The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Should sugar intake should be halved?  (Read 503 times)

Offline thedoc

  • Forum Admin
  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 502
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Should sugar intake should be halved?
« on: 24/11/2015 14:35:12 »
As the debate intensifies over how much sugar we should eat, we ask the question on everyone's lips: Why we should be eating less of it?
Read a transcript of the interview by clicking here
or Listen to it now or [download as MP3]
« Last Edit: 24/11/2015 14:35:12 by _system »


C. Boyer

  • Guest
« Reply #1 on: 18/02/2016 18:52:03 »
Sorry, but I think you've missed a significant part of the debate. The data (the information not funded by the food industry, whose scientists should recuse themselves from this debate on obvious grounds of conflict of interest) show that biochemistry affects behavior, not the other way around. Fructose is actually a toxin and is processed biochemically only in the liver, via the same pathway as alcohol. It is not an acute toxin, unlike alcohol (fermented fructose), but it is the identical chronic toxin. Look at the studies on the use of an endocrine drug called octreotide to treat hypothalamic obesity in kids with brain tumors, which led to studies of regular obesity in adults. The constant high insulin (due to overdosing on fructose (via HFCS or sucrose)) causes leptin resistance, which is why we eat too much; our bodies think we're starving, SO we eat more and exercise less. When given octreotide to block a part of that pathway, adults spontaneously moved more and ate less.  I refer you to the work of the pediatric neuroedocrinologist Robert Lustig and his colleagues at UCSF and the Institute for Responible Nutrition for the rigorous and massive studies they have done to bring this crucial point to light. Metabolic syndrome is bankrupting many healthcare systems around the world, and following the old party line isn't going to work. It hasn't worked for 30 years. I am not a scientist, but Lustig and his colleagues are. I find their evidence credible and compelling. The recommendations you presented were admirable, but without conviction or teeth, and you're still blaming an unsuspecting public and allowing a complacent and complicit legislative body to pass the buck. The food and beverage companies are behaving like the tobacco companies, and they are just as culpable. If you truly want to impact public health for the better, please, show all sides of this debate.

The Naked Scientists Forum

« Reply #1 on: 18/02/2016 18:52:03 »


SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums