SoylentNews

Robert Lustig: The Man Who Believes Sugar is Poison

posted by janrinok on Wednesday August 27 2014, @01:11PM   
from the sweets-for-my-sweet,-sugar-for-my-honey-The-Drifters-1961 dept.

AnonTechie writes:

Lustig, the maverick scientist, has long argued that sugar is as harmful as cocaine or tobacco – and that the food industry has been adding too much of it to our meals for too long.

If you have any interest at all in diet, obesity, public health, diabetes, epidemiology, your own health or that of other people, you will probably be aware that sugar, not fat, is now considered the devil's food. Dr Robert Lustig's book, Fat Chance: The Hidden Truth About Sugar, Obesity and Disease ( http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/jan/25/fat-chance-robert-lustig-review ), for all that it sounds like a Dan Brown novel, is the difference between vaguely knowing something is probably true, and being told it as a fact. Lustig has spent the past 16 years treating childhood obesity. His meta-analysis of the cutting-edge research on large-cohort studies of what sugar does to populations across the world, alongside his own clinical observations, has him credited with starting the war on sugar. When it reaches the enemy status of tobacco, it will be because of Lustig.

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/aug/24/robert-lustig-sugar-poison

I think moderation is the key. What do you think ?

• Re:Tradition is a better ideaRe:Tradition is a better idea (Score: 3, Informative) by VLM on Wednesday August 27 2014, @04:49PM

  by VLM (445) on Wednesday August 27 2014, @04:49PM (#86347)

  No problem, I've got google. You should give it a try.

  Theres a nice article behind a paywall for most people at

  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11817904 [nih.gov]

  "This paper examines these topics and attempts to show that none of them justifies a priori dismissal of the evolutionary approach to preventive medicine. Evolutionary health promotion may ultimately be invalidated because of its falsification by experiment or because another theory accords better with known facts, but these commonly held prejudices should not forestall its thoughtful consideration and investigative evaluation."

  Supposedly this is discussed at

  http://paleodiet.com/life-expectancy.htm [paleodiet.com]

  although as you can guess given the URL it might have a slight bias (LOL)

  Wikipedia, which is only a semi-reputable source, discusses the topic at

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy [wikipedia.org]

  One problem is if you want to feel good about yourself you pick metrics that make you feel good. Pretty much, if you survive childhood, which is easy now and very difficult in the past, and as a woman avoid dying in childbirth, again a bit of a challenge in the olden days, and you avoid dying in the bubonic plague or cholera, thank you civil engineers, you'll pretty much die in your 60s and that's been more or less constant over human history. So paleo diet / lifestyle + civil engineers + medical doctors = modern or better lifespan.

  Its "well known" that agriculture lead to physically stunted people compared to HG lifestyle, although ag supports more sickly people per acre and strongly supports military action.

  Parent

  Starting Score:	1		point
  Moderation		+1
  Informative=1, Total=1
  Extra 'Informative' Modifier		0
  Karma-Bonus Modifier		+1
  Total Score:		3

• Civil engineers help avoid diseaseCivil engineers help avoid disease (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27 2014, @06:35PM

  by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27 2014, @06:35PM (#86404)

  [If] you avoid dying in the bubonic plague or [of] cholera, thank you civil engineers

  Cholera? OK. (Water-borne.) [google.com]

  How so with the rat-borne pestilence?
  ...and if our ancestors hadn't been so damned superstitious, they wouldn't have killed off nearly all the cats in Europe (the standard "familiar" of a "witch"), and perhaps the vermin problem wouldn't have happened in the first place.

  -- gewg_

  Parent

  • Re:Civil engineers help avoid disease(Score: 2) by VLM on Thursday August 28 2014, @03:32PM

    by VLM (445) on Thursday August 28 2014, @03:32PM (#86758)

    "How so with the rat-borne pestilence?"

    At least outside the "urban areas" we have trash collection rather than tossing trash in the streets (which feeds the rats) and it goes to a sanitary landfill which is not an oxymoron if you consider how they could be...

    In my little subdivision I'm not sure where rats would live, what they'd eat.

    Parent

• Re:Tradition is a better idea(Score: 1) by Whoever on Thursday August 28 2014, @01:32AM

  by Whoever (4524) on Thursday August 28 2014, @01:32AM (#86537) Journal

  Pretty much, if you survive childhood, which is easy now and very difficult in the past, and as a woman avoid dying in childbirth, again a bit of a challenge in the olden days, and you avoid dying in the bubonic plague or cholera, thank you civil engineers, you'll pretty much die in your 60s and that's been more or less constant over human history.

  I think that modern expected lifespan is actually significantly higher than 60 for those people that make it into their early 20s. What I have to look forward to, I don't know. Already well past 30 and most of my grandparents and parents made it into their 90's.

  Parent

• Re:Tradition is a better idea(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday August 28 2014, @10:25PM

  by FatPhil (863) <reversethis-{if.fdsa} {ta} {tnelyos-cp}> on Thursday August 28 2014, @10:25PM (#86942) Homepage

  Those sources seem to say the life expectancy was about 30-40 years.
  Are you sure that's an improvement - are you an alcoholic Chinese coalminer, or something?

  --
  Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves

  Parent