Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > General Discussion > Health, Wellness, Sex and Body
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Health, Wellness, Sex and Body Discuss The Sugar Conspiracy at the General Discussion; The Sugar Conspiracy The Guardian In 1972, a British scientist sounded the alarm that sugar – and not fat – ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 03-09-2019, 07:56 PM
mr wonder's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Virginia
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,313
Thanks: 9,941
Thanked 6,117 Times in 4,152 Posts
Default The Sugar Conspiracy

The Sugar Conspiracy
The Guardian

In 1972, a British scientist sounded the alarm that sugar – and not fat – was the greatest danger to our health. But his findings were ridiculed and his reputation ruined. How did the world’s top nutrition scientists get it so wrong for so long?


Robert Lustig is a paediatric endocrinologist at the University of California who specialises in the treatment of childhood obesity. A 90-minute talk he gave in 2009, titled Sugar: The Bitter Truth, has now been viewed more than six million times on YouTube. In it, Lustig argues forcefully that fructose, a form of sugar ubiquitous in modern diets, is a “poison” culpable for America’s obesity epidemic.

A year or so before the video was posted, Lustig gave a similar talk to a conference of biochemists in Adelaide, Australia. Afterwards, a scientist in the audience approached him. Surely, the man said, you’ve read Yudkin. Lustig shook his head. John Yudkin, said the scientist, was a British professor of nutrition who had sounded the alarm on sugar back in 1972, in a book called Pure, White, and Deadly.

“If only a small fraction of what we know about the effects of sugar were to be revealed in relation to any other material used as a food additive,” wrote Yudkin, “that material would promptly be banned.” The book did well, but Yudkin paid a high price for it. Prominent nutritionists combined with the food industry to destroy his reputation, and his career never recovered. He died, in 1995, a disappointed, largely forgotten man.

Perhaps the Australian scientist intended a friendly warning. Lustig was certainly putting his academic reputation at risk when he embarked on a high-profile campaign against sugar. But, unlike Yudkin, Lustig is backed by a prevailing wind. We read almost every week of new research into the deleterious effects of sugar on our bodies. In the US, the latest edition of the government’s official dietary guidelines includes a cap on sugar consumption. In the UK, the chancellor George Osborne has announced a new tax on sugary drinks. Sugar has become dietary enemy number one.

This represents a dramatic shift in priority. For at least the last three decades, the dietary arch-villain has been saturated fat. When Yudkin was conducting his research into the effects of sugar, in the 1960s, a new nutritional orthodoxy was in the process of asserting itself. Its central tenet was that a healthy diet is a low-fat diet. Yudkin led a diminishing band of dissenters who believed that sugar, not fat, was the more likely cause of maladies such as obesity, heart disease and diabetes. But by the time he wrote his book, the commanding heights of the field had been seized by proponents of the fat hypothesis. Yudkin found himself fighting a rearguard action, and he was defeated.

Not just defeated, in fact, but buried. When Lustig returned to California, he searched for Pure, White and Deadly in bookstores and online, to no avail. Eventually, he tracked down a copy after submitting a request to his university library. On reading Yudkin’s introduction, he felt a shock of recognition.

“Holy crap,” Lustig thought. “This guy got there 35 years before me.”

In 1980, after long consultation with some of America’s most senior nutrition scientists, the US government issued its first Dietary Guidelines. The guidelines shaped the diets of hundreds of millions of people. Doctors base their advice on them, food companies develop products to comply with them. Their influence extends beyond the US. In 1983, the UK government issued advice that closely followed the American example.

The most prominent recommendation of both governments was to cut back on saturated fats and cholesterol. Consumers dutifully obeyed. We replaced steak and sausages with pasta and rice, butter with margarine and vegetable oils, eggs with muesli, and milk with low-fat milk or orange juice. But instead of becoming healthier, we grew fatter and sicker.

Look at a graph of postwar obesity rates and it becomes clear that something changed after 1980. In the US, the line rises very gradually until, in the early 1980s, it takes off like an aeroplane. Just 12% of Americans were obese in 1950, 15% in 1980, 35% by 2000. In the UK, the line is flat for decades until the mid-1980s, at which point it also turns towards the sky. Only 6% of Britons were obese in 1980. In the next 20 years that figure more than trebled. Today, two thirds of Britons are either obese or overweight, making this the fattest country in the EU. Type 2 diabetes, closely related to obesity, has risen in tandem in both countries.

At best, we can conclude that the official guidelines did not achieve their objective; at worst, they led to a decades-long health catastrophe. Naturally, then, a search for culprits has ensued. Scientists are conventionally apolitical figures, but these days, nutrition researchers write editorials and books that resemble liberal activist tracts, fizzing with righteous denunciations of “big sugar” and fast food. Nobody could have predicted, it is said, how the food manufacturers would respond to the injunction against fat – selling us low-fat yoghurts bulked up with sugar, and cakes infused with liver-corroding transfats.

Nutrition scientists are angry with the press for distorting their findings, politicians for failing to heed them, and the rest of us for overeating and under-exercising. In short, everyone – business, media, politicians, consumers – is to blame. Everyone, that is, except scientists.

But it was not impossible to foresee that the vilification of fat might be an error. Energy from food comes to us in three forms: fat, carbohydrate, and protein. Since the proportion of energy we get from protein tends to stay stable, whatever our diet, a low-fat diet effectively means a high-carbohydrate diet. The most versatile and palatable carbohydrate is sugar, which John Yudkin had already circled in red. In 1974, the UK medical journal, the Lancet, sounded a warning about the possible consequences of recommending reductions in dietary fat: “The cure should not be worse than the disease.”

Still, it would be reasonable to assume that Yudkin lost this argument simply because, by 1980, more evidence had accumulated against fat than against sugar.

After all, that’s how science works, isn’t it?...
continued next post...
__________________
Hope is the dream of the waking man.
Aristotle

For there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease.
Job 14:6-8
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to mr wonder For This Useful Post:
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 03-09-2019, 07:57 PM
mr wonder's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Virginia
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,313
Thanks: 9,941
Thanked 6,117 Times in 4,152 Posts
Default Re: The Sugar Conspiracy


....If, as seems increasingly likely, the nutritional advice on which we have relied for 40 years was profoundly flawed, this is not a mistake that can be laid at the door of corporate ogres. Nor can it be passed off as innocuous scientific error. What happened to John Yudkin belies that interpretation. It suggests instead that this is something the scientists did to themselves – and, consequently, to us.

We tend to think of heretics as contrarians, individuals with a compulsion to flout conventional wisdom. But sometimes a heretic is simply a mainstream thinker who stays facing the same way while everyone around him turns 180 degrees. When, in 1957, John Yudkin first floated his hypothesis that sugar was a hazard to public health, it was taken seriously, as was its proponent. By the time Yudkin retired, 14 years later, both theory and author had been marginalised and derided. Only now is Yudkin’s work being returned, posthumously, to the scientific mainstream.

These sharp fluctuations in Yudkin’s stock have had little to do with the scientific method, and a lot to do with the unscientific way in which the field of nutrition has conducted itself over the years. This story, which has begun to emerge in the past decade, has been brought to public attention largely by sceptical outsiders rather than eminent nutritionists. In her painstakingly researched book, The Big Fat Surprise, the journalist Nina Teicholz traces the history of the proposition that saturated fats cause heart disease, and reveals the remarkable extent to which its progress from controversial theory to accepted truth was driven, not by new evidence, but by the influence of a few powerful personalities, one in particular.

Teicholz’s book also describes how an establishment of senior nutrition scientists, at once insecure about its medical authority and vigilant for threats to it, consistently exaggerated the case for low-fat diets, while turning its guns on those who offered evidence or argument to the contrary. John Yudkin was only its first and most eminent victim.

Today, as nutritionists struggle to comprehend a health disaster they did not predict and may have precipitated, the field is undergoing a painful period of re-evaluation. It is edging away from prohibitions on cholesterol and fat, and hardening its warnings on sugar, without going so far as to perform a reverse turn. But its senior members still retain a collective instinct to malign those who challenge its tattered conventional wisdom too loudly, as Teicholz is now discovering.

To understand how we arrived at this point, we need to go back almost to the beginning of modern nutrition science. On 23 September, 1955, US President Dwight Eisenhower suffered a heart attack. Rather than pretend it hadn’t happened, Eisenhower insisted on making details of his illness public. The next day, his chief physician, Dr Paul Dudley White, gave a press conference at which he instructed Americans on how to avoid heart disease: stop smoking, and cut down on fat and cholesterol. In a follow-up article, White cited the research of a nutritionist at the University of Minnesota, Ancel Keys.

Heart disease, which had been a relative rarity in the 1920s, was now felling middle-aged men at a frightening rate, and Americans were casting around for cause and cure. Ancel Keys provided an answer: the “diet-heart hypothesis” (for simplicity’s sake, I am calling it the “fat hypothesis”). This is the idea, now familiar, that an excess of saturated fats in the diet, from red meat, cheese, butter, and eggs, raises cholesterol, which congeals on the inside of coronary arteries, causing them to harden and narrow, until the flow of blood is staunched and the heart seizes up.

Ancel Keys was brilliant, charismatic, and combative. A friendly colleague at the University of Minnesota described him as, “direct to the point of bluntness, critical to the point of skewering”; others were less charitable. He exuded conviction at a time when confidence was most welcome. The president, the physician and the scientist formed a reassuring chain of male authority, and the notion that fatty foods were unhealthy started to take hold with doctors, and the public. (Eisenhower himself cut saturated fats and cholesterol from his diet altogether, right up until his death, in 1969, from heart disease.)

Many scientists, especially British ones, remained sceptical. The most prominent doubter was John Yudkin, then the UK’s leading nutritionist. When Yudkin looked at the data on heart disease, he was struck by its correlation with the consumption of sugar, not fat. He carried out a series of laboratory experiments on animals and humans, and observed, as others had before him, that sugar is processed in the liver, where it turns to fat, before entering the bloodstream.

He noted, too, that while humans have always been carnivorous, carbohydrates only became a major component of their diet 10,000 years ago, with the advent of mass agriculture. Sugar – a pure carbohydrate, with all fibre and nutrition stripped out – has been part of western diets for just 300 years; in evolutionary terms, it is as if we have, just this second, taken our first dose of it. Saturated fats, by contrast, are so intimately bound up with our evolution that they are abundantly present in breast milk. To Yudkin’s thinking, it seemed more likely to be the recent innovation, rather than the prehistoric staple, making us sick....
https://getpocket.com/explore/item/the-sugar-conspiracy
__________________
Hope is the dream of the waking man.
Aristotle

For there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease.
Job 14:6-8

Last edited by mr wonder; 03-09-2019 at 08:08 PM..
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to mr wonder For This Useful Post:
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 03-09-2019, 08:07 PM
mr wonder's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Virginia
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,313
Thanks: 9,941
Thanked 6,117 Times in 4,152 Posts
Default Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

Seems scientist, nutritionist, and the official gov't standard recomendations can be WRONG...
who'd a thunk it?
wrong for 40 years no less.
So i guess it's a good thing that the gov't didn't FORCE everyonew to do what it recommended and that some scientist and doctors where allowed to continue even though some were crushed as quacks.

personally, during the 70s and 80s I never knew how bad sugar was, but i never bought the line that fats like butter were worse for you than margarine. Or that natural oils like coconut were bad.
But during the 80s i did start to read some natural food Dr's warnings about "process foods", "processed sugars" , and the like and they made a good case. Even though at the time they were called being called "Health Nuts" for many of the recommendations that are now considered standard wisdom.

bottom line, people have a right to follow their best ideas health wise.
Not just follow the "herd".
__________________
Hope is the dream of the waking man.
Aristotle

For there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease.
Job 14:6-8
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 03-09-2019, 08:38 PM
saltwn's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 79,656
Thanks: 54,957
Thanked 26,059 Times in 18,606 Posts
Default Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

Before the reservation system, the American Indian had no written or vocal word for "Diabetes." They quickly grew to the largest demographic with diabetes after they were placed on the reservation (where for the first time they were introduced to white flour and refined sugar).
West Virginians (who arguably have Native American, Scottish, and English DNA dispersed throughout the population), still holds the record for highest rate of diabetes currently in this country.
__________________
I find it revealing when people mock where I came from, & say they’re going to “send me back to waitressing,” as if that is bad or shameful.

It’s as though they think being a member of Congress makes you intrinsically “better” than a waitress.

But our job is to serve, not rule. ___
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to saltwn For This Useful Post:
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 03-10-2019, 03:31 PM
Manitou's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Texas
Gender: Male
Posts: 19,435
Thanks: 351
Thanked 5,956 Times in 4,320 Posts
Default Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

All food processed and refined in the United States is 80 percent crap, in my opinion.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Manitou For This Useful Post:
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 03-10-2019, 05:42 PM
saltwn's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 79,656
Thanks: 54,957
Thanked 26,059 Times in 18,606 Posts
Default Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manitou View Post
All food processed and refined in the United States is 80 percent crap, in my opinion.
All processed food period but yeah
__________________
I find it revealing when people mock where I came from, & say they’re going to “send me back to waitressing,” as if that is bad or shameful.

It’s as though they think being a member of Congress makes you intrinsically “better” than a waitress.

But our job is to serve, not rule. ___
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
conspiracy, sugar, the

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:12 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0