I know consume a LOT of sugar, as I post above, energy gels are an essential food, which is basically just liquid sugar. Marathon runners and road racers would all be dying of heart attacks during the event given the tone of the article. It's just not true, and like you said, sugar can 'kick you when you're down', but so can a LOT of other things. Sugar may be "linked to heart disease", but singling it out is pretty insincere.
(Bonus points for encouraging people to eat more fiber, something like 97% of the US population don't eat enough. There's an epidemic that needs attention.)
Not if it's decent bread.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
You can't blame the sugar industry for the extensively peer-reviewed "science" that proclaimed saturated animal fats to be dangerous.
When are the so-called "experts" going to be imprisoned for this fraud which has led to so many deaths due to heart disease and Type II diabetes?
Think cocaine is bad for your brain? Then you might want to change the way you think about sugar. Eating high-sugar foods lights up your brain on an MRI "like a Christmas tree," Dr. Mark Hyman, M.D.