Is Sugar A Toxin? Dr. Robert Lustig

[mother earth]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/is-sugar-a-toxin-experts-debate-the-role-of-fructose-in-our-obesity-epidemic/2013/08/30/58a906d6-f952-11e2-afc1-c850c6ee5af8_story.html
“ Fat Chance: Beating the Odds Against Sugar, Processed Food, Obesity, and Disease ” makes the case that sugar is almost single-handedly responsible for Americans’ excess weight and the illnesses that go with it. “Sugar is the biggest perpetrator of our current health crisis,” says Lustig, blaming it for not just obesity and diabetes but also for insulin resistance, cardiovascular disease, stroke, even cancer. “Sugar is a toxin,” he says. “Pure and simple.” Although glucose can be metabolized by every cell in the body, fructose is metabolized almost entirely by the liver. There it can result in the generation of free radicals ( damaged cells that can damage other cells) and uric acid ( which can lead to kidney disease or gout ), and it can kick off a process called de novo lipogenesis, which generates fats that can find their way into the bloodstream or be deposited on the liver itself. These byproducts are linked to obesity, insulin resistance and the group of risk factors linked to diabetes, heart disease and stroke. (Lustig gives a detailed explanation of fructose metabolism in a well-viewed YouTube video called “Sugar: The Bitter Truth.”)


http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2014/0227/Michelle-Obama-pitches-new-food-labels-more-focus-on-sugar-less-on-fat-video

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

1. I'm not a fan of refined sugar, but

demonizing fructose because it's metabolized by the liver is silly. The liver is the primary metabolizer of all sorts of molecules. And that's simply how the body works - all carbohydrates are metabolized to be stripped down to glucose, which is then delivered to cells in the bloodstream. That's why directly eating lots of glucose is actually worse for you - it doesn't need to undergo any processing, so it all dumps pretty much straight into the bloodstream immediately, at which point the pancreas realizes there's waaay too much sugar in the blood, and starts pumping out insulin to facilitate it being shoved into cells for storage, since there's more than needs to be burned by the cells for regular use. The more complex the carbohydrate, the better in terms of not spiking blood sugar if you're going to eat carbs. Sure, fructose isn't great, because it's pretty quickly turned into glucose, as all sugars are. But glucose is still worse for throwing your blood chemistry out of whack and adding to your stored fat.

Almost everyone eats (or drinks) too much sugar, but there's no need to bash fructose specifically. Just eat less sugar of any type.

[Fred Sanders]

2. Sorry, have to go with the medical expert on this on. Fructose is poison, as explained.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

3. There's more than one medical expert out there.

And if you bother to read what I wrote, I didn't proclaim fructose to be 'good for you'. I just pointed out that there is less reason to demonize it specifically over other forms of sugars. Why, for instance, do dextrose, lactose, or maltose get a pass that fructose doesn't? They all also have to be metabolized down to glucose before they're sent into the bloodstream.

You might want to read his wikipedia entry as well, specifically the fructose controversy section, in which other medical experts disagree with his notions that fructose is 'teh evil'.

[Babel_17]

11. Interesting link, thanks

I take a Nature's Answer product that includes a small amount of fructose. I've been losing weight on a low-carb, Atkins-like, diet and I count my carbs so I wondered why they used any fructose. They use a small amount, but it's large enough that I have to count it. I even split the dose and consume it with a zero carb pea protein and an extremely low carb greens/probiotic.

"fructose may enhance exercise performance by stimulating nutrient absorption and energy metabolism"

"small 'catalytic' doses of fructose may improve control of blood glucose"

Those quotes from your link might explain their reasoning.

http://www.naturesanswer.com/p-1023-greens-today-vegan-formula-18oz.aspx

P.S. I'm not affiliated with anyone.

[Frustratedlady]

4. I have to agree with you.

The sad thing is, it's in everything...even those foods that don't need it.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

9. Bingo.

Added sugars are our problem. No matter which particular sugar molecule is being added.

[jeff47]

16. Yeah, it's not like he's selling anything...

....oh wait.

We keep desperately searching for a single evil chemical that causes obesity. Fat was the demon until recently. Now sugar is the demon. And we will keep being obese as long as we keep pretending that a single evil chemical is the cause.

We're obese because we eat too many calories for our level of activity. All the studies identifying each new demon also include increasing activity and reducing total calories, while claiming obesity is caused by the latest demon.

[mother earth]

22. Obesity is caused by many things, and we are learning as time goes by that, yes, anything and

everything in excess is a problem.

What I believe the author and doctor, as well as Michelle Obama, are concerned about is that sugar, of all kinds and in all forms, is being added to absolutely everything processed.

I think instead of "demonizing" this doctor, perhaps we should take what we will from the discourse. Obesity and related disease are issues we need to understand and continue to educate, ourselves and others.

Absolutely, exercise and reducing total calories factors in, but I'm thinking that's something we already do or should know.

[jeff47]

24. Take a look at your own response.

Absolutely, exercise and reducing total calories factors in, but I'm thinking that's something we already do or should know

Except you just wrote this post where you claim sugar is the problem, or a very large part of the problem. In fact, you are claiming that the "Let's Move" campaign is about sugar, not moving.

Education means learning what our bodies actually do with food. Not what sells a book. Declaring any individual chemical as the cause means you are selling books, not solving the problem.

[mother earth]

34. MO's "Let's Move" campaign was about exercising, her issue and one she has spoken about

and the whole "Let's Move" campaign, started as her also wanting better labeling and getting food co.'s to decrease sugar in food products.

It would be nice if you read some of the links or listened to the interview, it's a good starting point BEFORE entering discussion.

If your issue is the OP is about a doctor selling a book, have at it. No, we are not going to solve a problem by educating ourselves or the public about sugar, but we just might get a handle on why we are dealing with obesity and related disease at levels that were far lower prior to the advent of processed foods inundating the marketplace.

I don't declare, nor would I deem the author does, an individual chemical as the only culprit, it's one of many. If you listened to the interview, you would know he started out as a pediatrician who was constantly dealing with obesity in children. That's a very young age to be struggling with obesity. This problem is far greater than it has been in the past, it's really very important to understand ALL underlying causes.

I commend Michelle Obama for attempting it, despite the constant BS she's had to deal with, along with the ridiculous criticism of her efforts. I don't recall that she has any books to sell, but I'd be willing to bet she's in agreement with this doctor's take. That's my take on the subject. Thanks for yours.

[thesquanderer]

29. It's not as simple as calories in vs. calories out

one article, for example...

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/18/opinion/sunday/always-hungry-heres-why.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

[Brainstormy]

6. Fructose in fruit

is very different from the fructose in HFC because of the mitigating fiber. The fiber slows the rate of digestion, reducing the insulin response, leading to more stable blood sugar levels, and triggering satiety much quicker. It’s all but impossible to over-consume fructose from fresh fruit and vegetable sources. I'm not for demonizing fructose, per se, but HFCS is insidious and very dangerous.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

8. I'll agree with you there,

and add that I think that's possibly part of what people are misunderstanding about 'fructose'. The problem is less the 'fructose' per se, but rather the fact that sugar (in the form of HFCS) is being added to virtually every bit of processed food on the grocery shelves. We'd be having the same problems if what was being added was, for instance, 'high dextrose' syrup. We likely get HFCS simply because it's the cheapest form of sugar for producers to make.

[DesertDiamond]

10. This is what bothers me here. Instead of calling out HFCS as the major culprit, the article makes

it seems like we shouldn't be eating fruit at all!

It is true that fruit juice spikes the blood sugar, but that's easily avoided by eating fruit whole instead of drinking fruit juice, because the fiber cushions the blood sugar spike. Fruit either au natural or in a whole-fruit smoothie will not spike your blood sugar as fruit juice will.

[mother earth]

18. He says exactly that in the interview. nt

[jeff47]

14. Nope.

Fructose metabolism is not regulated by insulin. Fructose isn't glucose.

Fructose, from any source, gets converted into glycogen in the liver. That glycogen sits around in the liver until blood glucose levels fall too low, then the glycogen is converted into glucose and dumped into the blood.

(Ignoring the other pathways for glycogen metabolism for simplicity - they are used much less frequently)

I'm not for demonizing fructose, per se, but HFCS is insidious and very dangerous.

Despite what lots of people believe, HFCS isn't the same as fructose.

Corn syrup is 100% glucose. In HFCS, about half of the glucose is converted into fructose. There's a few blends with slightly different percentages, but the ones used in food are all close to 50/50.

HFCS is used in the place of sucrose, aka table sugar. Sucrose is a fructose and a glucose stuck together, so it's exactly 50/50. The oxygen bond holding those two together gets broken before the sugars are absorbed into the blood, so HFCS and sucrose follow exactly the same metabolic path.

[Nitram]

21. jeff77, nice to hear from someone on this topic who knows...

...what they are talking about for a change. Thanks for sharing.

[mucifer]

41. We need to eat some fruit so we don't get scurvy.

I'm gonna stick with my fruit and veggie smoothie each morning. No added sugar other than the actual fruit.

[HuckleB]

12. You're absolutely correct.

[Baitball Blogger]

5. Our medical community is so far behind it's a national disgrace.

Last edited Mon May 19, 2014, 01:17 PM - Edit history (1)

Take, for instance, how much sugar cane sugar (sucrose) plays a role in the diet of Latin Americans. Then they move up here and replace it with products that are HFCS products. The results are devastating.

Updated for correct sugar labeling.

[jeff47]

15. If you're going to claim we are behind, you need to get the chemistry right.

Take, for instance, how much sugar cane sugar (glucose)

Wrong.

"sugar cane sugar", aka table sugar, is sucrose. Sucrose is a glucose bonded to a fructose by one oxygen atom. That bond is broken in our small intestine before the resulting fructose and glucose are absorbed.

Then they move up here and replace it with fructose products

Wrong.

Corn syrup is 100% glucose. When they make HFCS, they convert about 50% of the glucose into fructose. The resulting blend is extremely similar to the 50/50 blend that is sucrose. Which is why it's used in place of sucrose.

[Baitball Blogger]

17. Thank you for the correction. I will amend my post,

because I think this is an important issue.

[jeff47]

19. Well, you corrected the names. But there's still the larger problem.

HFCS and sucrose follow exactly the same metabolic pathway.

In both cases, the body is absorbing and metabolizing a 50/50 mixture of glucose and fructose.

The obesity you cite isn't caused by switching from sucrose to HFCS. It's caused by eating too many calories for the level of activity. A typical lunch in Latin America has many fewer calories than a typical lunch in the US, for example.

We have a long, long history of people propping up a single chemical as the obesity demon. Until recently, it was fat. Now it's sugar, and especially HFCS. Just buy their book and exciting new diet plan, and you'll be skinny by removing one single chemical.

There really is no obesity demon chemical. It's calories in versus calories burned. Some chemicals make that equation easier to balance, but the important thing is still the underlying equation.

[Baitball Blogger]

20. I'm not as concerned with obesity as I am with diabetes.

And I tend to disagree with you when it comes to diet.

I grew up in Latin America, and back in the day, they would serve large meals that were heavy with carbs. i.e. llame, yucca and white rice. This was all good when you consider that wealthy households would feed their field hands, who were generally working in the heat all day. Whatever they ate at the patron's house was the only meal they received all day.

Jump forty to fifty years ahead and now we have Latin American restaurants that still serve gigantic servings of white rice with each dish. When I visit my father in Miami, we generally share a meal, because the dishes are that big.

Sugar dishes and beverages are everywhere in a Latin American culture. Soda products that are directed to the Latin American community, generally are higher in sugar. (At least this was the case, based on an article I read several years ago.) Coffee drinks are high in sugar. This, somehow, works in Latin American countries, but not so much in the U.S.A. So, what is the difference between the two environments?

I think the issue comes down to studying the Latin American metabolism and physiology. And, yes, I think the answer comes down to diet, exercise and the difference in sugars. And, I might add, difference in stress factors.

[jeff47]

23. And those large meals matched lots of physical activity

I grew up in Latin America, and back in the day, they would serve large meals that were heavy with carbs. i.e. llame, yucca and white rice. This was all good when you consider that wealthy households would feed their field hands

Yep - balancing the calories in versus calories burned.

But your typical non-field hand eats less calories than your typical non-field hand in the US.

Jump forty to fifty years ahead and now we have Latin American restaurants that still serve gigantic servings of white rice with each dish.

Whether or not this is a problem depends on what else you're doing all day.

Eat one meal a day? You can load up on lots of calories at that meal.

Do a lot of physical labor? Go ahead and eat lots of calories.

Spend all day sitting at a desk, working on a computer? You're gonna have a problem if you eat that giant meal all the time.

Sugar dishes and beverages are everywhere in a Latin American culture. Soda products that are directed to the Latin American community, generally are higher in sugar. (At least this was the case, based on an article I read several years ago.) Coffee drinks are high in sugar. This, somehow, works in Latin American countries, but not so much in the U.S.A.

It's still calories in versus calories burned.

Let's try a different culture that's not having the US's obesity problem: The French. Traditionally, dinner in France is a very large meal with lots of fat and tons of calories. Why aren't they fat? Breakfast for an office worker is coffee. Lunch is a little bread with jam or butter. They've eaten so little the rest of the day that a large dinner isn't a problem.

And, yes, I think the answer comes down to diet, exercise and the difference in sugars.

The point is as far as our bodies can tell, there is no difference in sugars. Eat sucrose? Your body sees a 50/50 glucose/fructose blend. Eat HFCS? Your body sees a 50/50* glucose/fructose blend.

*(There's a few different HFCS blends used in food. They're all about 50/50)

[Baitball Blogger]

25. Going to your last point,

I am in that narrow window, which began with hypoglycemia and is now bordering on diabetes. I definitely felt a difference between sugar cane sugar and HFCS.

Maybe we need to have a complete test based on Latin American physiology, before you start making sweeping conclusions that affect everyone's lives?

[jeff47]

26. You are free to feel anything

And the fact that you know you are eating one or the other is why those feelings are meaningless.

Sucrose is broken into to a 50/50 blend before your body absorbs it. It happens in your duodenum, the beginning of your small intestine where most digestion happens.

Doesn't matter if you're Latin American or Nordic - that digestion happens in that place. Just like your lungs absorb oxygen whether you're Latin American or Nordic (Nordic selected for being on the opposite side of the planet).

Really, really wanting there to be a difference between HFCS metabolism and sucrose metabolism does not mean such a difference actually exists. Most people selling books (like the subject of this thread) exploit the fact that most people don't know HFCS and fructose are not the same thing, and so they only talk about fructose metabolism when that isn't what's actually going on.

[Baitball Blogger]

31. You bring nothing to the table that will prove helpful to people

like me, who continue to fall through the cracks because people like you want to believe generic studies, that continually exclude minorities.

Go ahead and continue believing what you want to believe. I have had it with bad medical advice.

[jeff47]

42. Being a minority does not change how you process sucrose.

Just like being a minority does not change how you process oxygen.

[Baitball Blogger]

43. You obviously have not been keeping up with the latest research.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-25506198

You are fine to understand that these things can be genetic, but don't seem to understand the origin of genes.

[jeff47]

44. Nope. You're talking about something different

and are looking very hard for a reason to be special.

Sucrose and HFCS are processed the same way. In everyone. Whether or not they are a diabetic. The path both chemicals follow is identical.

If a diabetic eats either sugar, it results in the same path in that diabetic.
If a non-diabetic eats either sugar, it results in the same path in that non-diabetic. Which differs from the diabetic path, but both sugars are handled the same.

[Baitball Blogger]

46. So far, all you have is an opinion.

The definitive study has not been produced that supports your opinion. But when one is finally produced, it will be comprehensive. And by comprehensive, I mean the test subjects will be based on the genetic factors mentioned in that article.

It sounds desperate on your part to intentionally exclude the conclusions of a recent study that points out the very conclusion that you refuse to accept.

[jeff47]

47. No, I have lots and lots of research

down to the individual enzymes and structures used to process the chemicals. Wanna see the electron micrographs?

It sounds desperate on your part to intentionally exclude the conclusions of a recent study that points out the very conclusion that you refuse to accept.

Desperate is claiming that I said anything about that study.

You are talking about something different than I am talking about. You don't understand that.

[Baitball Blogger]

48. The article I posted is recent.

Show me the study that included test subjects that were Latin American and/or Native Americans, so I can compare the results with other subjects. Then I'll believe we all break down the enzymes in the same manner.

Minorities are always underrepresented in these tests. That's what makes that article so singular.

[jeff47]

49. And the article you posted is still not what I'm talking about.

Again, you are talking about something different than I am talking about. You don't understand that.

how me the study that included test subjects that were Latin American and/or Native Americans, so I can compare the results with other subjects. Then I'll believe we all break down the enzymes in the same manner.

Wow.....that statement is utterly and completely clueless. It's the equivalent of saying Latin American people don't use ATCG in their DNA.

All humans use the same enzymes and metabolic pathways. Genetics can play a factor in the quantity of those enzymes and other efficiency factors, but the same enzymes are used.

For example, all humans use insulin to regulate blood glucose level. Genetics and environment can tweak an individual's sensitivity to insulin, but it's still insulin.

[Baitball Blogger]

50. You are not convincing.

I'll let you have the last word and end this debate here. Because I am personally invested in finding the answer that fits my set of circumstances, this will be an issue that I will keep an eye on, as developments come up.

[trotsky]

27. "sweeping conclusions that affect everyone's lives"

You mean like saying "Our medical community is so far behind it's a national disgrace."??

[Baitball Blogger]

33. Where is the contradiction?

Our medical community continues to make sweeping conclusions that affect everyone's lives. I have found more helpful information from others who are affected by diabetes, than I have from the medical community. We have a long way to go in this department. Pro HFCS are not helping our situation.

The most promising information that I have seen on diabetes, are the ones that correlate genetics with predisposition. Ergo, for someone who is predisposed for diabetes, these subtle differences in sugars can make a huge difference. You all may have the freedom to ignore these difference, while those of us who are predisposed to the after-effects suffer the consequences when we do.

[trotsky]

36. I guess it's OK for your to make sweeping conclusions then. No biggie.

You have some interesting theories but I know of no actual data that backs you up.

But I do know that excessive sugar consumption (whether it's fructose, glucose, or any mixture thereof) combined with a sedentary lifestyle is trouble no matter who you are. Yes, some people have a predisposition toward diabetes but it's not just a special sugar that's responsible.

[Baitball Blogger]

37. You're missing a major factor in the dialogue.

Genetic research is coming up with a smoking gun. Some of us may be predisposed for diabetes based on genetic make-up that occurred thousands of years ago. Our bodies may have had time, over those thousands of years, to find a better tolerance for sugar (from sugar cane) than a sugar product that was just put on the market a few decades ago.

Let's just say, that my "sweeping generalizations" apply to me. I'm just the canary in the mine suggesting that more studies are needed before anyone takes a hardcore pro-HFCS stance.



http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-25506198

[trotsky]

38. Oh I don't dispute a genetic predisposition for diabetes.

The rest of your theory is what lacks any kind of actual evidence.

[Baitball Blogger]

40. It appears that no one is producing evidence to support their positions.

I, at least, have my own reaction to sugar to understand there is a difference.

[trotsky]

51. I'm sure you do. n/t

[thesquanderer]

28. though sugar per se doesn't cause diabetes

from http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/myths/

---

Myth: Eating too much sugar causes diabetes.

Fact: The answer is not so simple. Type 1 diabetes is caused by genetics and unknown factors that trigger the onset of the disease; type 2 diabetes is caused by genetics and lifestyle factors.

Being overweight does increase your risk for developing type 2 diabetes, and a diet high in calories from any source contributes to weight gain. Research has shown that drinking sugary drinks is linked to type 2 diabetes.

The American Diabetes Association recommends that people should limit their intake of sugar-sweetened beverages to help prevent diabetes. Sugar-sweetened beverages include beverages like:

regular soda
fruit punch
fruit drinks
energy drinks
sports drinks
sweet tea
other sugary drinks.

[Baitball Blogger]

30. Sugar doesn't cause diabetes...but the ADA recommends

that people should limit their intake of sugar-sweetened beverages to help prevent diabetes.

Got it.

[thesquanderer]

32. Right. But was that supposed to be as snarky as it sounded?

There is a difference between "sugar" and "sugar in sweetened beverages." The ADA (whose web site I linked to and got the info from) seem to be going out of their way to make the distinction. If nothing else, an obvious difference is how much sugar you are likely to get in a very short period of time. Often, how problematic a substance is comes down to how much you consume over what period of time.

[Baitball Blogger]

35. No one disagrees with the amount of consumption being a problem.

If you read my posts, you will see I pointed that out.

But, for me, I also notice a difference between natural sugars and HFCS. I don't see why that observation should be a problem to anyone else. It is my choice to eliminate HFCS from my diet, where possible. Why should that be problematic for someone else?

[Nitram]

7. Oxygen is a toxin, too.

In fact, anything in excess is toxic.

[Android3.14]

13. And water is physically addictive

eom

[polynomial]

39. High frucose corn grown with certain fertilizers are

Corn grown with Anhydrous Ammonia, a common fertilizer which has been designated for ethanol is also used in animal feed and drink and snack products especially candy bars.

Also used in common food products is loaded with that basic carcinogen that has an obscure effect on humans causing diabetes, diseases in which the person has high blood glucose blood sugar. You lose parts of your body do to decay because of this stuff, that is basic cancer.

Just as the tobacco industry tried for decades to suppress the health hazard in smoking so to the sugar industry is on the way to defiance and arrogance that’s shuns that notion to watch your sugar intake.

Go ahead and eat those cream puffs made with high fructose corn syrup. Eventually, like my friend you will have to start to watch your sugar intake, or get dizzy and fall over to pass out. I would venture to say some Bourbon whiskey and vodka are loaded with the same corn.
bottoms up...or now down the drain...that Tennessee corn whiskey might very well kill you.

Today because of some mysterious reason you’re the fault. No your system is not at fault. Americans foods and soft drinks and hard liquor are so loaded with this stuff.

[enki23]

52. To be clear, are you claiming that our food is all adulterated with anhydrous ammonia?

Because, wow.

[littlemissmartypants]

45. Compelling discussion mother earth!

But you are going to have to pry my cold dead delicious hands open to get my chocolate.

Love, Peace and Shelter. Lmsp

[mother earth]

53. Chocolate has definite health benefits...