Toxic Sugar

Reading time – article: 2,740 words, 6 to 11 minutes
Reading time – comments: 22,993 words, 54 to 92 minutes

I gave up refined sugar long ago, but I was surprised that this “60 Minutes” segment linked sugar (sucrose, fructose, etc.) to so many modern diseases. By the way; artificial sweeteners are even more toxic than sugar. The video link is here, but for those of you who prefer text, the transcript is below.

Also, for your added pleasure there are over 200 comments after the transcript, many of which prove, once again, that denial is more than a river in Egypt and there’s no cure for stupidity even when faced with demonstrable facts.

And, for those who have two hours, you can watch the YouTube video Sugar: The Bitter Truth below with Robert H. Lustig, MD, UCSF Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology as he explores the damage caused by sugary foods

Sugar Shown To Be Toxic, Causing Cancer, Heart Disease

April 2, 2012

Source: Disinfo

Although food activists have been warning for years of the dangers of the massive sugar overload in the American diet, and in particular the perils to our health from the ubiquitous High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS), only now has the scientific research confirming their concerns become so compelling that the mainstream media is taking what was once a minority viewpoint seriously. The most remarkable thing about this “60 Minutes” investigation by celebrity doctor Sanjay Gupta is the short shrift given to the sugar industry’s right to reply. Gupta and CBS News dismiss the industry representative’s protest against the research summarily, essentially calling him out for having nothing of substance to say. Bravo Dr. Gupta!

Dr. Sanjay Gupta reports on new research showing that beyond weight gain, sugar can take a serious toll on your health, worsening conditions ranging from heart disease to cancer.

(CBS News) If you are what you eat, then what does it mean that the average American consumes 130 pounds of sugar a year? Sanjay Gupta reports on new research showing that beyond weight gain, sugar can take a serious toll on your health, worsening conditions ranging from heart disease to cancer. Some physicians go so far as to call sugar a toxin.

The following script is from “Sugar” which aired on April 1, 2012. Dr. Sanjay Gupta is the correspondent. Denise Schrier Cetta and Sumi Aggarwal, producers.

The chances are good that sugar is a bigger part of your daily diet than you may realize which is why our story tonight is so important. New research coming out of some of America’s most respected institutions is starting to find that sugar, the way many people are eating it today, is a toxin and could be a driving force behind some of this country’s leading killers, including heart disease.

As a result of these findings, an anti-sugar campaign has sprung up, led by Dr. Robert Lustig, a California endocrinologist, who believes the consumption of added sugars has plunged America into a public health crisis.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta: Is sugar toxic?

Dr. Robert Lustig: I believe it is.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta: Do you ever worry that that’s– it just sounds a little bit over the top?

Dr. Robert Lustig: Sure. All the time. But it’s the truth.

Dr. Robert Lustig is a pediatric endocrinologist at the University of California, San Francisco and a pioneer in what is becoming a war against sugar.

Motivated by his own patients — too many sick and obese children – Dr. Lustig has concluded that sugar, more than any other substance, is to blame.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta: What are all these various diseases that you say are linked to sugar?

Dr. Robert Lustig: Obesity, type II diabetes, hypertension, and heart disease itself.
Lustig says the American lifestyle is killing us.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta: And most of it you say is preventable?

Dr. Robert Lustig: Seventy-five percent of it is preventable.

While Dr. Lustig has published a dozen scientific articles on the evils of sugar, it was his lecture on YouTube, called “Sugar: The Bitter Truth,” that brought his message to the masses.

[YouTube Video: I’m standing here today to recruit you in the war against bad food.]

By “bad food” Dr. Lustig means the obvious things such as table sugar, honey, syrup, sugary drinks and desserts, but also just about every processed food you can imagine, where sugar is often hidden: yogurts and sauces, bread, and even peanut butter. And what about the man-made, often vilified sweetener, high fructose corn syrup?

Dr. Sanjay Gupta: Is it worse than just table sugar?

Dr. Robert Lustig: No. ‘Cause it’s the exact same. They are basically equivalent. The problem is they’re both bad. They’re both equally toxic.

Since the 1970s, sugar consumption has gone down nearly 40 percent, but high fructose corn syrup has more than made up the difference. Dr. Lustig says they are both toxic because they both contain fructose — that’s what makes them sweet and irresistible.

Dr. Robert Lustig: We love it. We go out of our way to find it. I think one of the reasons evolutionarily is because there is no food stuff on the planet that has fructose that is poisonous to you. It is all good. So when you taste something that’s sweet, it’s an evolutionary Darwinian signal that this is a safe food.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta: We were born this way?

Dr. Robert Lustig: We were born this way.

Central to Dr. Lustig’s theory is that we used to get our fructose mostly in small amounts of fruit — which came loaded with fiber that slows absorption and consumption — after all, who can eat 10 oranges at a time? But as sugar and high fructose corn syrup became cheaper to refine and produce, we started gorging on them. Americans now consume 130 pounds per person a year — that’s a third of a pound every day.

Dr. Lustig believes those sweeteners are helping fuel an increase in the most deadly disease in America: heart disease. For years, he’s been a controversial voice.

[Kimber Stanhope: Here is our oral isotope…]

But now, studies done by Kimber Stanhope, a nutritional biologist at the University of California, Davis are starting to back him up. She’s in the middle of a groundbreaking, five-year study which has already shown strong evidence linking excess high fructose corn syrup consumption to an increase in risk factors for heart disease and stroke. That suggests calories from added sugars are different than calories from other foods.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta: The mantra that you hear from most nutritionists is that a calorie is a calorie is a calorie.

Kimber Stanhope: And I think the results of the study showed clearly that is not true.
Stanhope’s conclusions weren’t easy to come by. Nutrition studies are expensive and difficult.

Stanhope has paid groups of research subjects to live in this hospital wing for weeks at a time, under a sort of 24-hour lockdown. They undergo scans and blood tests – every calorie they ingest, meticulously weighed and prepared.

Kimber Stanhope: They’re never out of our sight. So we do know that they are consuming exactly what we need them to consume.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta: And they’re not sneaking any candy bars on the side.

Kimber Stanhope: Yeah, right, exactly.

For the first few days, participants eat a diet low in added sugars, so baseline blood levels can be measured.

[Research assistant: So remember you guys have to finish all of your Kool-Aid. ]

Then, 25 percent of their calories are replaced with sweetened drinks and Stanhope’s team starts drawing blood every 30 minutes around the clock. And those blood samples? They revealed something disturbing.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta: And what are you starting to see?

Kimber Stanhope: We found that the subjects who consumed high fructose corn syrup had increased blood levels of LDL cholesterol and other risk factors for cardiovascular disease.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta: How quickly did these changes occur?

Kimber Stanhope: Within two weeks.

Kimber Stanhope’s study suggests that when a person consumes too much sweet stuff, the liver gets overloaded with fructose and converts some of it into fat. Some of that fat ends up in the bloodstream and helps generate a dangerous kind of cholesterol called small dense LDL. These particles are known to lodge in blood vessels, form plaque and are associated with heart attacks.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta: Did it surprise you when you first got these results back?

Kimber Stanhope: I would have to say I was surprised because when I saw our data, I started drinking and eating a whole lot less sugar. I would say our data surprised me.

So imagine, for these healthy young people, drinking a sweetened drink might be just as bad for their hearts as the fatty cheeseburgers we’ve all been warned about since the 1970s. That’s when a government commission mandated that we lower fat consumption to try and reduce heart disease.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta: So with the best of intentions, they say, “Time to reduce fat in the American diet?”

Dr. Robert Lustig: Exactly. And we did. And guess what? Heart disease, metabolic syndrome, diabetes and death are skyrocketing.

Dr. Lustig believes that’s primarily because we replaced a lot of that fat with added sugars.

Dr. Robert Lustig: Take the fat out of food, it tastes like cardboard. And the food industry knew that. So they replaced it with sugar.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta: This idea that sugar increases this particularly bad LDL, the small dense particles that are associated with heart disease. Do most doctors– do they know this?

Dr. Robert Lustig: No, they do not know this. This is new.

And it turns out, sugar has become a major focus in cancer research too. Lewis Cantley, is looking at the connection.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta: If you limit your sugar you decrease your chances of developing cancer?

Lewis Cantley: Absolutely.

Cantley, a Harvard professor and the head of the Beth Israel Deaconess Cancer Center, says when we eat or drink sugar, it causes a sudden spike in the hormone insulin, which can serve as a catalyst to fuel certain types of cancers.

Lewis Cantley: What we’re beginning to learn is that insulin can cause adverse effects in the various tissues. And of particular concern is cancer.

Why? Nearly a third of some common cancers — including breast and colon cancers — have something called insulin receptors on their surface. Insulin binds to these receptors and signals the tumor to start consuming glucose.

Lewis Cantley: This is your body…

Every cell in our body needs glucose to survive. But the trouble is, these cancer cells also use it to grow.

Lewis Cantley: So if you happen to have the tumor that has insulin receptors on it then it will get stimulated to take up the glucose that’s in the bloodstream rather than go into fat or muscle, the glucose goes into the tumor. And the tumor uses it to grow.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta: So you’ve just seen that tumor turn blue which is essentially reflective of glucose going into it.

Lewis Cantley: That’s right.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta: So these cancers, much in the same way that muscle will say, “Hey, I’d like some of that glucose, the fat says, “I would like some of that glucose,” the cancers have learned how to do this themselves as well?

Lewis Cantley: Yes. So they have evolved the ability to hijack that flow of glucose that’s going by in the bloodstream into the tumor itself.

Lewis Cantley’s research team is working on developing drugs that will cut off the glucose supply to cancer cells and keep them from growing. But until there’s a breakthrough, Cantley’s advice? Don’t eat sugar. And if you must, keep it to a minimum.

Lewis Cantley: In fact– I– you know, I live my life that way. I rarely eat sugar.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta: When you see a sugary drink or if I were to offer you one, what– with all that you know, what’s going through your mind?

Lewis Cantley: I probably would turn it down and get a glass of water.

But for most of us, that’s easier said than done…

Eric Stice: It turns out sugar is much more addictive than I think we had sort of realized early on.

Eric Stice, a neuroscientist at the Oregon Research Institute, is using functional MRI scanners to learn how our brains respond to sweetness.

Eric Stice: Sugar activates our brain in a special way. That’s very reminiscent of, you know, drugs like cocaine.

That’s right. Cocaine.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta: Let’s give it a shot…

I climbed into the MRI scanner to see how my brain would respond. That’s a straw that’s been rigged to deliver a tiny sip of soda into my mouth.

Eric Stice: Stay as still as you can, ok?

Just as it hit my tongue, the scanner detected increased blood rushing to certain regions of my brain. In these images, the yellow areas show that my reward region is responding to the sweet taste. Dopamine – a chemical that controls the brain’s pleasure center – is being released, just as it would in response to drugs or alcohol.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta: So dopamine is released. That sort of makes me feel good. I’m experiencing some pleasure from having this Coke.

Eric Stice: Right, that euphoric effect.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta: So far be it for people to realize this ’cause sugar is everywhere, but you’re saying this is one of the most addictive substances possibly that we have?

Eric Stice: It certainly is very good at firing the reward regions in our brain.

Eric Stice says by scanning hundreds of volunteers, he’s learned that people who frequently drink sodas or eat ice cream or other sweet foods may be building up a tolerance, much like drug users do. As strange as it sounds, that means the more you eat, the less you feel the reward. The result: you eat more than ever.

Eric Stice: If you overeat these on a regular basis it causes changes in the brain that basically it blunts your reward region response to the food, so then you eat more and more to achieve the same satisfaction you felt originally.

With all this new science emerging, we wanted to hear from the sugar industry, so we visited Jim Simon, who’s on the board of the Sugar Association, at a sugar cane farm in Louisiana.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta: Would it surprise you that almost every scientist that we talked to in researching this story told us they are eliminating all added sugars. They’re getting rid of it because they’re concerned about the health impacts.

Jim Simon: To say that the American consuming public is going to completely omit, eliminate, sweeteners out of their diet I don’t think gets us there.

Simon cautions that eliminating sugar wrongly vilifies one food, rather than working towards the long-term solution of reducing calories and exercising.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta: You know, a lot of people, Jim, are saying that sugar is different. That it is bad for your heart and is causing a lot of the problems we’re talking about. It is addictive and in some cases might even fuel cancers. What would you – I mean you’ve looked at this. You must have looked at some of these studies. What do you say about that?

Jim Simon: The science is not completely clear here.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta: But some of that’s, but some of these studies exist. I mean, what is a consumer, what are they to make of all that?

Jim Simon: Well, I would say to them, that they’ve got to approach, their diet in balance.

Dr. Robert Lustig agrees — we need a balanced diet — but his idea of balance is a drastic reduction in sugar consumption. To that end he co-authored an American Heart Association report recommending men should consume no more than 150 calories of added sugars a day. And women, just 100 calories. That’s less than the amount in just one can of soda.

Dr. Robert Lustig: Ultimately this is a public health crisis. And when it’s a public health crisis, you have to do big things and you have to do them across the board. Tobacco and alcohol are perfect examples. We have made a conscious choice that we’re not going to get rid of them, but we are going to limit their consumption. I think sugar belongs in this exact same wastebasket.

COMMENTS

by RMF007 April 6, 2012 10:24 AM EDT
We would be happy to sit down with CBS news and discuss these diets and the importance of looking for heart disease and cancer using the best methods available and to work with CBS news to help establish the types of studies necessary to address many of these important health issues. Please let us know.
Reply to this comment

by cutthebull April 5, 2012 2:38 PM EDT
Many researchers have pointed out that the fructose in HFCS is free, unbound fructose; it is not the same as the fructose in fruit, which is bound to other sugars and is part of a complex that includes fiber, fatty acids, vitamins and minerals.

Leaving this obvious difference aside, the industry would have the public believe that the fructose in fruit and in HFCS are chemically identical. However, in the chemical processing of high fructose corn syrup, the polarity of the molecule is flipped; the fructose in HFCS is not the same isomer as that of fructose in fruit. Moreover, in nature, fructose occurs as di and olgio saccharides, not free fructose, and this fructose sugar comes as a complex with vitamins, minerals, antioxidants, pectin and fiber whereas enzymatically produced fructose does not. As explained by Russ Bianchi, Managing Director and CEO of Adept Solutions, Inc., a globally recognized food and beverage development company, the fructose in HFCS is therefore not recognized in the human Krebs cycle for primary conversion to blood glucose in any significant quantity, and therefore cannot be used for energy utilization.13 Instead, these refined fructose sweeteners are primarily converted into triglycerides and adipose tissue (body fat).

In fact, a new study, published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, found that obese people who drank a fructose-sweetened beverage with a meal had triglyceride levels almost 200 percent higher than obese people who drank a glucose-sweetened beverage with a meal.14

Chronic high triglycerides translate into increased insulin resistance, inflammation and heart disease. Thus, according to Bianchi, HFCS is a recipe for obesity, lack of energy and metabolic syndrome—the very portrait of the modern American addicted to a diet of HFCS-sweetened sodas.
Reply to this comment

by RMF007 April 5, 2012 4:01 PM EDT
Please provide the specific reference to the J. Clin End study as the addition of anything without other changes will result in the formation of triglycerides by the liver. Thank you.

by thegreatcoconuthead April 5, 2012 9:41 AM EDT
I came to this article with 217 comments already published; i haven’t read them all, so excuse me if i restate what has been said:

honey [real honey, not necessarily the stuff you see in the grocery] and maple syrup. again real maple syrup from the tree? are NOT the same as corn syrup or the less-available cane. they both have tons of things in them that are good for you [just check out wikipedia]. honey even LOWERS blood glucose. yes. true. now, everything in moderation, but do be aware that there is a difference.

i now scan all my food for ‘high fructose etc etc” and buy nothing with it on the label. yes, it restricts my diet, but the flip side is i went from a [new] diagnosis of full-blown type II diabetes to absolutely perfect blood sugar levels in three months. my doctor says my levels are so good, i have nothing to worry about and to ‘just keep doing what i am doing’.

i know many people with sugar problems, on medication, who eat ‘sugar free’ baked goods. for one thing, that keeps your ‘craving’ for sweets hitched up to the max [i no longer ‘crave’, just gaze longingly..so now my will power only needs to work on the emotional aspect and not the physical]. plus, the negative aspects of ‘artificial sweeteners’ make sugar look like good nutrition.

i ramble, but to conclude: i feel great. for the first time in a very long time. so great that it is worth giving up cream puffs with freshly whipped cream and a drizzle of Ghirardelli’s melted chocolate….mmmmm
Reply to this comment

by DanC75 April 5, 2012 1:54 PM EDT
My favourite low cal sweetner is Xylitol. It tastes like sugar and you can cook with it. You might want to look it up. The only problem is it’s toxic to dogs and ferrets and it’s a bit expensive. I wish companies would make a soda with another sweetner like Xylitol or Stevia instead of Aspartame. Aspartame gives me severe headaches.

by duncanbelem April 4, 2012 11:04 PM EDT
Saying sugar is bad because it is striped of it’s vitamins is dumb to. Really what vitamins does sugar cane have? I search this on google, and they list the vitamins but I can not find the amounts. I suspect they are trace amount. http://sweetscam.com/myths-and-facts/
Reply to this comment

by MikeyPrince April 5, 2012 3:22 AM EDT
Judging from your command of language, you left school after the second grade. Same goes for your command of logic!

by duncanbelem April 4, 2012 10:50 PM EDT
Saying sugar is toxic is dumb. What does that mean, all sugars, all carbohydrates are toxic? Most carbohydrates eventually get turned into the same thing. Or is just glucose bad? It raises the blood sugar which produces insulin. But honestly your body needs glucose. Is fructose bad? Most fruits have it. Honey has glucose and fructose. Is sucrose bad? sucrose, or table sugar, gets turned into fructose and glucose in the stomach. Any of these would be hard if not impossible to avoid in all foods. You can eat low carb diets. Sugar is not addictive. Not many people crave sugar cubes, or a drink of pure high fructose corn syrup. Agreed to much sugar is bad, and high amounts of sugar in sweets and soda is not good either. But the key is moderation.
Reply to this comment

by ShakyBarnes April 5, 2012 12:07 PM EDT
If you really want to know — “toxic” is kind of a loaded term, but there is little doubt that “too much” sugar (and “too much” varies from person to person) can certainly be harmful and cause disease. Yes the body requires blood glucose, but you don’t need to eat a single gram of carbs for your body to make enough (what you literally *must* eat is only fat and protein — not carbs).

So you know that glucose leads to insulin production. But there’s the problem. Eating carbs, and especially sugars and refined carbs, spikes blood glucose quickly, leading to a surge in insulin and generally, too high levels of insulin in the blood. And that’s the problem, that interplay of glucose and insulin (over time) likely is what causes insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome, diabetes, and heart attacks.

So yes a lot of people believe that eating more than a small amount of any kind of carbs as a habit is bad. Lots of people can get away with it, sure — no one ever claims that 100% of people will die if they eat sugar or carbs — but many people are too sensitive to the effects of the carbs, hence our current problems of obesity and insulin resistance.

People don’t crave sugar cubes but they certainly crave donuts and candy bars, etc., when they are in the habit of eating carbs. (By contrast low-carb high-fat dieters typically have suppressed hunger and no cravings.)

by RMF007 April 5, 2012 5:22 PM EDT
Ketosis is a great way to suppress your appetite, so is chemotherapy; but, we generally don’t advocate it. Cancer is another great way to lose weight.

by ShakyBarnes April 5, 2012 5:41 PM EDT
RMF007 – that’s an odd thing to say. Ketosis is a natural, and apparently harmless and beneficial state, and the metabolic state much of humanity probably has spent much of their lives in. Further, we all have some amount of ketosis occurring anyway; being “in ketosis” is just a judgment call, a point on a continuum from less ketosis to more. Chemotherapy on the other hand is obviously not the natural condition of man and no one enters it without a desperate reason; and last I heard, most people agree cancer is an unfortunate dysfunction. A lot of people have a kneejerk reaction to call ketosis “bad”. There has never been any evidence of that, and the increasingly abundant research specifically looking into ketogenic diets, as far as I’ve seen, have yet to show anything bad about them, and usually show improvement in weight, lipid profiles, blood sugar levels, and insulin.

by jerjameswoj April 4, 2012 4:49 PM EDT
This study is just ridiculous. If you’re sedentary (like the study is testing) and you get fed 50% of all your daily macros in just sugar…with no exercise…of course your health is going to decline. It’s just completely stupid. I’m going to sit in my house and drink 20 sodas a day and do absolutely nothing and see what happens!
Reply to this comment

by MikeyPrince April 5, 2012 3:21 AM EDT
You might be surprised. A whole lot of fat-@$$ merkins do exactly that

by DanC75 April 4, 2012 4:42 PM EDT
I read in what appears to be a credible article at http://www.globalhealingcenter.com/sugar-problem/refined-sugar-the-sweetest-poison-of-all that refined sugar is worse because it has been stripped of its vitamins and minerals and “drains and leaches the body of precious vitamins and minerals” for its digestion.

Reply to this comment
by hapticz April 4, 2012 11:32 AM EDT
calories are measured by using a calorimeter. that device simply burns the material (it can be any material that combusts) and measures the heat created, and the result is given as ‘CALORIES’

it a simple task to do the same thing with a chunk of fat excised from some blobbo’s ugly belly, weighed and put into the calorimeter.

and the result is, guess what, a measure of the CALORIES in that disgusting medical nightmare of health!

you can eat wood if you please, enough of it and it will sustain you for a while anyway (mmmm yummy, lots’s fibre!) but not very good for our gut process. (our tummys really like soft, fat laden, protein/starch rich, easy to digest crap)

America, please, shutta you mouths, get offa yer fat, lazy buttinski’s and walk, run to the nearest water source and treat yourself to the cheapest diet drink known to hummankind!
Reply to this comment

by hapticz April 4, 2012 11:45 AM EDT
i left out the part that equates ‘sweat’ (that smelly distasteful stuff that happens when your body BURNS/converts the calories stored in fat, bloodstream glucose, muscle stores, liver reserves, etc etc) to the effective and efficient use of the human body system, the result, and the often unrealized benefits of actual exercise.

everyone is different, no one “PLAN” is perfect for all of us, and godforbid, some gubberment brainchild gets the idea that some ‘law’ will make us all healthy and ready for ‘action’.

by RMF007 April 4, 2012 10:39 AM EDT
There was no information presented in this 60 minutes report to even remotely support the idea that a calorie varies from a calorie. The definition of calories was worked out long ago as was the number of calories present in protein, carbohydrates, fat and alcohol. The number of calories present in a pound of body fat and the number of calories required to use up a pound of fat hasn’t changed. The problem is that people are looking for a quick fix. Give me a pill, give me a shot, give me an antibiotic; but, don’t tell me I have to cut calories and exercise. Tell me I have to cut fat. That’s alright as long as I can sit down and eat something loaded with carbohydrates. In fact, the diet in the U.S. is classic “anecdotal” support for the calorie issue. Changes in what people eat have not reduced heart disease, cancer, diabetes mellitus, obesity, hypertension, …. These changes have been associated with either maintaining the number of calories or increasing the number of calories people eat. The failure of some people to grasp this important concept is an indictment of the American education system as it exists today.
Reply to this comment

by hapticz April 4, 2012 11:53 AM EDT
sadly, nearly our entire economy is based on ‘convenience’ and the myriad methods presented to us to live a life of ease and langour.
we pay through the nose for every speck of this ‘convenience’ and its starting to show, in our health, our environment, our cerebral capacity (duh, i choose Cokee Cola over plain water!) and where our national priorities are. (duh, Lets wage a nice fat war to get OIL OIL OIL, instead of working for sustainable energy!)

it may be our own undoing, this ‘Land with Roadways Paved in Gold’, the loss of common struggle, the lack of community compassion and the greed of those with too much free time on their hands.

by nonsucre April 3, 2012 5:56 PM EDT
For those interested, suggest you read Gary Taubes’ “Good Calories Bad Calories.” The war on Fat was as ill-conceived as the War in Iraq and possibly much deadlier. I love the Eisenhower anecdote at the beginning of the book, as it provides just one example of the dangers of the “low-fat” “input-output” fallacy. Avoid processed foods, avoid simple carbohydrates (like flour, sugar, etc.) and let your hunger be your guide…no need to count calories and live at the gym. Stick with meat, vegetables, legumes, dairy, fruit and incorporate more activity (like walking) into your daily life.
Reply to this comment

by Nuschlerclark April 3, 2012 6:28 PM EDT
@nonsucre. Let hunger be your guide? No need to count calories? Oh yeah that’s why 1/3 of Americans are overweight and another 1/3 are morbidly obese.
If you have the metabolism of a world class skier or gymnast, calories may not count..for everyone else they do. And the war on fat was deadlier than the war in Iraq?? What does that analogy even mean? That we need to add more trans fat and unsaturated fat into our diet?

by nonsucre April 3, 2012 7:53 PM EDT
Nuschlerclark – missed the point, unfortunately. It is counting calories and cutting fat that has largely resulted in the overweight/obese levels you referenced. A calorie is not a calorie, which is why fructose is so dangerous – even if few calories of it are consumed (excluding fruit which offsets with fiber). Hunger/satiety messages from the brain will work correctly in a healthy normal metabolism, but not under the high carb American Standard Diet. The choice by the medical community and government decades ago to single out fat as the most dangerous component of the American diet, was a misguided decision with a poor scientific foundation. The result has been morbid obesity and other health conditions that have cost lives…just like the poor intelligence underpinning the Iraq War cost lives.

by ShakyBarnes April 3, 2012 11:32 PM EDT
Nusclerclark, you should take nonsucre’s advice and read Taubes. If you don’t have the time for “Good Calories Bad Calories”, then “Why we Get Fat” is much more abbreviated. Hunger can indeed be your guide, when by cutting out the carbs you find something new happens — that you have very little hunger and can easily resist any and all bad food. (Works for me so far, anyway, and others. You could wave a jelly donut under my nose and it doesn’t even seem like an edible item to me). And the “war on fat” comment, to make a long story short, in an effort to avoid falsely-maligned saturated fat, we have instead come to consume far more carbs, transfats, and polyunsaturated fats (some poly is good but much of it is bad). The result: 40 years of steadily increasing obesity.

by RMF007 April 4, 2012 10:38 AM EDT
There was no information presented in this 60 minutes report to even remotely support the idea that a calorie varies from a calorie. The definition of calories was worked out long ago as was the number of calories present in protein, carbohydrates, fat and alcohol. The number of calories present in a pound of body fat and the number of calories required to use up a pound of fat hasn’t changed. The problem is that people are looking for a quick fix. Give me a pill, give me a shot, give me an antibiotic; but, don’t tell me I have to cut calories and exercise. Tell me I have to cut fat. That’s alright as long as I can sit down and eat something loaded with carbohydrates. In fact, the diet in the U.S. is classic “anecdotal” support for the calorie issue. Changes in what people eat have not reduced heart disease, cancer, diabetes mellitus, obesity, hypertension, …. These changes have been associated with either maintaining the number of calories or increasing the number of calories people eat. The failure of some people to grasp this important concept is an indictment of the American education system as it exists today.

by GetBetterWellness April 3, 2012 4:38 PM EDT
I realize not everyone would like to extend the years and quality of their lives, but for those that do, this piece was excellent. The Standard American Diet is not working out – the more we eat according to the government’s pyramid or MyPlate, the worse the health of this nation becomes. We need a real food revolution! Let’s eat the way humans ate before food factories brought us refined sugar, fructose, industrially processed oils, packaged and processed foods. Grass-fed meat, pasture-raised animal foods, vegetables, fruit, natural fat from real butter, avocados, coconut oil, olive oil, seeds, nuts… foods that spoil because they are fresh. These foods are found in the perimeter of the store, at a farmers market, in your backyard garden. Sweet comes from whole fruit, raw honey, unprocessed maple syrup, even the Bible says don’t eat too much honey. Limit the sweet to extend the life. Choose real food, as close to the way it was created as possible, that is – if you want to feel great, extend your life, fix your digestion, clear your skin, lose weight, and avoid 75% of diseases of “modern” civilization. “The Real Food Revivalist”
Reply to this comment

by troutfishman2 April 3, 2012 3:57 PM EDT
156 pounds

That’s how much added sugar Americans consume each year on a per capita basis, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Reply to this comment

by CEOJAX April 3, 2012 2:25 PM EDT
I teach nutrition at the college level. My students are pressing to understand how to eat a healthy diet, while enjoying their favorite foods. I encourage them to look hard at the science and understand that the path to obesity, heart disease, cancer and diabetes is multi-factorial. There’s not one nutrient that can be pinned down as the culprit – that’s why there is so much varied and conflicting research. There are many other lifestyle factors that can contribute to America’s current health concerns, like stress, lack of exercise and increasing hours sitting at work or in front of screens.

When we eat any carbohydrate (pasta, bread, crackers, cookies, pretzels, chips, etc.) it gets converted into simple sugars as part of the metabolic process to utilize energy. It isn’t just “sugary” items that do this. Fundamentally including carbohydrates in a person’s diet helps support activities such as cognition and athletic performance. It’s important to remember that it is a consumption (i.e. diet, stress management) and output (i.e. exercise, sleep) in total that contribute towards a person’s health. As a nutrition educator I encourage my students and the companies I counsel, like Coke, to start looking at the bigger picture of health and stop spending time finger pointing at one food or nutrient. I know the reason I am healthy is not just because I eat broccoli! It’s because of all the lifestyle factors that I employ to make it happen; including allowing my favorite foods and beverages to be part of that equation.
Reply to this comment

by troutfishman2 April 3, 2012 3:53 PM EDT
LOL!!!!!!

Like Coke, uh huh. As I recall, a soda has the equivalent of 10 teaspoons of sugar!

by nonsucre April 3, 2012 5:38 PM EDT
Unfortunately, this is ultimately the same line we have been getting from “Nutritionists” for decades…a calorie is a calorie and that it’s all about input/output. This is wrong. They’ve been parroting the same groupthink since Ancel Keys, and our society has only become less healthy. I suggest you watch Dr. Lustig’s presentation on youtube, CEOJAX.

by IEatMeat April 3, 2012 9:23 PM EDT
I eat only meat…and have now for over 4 years. I’m in better than perfect health for a 44 year old male. You don’t need ANY injestion of carbs/sugar, and our even 150 years ago, our bodies were clueless to the amounts of that crap we take in now. The definition of “balance” and “moderation” has no value, for it is ambiguous.
Here’s the deal (I’m a societal nutritionalist)….I’ve converted more people to a very low carb lifestyle (from the elitist type advice that you seem to provide that has done nothing but help build waistlines) and undoubtedly saved countless years off the several dozen folks combine….all because of my experiment (meat only) on my body. Start teaching “your” kids that low carb or better yet, very low carb way of eating is the best course, and you will have then provided a usefulness to your job…until then, you’re treading water in a quest to swim across the ocean.

by Forty-Four April 3, 2012 2:24 PM EDT
by TheManWithNoName April 2, 2012 12:52 PM EDT
Exactly! A good choice in diet helps, but it’s not the be-all end-all some people try to claim. It’s like Denis Leary said in No Cure for Cancer –

“Hey, I got two words for you, ok. Jim Fixx. Remember Jim Fixx? The big famous jogging guy? Jogged fifteen miles a day. Did a jogging book. Did a jogging video. Dropped out of a heart attack when? When he was f-g jogging, that’s when!”
__________________________________________
I remember hearing about that somewhere. I know the secret to long life….besides not smoking and what not. The news even ADMITTED it when they ran a story on an old lady who was in her 100’s and enjoyed donuts everyday. She ate all kinds of things that were supposed to be bad for her. The secret: Good Genes. You know you have them if you have a history of relatives living long lives. I’m fixing to live close to my 90’s so long as some other factor doesn’t come along and take me out.
Reply to this comment

by lillyhorton April 3, 2012 1:57 PM EDT
One of the reasons we may be eating too much sugar is that our bodies are starving and need more energy. It has been proven that our food no longer has the same nutrients in it that it had in the 1950’s. When the body isn’t getting enough iron it begins to slow down and get tired. One way to get a quick lift is caffine and another is sugar. If our meat is not only toxic but is also short on value we eat more. Lack of nutrients also causes other health problems. It is easy for our government to blame us and refer to us as irresponsible. This is the governments way of convincing us we are stupid and need them to tell us how to live when what we need is for them to stop poisoning us.
Reply to this comment

by SocialWrkrKP April 3, 2012 1:06 PM EDT
Jeeze people. Its common sense. Its sad that today we need everyone else to raise our children and tell us what is and isn’t healthy. Moderation is key. I just love these shock stories making people think every little thing is gonna kill us. Honestly if you listen to all these people it’s amazing any of us have lived past 10.
Reply to this comment

by lillyhorton April 3, 2012 1:48 PM EDT
we wouldn’t need other people to raise our children if the government didn’t make it impossible to liveoff one income. By the way the reason public schools were created was to teach the Irish, French, Itallians and other non brits social mannors like bathe daily. The US. government didn’t feel like parents were doing a good enough job teaching their children the birds and the bees so they intervened by implying that if your going to have sex wear a condom. Kids started engaging in more sex since there seemed to be a protection but they didn’t always wear the glove. I am not wealthy enough to raise my own children. Funny how schools have snack shacks and pop machines. Have you ever been in a teachers lounge? Cupcakes and candy fill the table. Mellow Yellow was given to my second grader as a reward for good work. The government can recite the dangers of sugar but not hormone and antibiotic injected food. Ammonia dipped meat is ok cause it is only a little toxic. Sugar isn’t our problem.

by IEatMeat April 3, 2012 9:26 PM EDT
What is a “moderate” amount of twinkies??…of candy?…of arsenic?…

“Moderation” is a smoke and mirror term that makes a person sound smart, but is just a cover up for “I don’t have a clue, so just eat “some” amount that is “moderate”….whatever the heck that means to each individual…..

Just eat more fatty meat and less carbs, period.

by sulliminge April 3, 2012 1:00 PM EDT
Thanks for this info. I checked out the studies at Pubmed. Powerful! I’m going to pass this onto my friend, who’s Mom was just diagnosed with stage IV lung cancer. Never heard of it before, but now that I saw this “60 Minutes” episode about sugar, it all makes sense. Hope she agrees.
Reply to this comment

by Saturn66 April 3, 2012 12:57 PM EDT
I use Stevia, from the leaf. I get it in the health food section. Zevia colas, sweetened with Stevia, are available now and have broken my addiction to Pepsi. I think Stevia is okay, haven’t heard otherwise. But watch for a huge pushback from the sugar industry. They may not donate to politicians who threaten to stop subsidizing the sugar industry. Still, it’s hard to pass up a big, frosted cupcake. Truthfully, I’m more worried about the pesticides used on the sugar cane and other plants. While we can just say no to sugar, we have a harder time saying no to pesticides.
Reply to this comment

by AJeromeAdams April 3, 2012 11:14 AM EDT
When I first started to teach myself about about ADHD (having a son who is diagnosed and whose symptoms remarkably resembled my own learning difficulties),and read the book “You mean I am Not Crazy, Lazy or Stupid” by Kate Kelly and Peggy Ramundo, one of the most resounding points I remember from the book is the concept that if sugar were a new substance today, it would NEVER pass the Food and Drug Administration’s guidelines for a food substance! I then began to realize the large impact sugar had both on my son and on myself growing up. Presently we have excised sugar from our diets as much as is possible; targeting overtly refined sucrose. The body of evidence that is being collected by current research that is finally able to tolerate the vicious attacks of the sugar-lobby will support a large, if not complete, removal of sugars from processed foods and a strong recommendation to eliminate the majority of the powerful drug called “sugar” from our diets. Remember when we were all eating MSG??
Reply to this comment

by qmpash April 3, 2012 8:34 AM EDT
Cut out red meat, pork, trans-fats, saturated fats, bacon, processed foods, fast food, potatoes, sugar, soft drinks, fish (mercury), and stop drinking alcohol or bottled water, smoking (cancer, heart disease, and hyperesthesia of the Whoopty-Doop) and having sex (AIDs, VD, Hepatitis) and you WILL NOT die from disease. You will die from starvation, thirst or boredom.
Reply to this comment

by youknowittoo April 3, 2012 10:04 AM EDT
Exercise, eat right, die anyway. Sad but true. However, limiting some things can allow us to live a longer, disease-free existence. Sometimes, however, I’ll get so fed up and just get some good “hoop” cheeze and a six pack and go home and watch an old Hopalong Cassidy movie and say Screw IT!

by jrpventures April 3, 2012 8:27 AM EDT
I’ve seen it all with diets and weight loss programs. I’ve heard of of a lot of people having success with this one:

http://***********/8yrrr4c
Reply to this comment

by Rickl7069 April 3, 2012 7:30 AM EDT
In other news, research now shows that smoking is bad for you.

Seriously? sugar is bad for you, I never knew.
Reply to this comment

by pinetree20 April 2, 2012 9:46 PM EDT
To reach a blood sugar under 100, I cut sugar from my diet, and the foods low in sugar are tasty and yummy. Dr. and Mrs. Amen’s cookbook is one great source “Healthy Brain Foods.” HOWEVER, I saw the physician’s office environment, during the TV segment as toxic…I had a visceral reaction to the mounds of papers. This atmosphere cannot be heart/BP healthy.
Reply to this comment

by maryacure April 2, 2012 7:42 PM EDT
I wonder if you need to start at the beginning. When a baby is bottle fed and drinks Similac or Enfamil the FIRST TWO ingredients: CORN SYRUP SOLIDS, SUGAR (SUCROSE). Are we getting our babies addicted to sugar from their birth on and that is why we have so many obese children. What if we put one half the sugar in the formulas…would the new babies really notice a difference…I don’t think they would and we would not be setting the babies up to be obese as they grew up. Please consider doing your study from the beginning of a child’s life. I would like to hear your response to this.
Reply to this comment

by RMF007 April 2, 2012 8:30 PM EDT
I just discovered several of Dr. Lustig’s papers. None on adults in a controlled environment; but, several on children funded by the Dr. Robert C. & Veronica Atkins Center.
by youknowittoo April 3, 2012 10:07 AM EDT
We have a natural attraction to sugar-mother’s milk has sugar (as does cow’s milk and every other milk), because it gives infants energy needed for growth. However, too much energy can build up to toxic levels. The difference in a nutrient and a toxin is quite often only the level of consumption-that’s why most “drugs” are extremely toxic.

by RMF007 April 2, 2012 7:25 PM EDT
Interesting program. Unfortunately I was not able to find the published research. Clearly too much sucrose has never been shown to be good for you and multiple research studies have shown that insulin goes up when you eat protein, carbohydrates or fats and animal studies have shown that the link between longevity is inversely related to total caloric intake. The subjects confined to the research center (hopefully not the planned approach for American obesity) were reported to have fat calories replaced by carbohydrate (simple sugar carbohydrates) calories. We are not told how long the study was (or if so I don’t remember hearing it) or how many calories participants consumed. We are also not told what happened to insulin levels, triglyceride levels, HDL levels, or anything else for that matter. We are not even told how much the LDL changed. In Ornish’s studies, his subjects ate more desserts over time, which resulted in the storage of these excess calories as fat; specifically triglycerides (VLDLc). Since VLDLc is the precursor of LDL, it would be surprising to see substantial increases in LDL and not VLDL. I have looked at MedLine to see if this work has been published and did not find it. Please let me know when and where it will be published in the peer review literature.
Reply to this comment

by RMF007 April 2, 2012 8:25 PM EDT
I just discovered several of Dr. Lustig’s papers. None on adults in a controlled environment; but, several on children funded by the Dr. Robert C. & Veronica Atkins Center.

by RMF007 April 2, 2012 7:17 PM EDT
Interesting program. Unfortunately I was not able to find the published research. Clearly too much sucrose has never been shown to be good for you and multiple research studies have shown that insulin goes up when you eat protein, carbohydrates or fats and animal studies have shown that the link between longevity is inversely related to total caloric intake. The subjects confined to the research center (hopefully not the planned approach for American obesity) were reported to have fat calories replaced by carbohydrate (simple sugar carbohydrates) calories. We are not told how long the study was (or if so I don’t remember hearing it) or how many calories participants consumed. We are also not told what happened to insulin levels, triglyceride levels, HDL levels, or anything else for that matter. We are not even told how much the LDL changed. In Ornish’s studies, his subjects ate more desserts over time, which resulted in the storage of these excess calories as fat; specifically triglycerides (VLDLc). Since VLDLc is the precursor of LDL, it would be surprising to see substantial increases in LDL and not VLDL. I have looked at MedLine to see if this work has been published and did not find it. Please let me know when and where it will be published in the peer review literature.
Reply to this comment

by transman123 April 2, 2012 4:37 PM EDT
Let’s see…..Don’t eat diary products, don’t eat any fat, don’t eat any sugars, don’t eat any meat, don’t eat any fruits (sugars again), and don’t eat any processed vegetables. It looks like eating kills us, but eating nothing will kill us even quicker. Got to die of something and I would rather not starve to death. Before all these researchers and doctors figured out what is killing us, we were still dying; and the more they figure out, the worse off we get. Before all this processed food was available, people were still dying. Any statistician can tell you, correlation DOES NOT equal cause and effect.
Reply to this comment

by erasmus111 April 2, 2012 7:25 PM EDT
“…don’t eat any fruits (sugars again)…”

I think perhaps you should do some research. Getting the sugar from fruit is different. The fiber in the fruit also holds it back. Some fruits do have more sugar than some. Check out the glycemic index. This is stuff you should already know.

Processed vegetables?? What the hell is that?

by ShakyBarnes April 2, 2012 8:15 PM EDT
At least half the research out there is total crap — in large part because lots of biased scientists who enter research with an agenda to prove have never heard that correlation does not imply causality. So … you just need to figure out which half is crap.

by dnamj April 2, 2012 8:47 PM EDT
Even remaining within the guidelines of your post, Salads are still OK. everyone can eat leafy greens, and should. As much as possible. the rest can take care of itself.

by DocJoeLeonardi April 2, 2012 4:17 PM EDT

Reply to this comment

by thinkaboutit13 April 2, 2012 4:07 PM EDT
I would think that if you replace 25% of calories with ANY substance, you can determine that you would have adverse health effects. This is pretty silly science.
Reply to this comment

by ShakyBarnes April 2, 2012 4:17 PM EDT
No it’s not. Look at people who drink xlarge soft drinks, at McD’s for breakfast, who buy 24 oz sodas to drink with their twinkies and Ding Dongs. I daresay it’s very common for lots of people to eat 25% of or more of their calories as added sugars. This sort of study is simply trying to see what happens with this kind of very real behavior.

by dnamj April 2, 2012 8:48 PM EDT
Better yet, but things that don’t even have, or need, and ingredient list, because you can see for yourself what it is.

by Trillian72 April 2, 2012 3:52 PM EDT
There was a story (maybe another network or this one within the last year) done on farmers in Iowa and how most of them are millionaires (around start of the Iowan Caucasus). Also, willingly or unwillingly (see “Food Inc” documentary regarding corn seed producers using force and intimidation through hired marines as sales persons to make farmers “BUY” their corn strain (including approved practices and tools-for a non-negotiable or competitive price) and that farmer is probably a member of the Corn Refiners Association and its “high fructose corn syrup is ok in moderation BS” message.

BUT how can you moderate high fructose corn syrup if it is a main ingredient of every product you have eaten today???

Try this:

When you go to the grocery store, look at the ingredients of every item you put in your cart, try choosing products that don’t have any of the three ingredients below or have the least amount:

1. Salt
2. High Fructose Syrup
3. Partially Hydrogenated [Vegetable or any variety] Oil

Huh, get the fat free or low fat item and the salt content is through the roof. Because my Husband is Hypertensive my new philosophy on this is flavor through non-sodium spices and to add no salt while cooking and if you want it you can add it at the table! (but be careful, you may find one or both of the other items in non-sodium spice blends)

Monitor High Fructose Syrup – only if you cook from scratch and only buy ingredients at their most basic form…luckily one grocery store in our area is specifically offering products in its own line without this ingredient at competitive prices.

Partially Hydrogenated Vegetable Oil – how much is clogging your arteries? There was a cooking show by dietician Zonya Foco on PBS that showed ways to cut this ingredient out of your diet with substitutions to recipes and literary showed with a measured out amount of Partially Hydrogenated Vegetable Oil on a (plate/bowl/what have you) of how much of this ingredient wouldn’t be circulating through your body for that meal.

To finish:

1. Corn production is a racket from start to finish and is F$^*&%* up our lives; and

2. Within the last year I have gone from 182 pounds to (give or take 150-153 pounds) just by conscientiously avoiding products with these ingredients (first, as a hunch while researching how to cope with my (“alleged” [- my doctor’s opinion for $20.00 and then $220 for one test- in which I starved myself?, instead of eating trigger food? i.e., fried chicken or eggs!] gall bladder problems) and my daughter’s weight issue, then seriously as I started to get P#$$%@.
Reply to this comment

by emilyxmay April 2, 2012 3:24 PM EDT
Just because any of us, myself included, have a basic degree in whatever doesn’t mean that we understand complex issues. This article isn’t ‘basic. If we are advanced students of nutrition and biochemistry we might be able to understand this article and how sugar relates to biochemistry. Yes, some form of ‘sugar’ is in all carbohydrates. That includes bread, fruit, veggies, pasta, grains, and more. This is how alcohol, like beer, whiskey, etc is distilled…the carbohydrate, sugar, in the grains, grapes, whatever, ferments to become the alcohol. Consuming alcohol is consuming sugar. Depending on our individual biochemistry, our bodies can handle sugar, more or less. When I first learned of the relationship between alcohol and sugar, it all started making sense. Why diabetics shouldn’t consume alcohol made sense. This isn’t to say that consuming grapes or grains is unhealthy. It’s way more complex than that, but it’s a start to understanding portions of the CBS sugar program. It can be fascinating to research. And, it’s not as simple as some people would like to make it.

Yes, everything in moderation is always best. Because of individual biochemistry, moderation sometimes isn’t possible for some. It’s similar to why do some people get cancer from smoking and some live to be 95 smoking every day. Why are some people born with Type I diabetes, which can’t be ‘cured’, and some develop Type II diabetes as they age…losing weight will often eliminate Type II diabetes, but rarely Type I. Also, as we age, we become insulin resistant. We can’t eat as many carbs and sugars as we did when we were 20 without serious weight gain. This means managing ‘moderation’ with more discipline than ever before.

It does get frustrating when “the media” starts printing what we often think of as doomsday articles about health. Many of us don’t really like digging deeper into health issues. We’d rather just touch the surface, complain because we really don’t want to become more involved with learning. That is really OK. Some people will live on sugary junk for for most of their lives and not become overweight or develop a cancer. Why? It can be explained by geneticists and others, but most of us, including myself, don’t have the higher education or the discipline or even the memory after reading a scientific journal, to find out, or to remember, why.
Reply to this comment

by thinkaboutit13 April 2, 2012 4:04 PM EDT
Actually, the yeast used in producing beer/wine/booze eats the sugar. Alcohol is the waste by-product.

by Midnight_Sol April 2, 2012 3:06 PM EDT
Sugar is not the issue. The entire diet is. Too much bad and not enough good, and no one is stepping up the heat to regulate the industries making the junk.
Reply to this comment

by erasmus111 April 2, 2012 4:33 PM EDT
EmpireGeorge

I had a dream about you last night, Georgie.: )

by mhidvegi April 2, 2012 2:30 PM EDT
As someone who has been involved with cancer research for the last 25 years, I appreciated this story regarding “sugar feeding cancer.” Tumor cells consume up to 50-times more glucose than healthy, normal cells. However, cancer cells use only a small part of the this huge amount of glucose for energy production. The majority of this simple sugar in cancer cells is used to synthesize ribose molecules, the building blocks of nucleic acids, RNA and DNA. This peculiar characteristic of cancer cell metabolism is called the “Warburg Effect.”

Targeting the “Warburg Effect” has great potential for the future of cancer therapies. However, almost all of these potential therapies are still many years away from helping people with cancer today. According to my best knowledge, fermented wheat germ extract, which I had been privileged to invent here in Hungary during the early 1990’s, is the only natural compound available so far that can specifically inhibit the uptake and breakdown of glucose in cancer cells and has been used in human clinical studies. These studies in various forms of cancer such as colorectal, oral and melanoma have shown significant increases in patient survival and significant decreases in disease progression, without toxic side effects. These studies can viewed on http://www.Pubmed.gov , using the key search term “fermented wheat germ extract.”
Reply to this comment

by mhidvegi April 2, 2012 2:21 PM EDT
As someone who has been involved with cancer research for the last 25 years, I appreciated this story regarding “sugar feeding cancer.” Tumor cells consume up to 50-times more glucose than healthy, normal cells. However, cancer cells use only a small part of the this huge amount of glucose for energy production. The majority of this simple sugar in cancer cells is used to synthesize ribose molecules, the building blocks of nucleic acids, RNA and DNA. This peculiar characteristic of cancer cell metabolism is called the “Warburg Effect.”

by DBE4most April 2, 2012 2:18 PM EDT
Their working on an additive called ” Emulin ” to fix this. Did anyone else hear about it?
Reply to this comment

by hexacolley April 2, 2012 3:24 PM EDT
That’s actually the supplement I was referring to. I believe it is marketed as GC7X but the thing that controls how the body deals with sugar is called Emulin. I would be very interested to know if anyone had any success with the product as it sounds very promising.

by Drock6 April 2, 2012 3:43 PM EDT
Saw the Emulin thing on the news. It looks like they plan on actually adding it to sugar.

by hexacolley April 2, 2012 2:14 PM EDT
I don’t think anyone would argue that we, as a group of people, consume far more sugar than is appropriate to maintain healthy bodies. The problem I run into is that it is so difficult to find a good variety of foods that contain only “natural” amounts of sugar without tripling my grocery bill. It’s hard to justify eating less healthy to save money, but we are dealing with reality here.

There is actually a product on the market called GC7X that works to basically prevent your body from absorbing sugar. It’s a natural supplement and I’ve read it has been very successful even treating people with diabetes because of the issues they have with sugar.

Has anyone on here tried GC7X? I’d be interested to hear any stories!
Reply to this comment

by cutthebull April 2, 2012 1:27 PM EDT
High fructose corn syrup is not the same as sucrose, despite what Dr. Lutwig claims. For example, because HFCS has the fructose and glucose components unattached, it is digested differently. There also other components of HFCS which have not been identified as it is made through a secret enzymatic process which the producers (Monsanto) will not reveal.

See this website for details:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mark-hyman/high-fructose-corn-syrup-dangers_b_861913.html
Reply to this comment

by ShakyBarnes April 2, 2012 1:58 PM EDT
They’re not 100% identical but the big picture it that that’s a trivial distinction. They both are combinations of glucose and fructose, in almost the same ratios (50-50 for sucrose, 55-45 for HFCS). Your digestive system has no trouble separating the molecules and passing the glucose through to spike blood sugar, while transferring the fructose over to the liver to be made into triglycerides and VLDL cholesterol. Both sucrose and HFCS therefore have essentially the same effect, which is what Lustig is saying. Now whether HFCS has some additional ingredient that can cause harm, who knows, all the more reason to avoid it, but clearly Lustig is pointing out the dangers of how we ingest too much glucose and fructose from whichever sugar source.

by Drock6 April 2, 2012 2:41 PM EDT
Shaybarnes is 100% correct

by cutthebull April 5, 2012 2:48 PM EDT
Many researchers have pointed out that the fructose in HFCS is free, unbound fructose; it is not the same as the fructose in fruit, which is bound to other sugars and is part of a complex that includes fiber, fatty acids, vitamins and minerals.

by hlburi April 2, 2012 1:25 PM EDT
I watched this episode the other night and had a question. Are they only referring to “refined Sugar” or does sugar also include those found in fruits, pastas, starches, rice, etc? It was hard to tell from the interview.
Reply to this comment

by cpen29 April 2, 2012 1:31 PM EDT
most all carbohydrates convert to glucose in the blood. fructose will over burden the liver in large amounts.

by ShakyBarnes April 2, 2012 11:45 PM EDT
Though the 60 Minutes segment didn’t go into a lot of specifics, I think it’s safe to say they were talking about sugars added as sweeteners: specifically sucrose (table sugar) and high-fructose corn syrup. If you watch Lustig’s 1.5 hour lecture on Youtube, his REAL target is fructose (as opposed to glucose). Table sugar is 50% fructose and high fructose corn syrup is 55% fructose. Regarding fructose in fruit, he uses the tagline something like “nature provides the antidote along with the poison” (ie, fiber to mitigate the small dose of fructose).

by cpen29 April 2, 2012 1:23 PM EDT
there are a lot of sugar defenders on here that sound like crack heads.
Reply to this comment

by MJBlackHills April 2, 2012 1:12 PM EDT
What ever happened to MODERATION?!! I am betting that artificial sweeteners are alot more dangerous than sugar in MODERATION!!! My system can not handle any artificial sweeteners and just that alone is telling me something!
Reply to this comment

by Banqueno April 2, 2012 12:53 PM EDT
Just another way for the leftist to tell you that if you eat drink or chew is not good for you, so let’s mandate that we can not consume sugar because is bad for you and if it is bad for you then the government has to interfere.
Reply to this comment

by icameisawislept April 2, 2012 2:27 PM EDT
leftists? i read this entire article and saw no mention of any political affiliations/philosophies. unless you’re linking “leftists” to studies, research, and the scientific process?

by amae26 April 2, 2012 3:04 PM EDT
But if something happened to you, and it was because of sugar…i bet you’d be the first person to slam the government for not warning you, or doing something.

by NotThatSimple April 2, 2012 4:40 PM EDT
Dittohead alert – Rush devotees see health news as a communist/bolshevik plot and immediately jump to ridiculous tinfoil-hat conclusions.

In their feeble minds it’s ok for the government to mandate what women are allowed to do with their down-there parts but cigarettes and AK-47s should be as easy to acquire as bubble gum.

by Raptorsmasher April 2, 2012 12:38 PM EDT
If you can’t see your toes while standing up, you obvioulsy have an eating disorder. It all comes down to moderation.
Reply to this comment

by Psychobabble1988 April 2, 2012 1:04 PM EDT
While I understand what you are saying, it is not true. As a person with a degree in psychology I can tell you that it is not as easy as “can’t see your toes”. I completely agree that everything should be in moderation, I just don’t think its fair to say that about eating disorders. They are very serious disorders that require treatment and testing to determine if they are present.

by Psychobabble1988 April 2, 2012 1:05 PM EDT
While I understand what you are saying, it is not true. As a person with a degree in psychology I can tell you that it is not as easy as “can’t see your toes”. I completely agree that everything should be in moderation, I just don’t think its fair to say that about eating disorders. They are very serious disorders that require treatment and testing to determine if they are present.

by yupdatsme April 2, 2012 12:37 PM EDT
Dr. Robert Lustig is a pediatric endocrinologist at the “University of California, San Francisco”

Instant dis-qualifier.
Reply to this comment

by Marianne_Atkins April 2, 2012 3:11 PM EDT
Being a pediatric endocrinologist is an instant “dis-qualifier” to speak about physiology and endocroinology in children …?

by TheManWithNoName April 2, 2012 12:34 PM EDT
This is clearly an anti-obesity campaign – and is NOT TRUE.

1. WHITE Refined Sugar is damaging – but this article DOES NOT state that Brown Sugar has a lot of health benefits.

2. EVERYTHING is toxic if not done in moderation. Even white sugar is not bad for you if done in moderation.

2a. Reality check – that bozo doctor who has excluded *all* sugar from his diet is *not* doing his body good AT ALL. He is creating a withdrawal and a gap. No wonder he’d prefer a glass of water, because his body’s got no tolerance for sugar, so it freaks out whenever he ingests any.
Reply to this comment

by cpen29 April 2, 2012 1:17 PM EDT
excellent reasoning regarding the tolerance for sugar. he is certainly going to kill himself because of an intolerance for sugar.

by downstateillini April 2, 2012 12:27 PM EDT
Sure sweets are part of a healthy diet. But they need to be regarded as a treat and a treat only. I’m working on the last quarter of my first hundred years and I grew up with that regard of diet. Once or twice a year I binge on Snickers bars and eat two, one right after the other. My downfall is Coke but I’m working on that. I take no prescription drugs, no holistic medicines and eat no desserts. I take the stairs instead of the elevator, leave my car at the far end of the parking lot, and hang my laundry on the outdoor line. Television does not interest me and I have many hobbies and recreational interests which do not include computer games, cell phone texting or internet surfing. And I’m very leery of any media warning about the next thing that’s going to kill me.
Reply to this comment

by alanrobisch April 2, 2012 12:23 PM EDT
fascinating sugar is toxic bull excess of anything is toxic. sugar is the lifeline of the body.to call it toxic is ludicrous
Reply to this comment

by cpen29 April 2, 2012 1:19 PM EDT
“sugar is the lifeline of the body” you cannot be serious?

by TheSugarAssociation April 2, 2012 12:21 PM EDT
It’s a major disappointment that 60 Minutes missed a teachable moment to provide a balanced segment and help inform its viewers and American consumers about the role all-natural sugar plays in healthy diets. Rather, they chose a skewed approach that is a disservice to consumers because it focused on one-sided research results and hypotheses. The segment amplified inaccuracies, unproven hypotheses and baseless accusations—unfortunately, this approach contributes to the problem and doesn’t advance the solution.

When the Sugar Association was approached by 60 Minutes last year to participate in a segment focusing on sweeteners, we saw it as an opportunity to work with and educate them on the facts about sugar, an all-natural ingredient that has been part of healthy and balanced diets for more than 2,000 years. We provided the producers with numerous scientific studies, government statistics and access to a sugar cane farm in Louisiana in the hopes the proposed segment would be fair, objective and balanced. Unfortunately, that was not the case.

In choosing this direction, 60 Minutes overshadowed the fact that total caloric intake remains the fundamental cause of a myriad of illnesses facing Americans. Every major review of the full body of scientific evidence has concluded that sugar intake is not linked to any lifestyle disease. That per-capita consumption of all-natural sugar has declined nearly 40 percent since 1970 underscores the fact that singling out sugar is shortsighted and baseless. The assertion that high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) and all-natural sugar are the same and treated by our bodies the same is inaccurate.

To vilify any single food or ingredient as the main culprit behind numerous serious illnesses provides little benefit to American consumers. When provided with accurate information consumers are capable of making educated choices and balanced nutritional decisions without the restrictive burdens of more government regulations and bans to limit any one product. Access to simple, accurate information is a good start to help consumers make healthy and informed decisions. We’re sorry that 60 Minutes elected not to contribute to the solution.
Reply to this comment

by ShakyBarnes April 2, 2012 12:38 PM EDT
Well if you can’t trust the “Sugar Association” for an objective take, who can you trust? I suppose the sucrose lobby and the high fructose corn syrup lobby can square off and blame each other, that would be entertaining.

Lustig’s excellent point is that both table-sugar sucrose (which is glcose+fructose) and high-fructose corn syrup (which is also glucose+fructose in almost the same ratio) are equally bad. Both cases, the digestive tract breaks down the sweetener into glucose and fructose and does what it does with each. No essential difference.

Also, as is getting to be pretty well known thanks to many diet gurus and people like Gary Taubes and a legion of self-experimenting bloggers, eating sugar induces a blood-glucose/insulin spiking cycle that results in making people hungrier so that they do indeed eat too much. Sure — it’s not just sugar but other refined carbs too, but sugar is the ever-present accomplice. You’re trying to let the arsonist go free because you say it was a FIRE that destroyed the house.

by amae26 April 2, 2012 3:02 PM EDT
The main concept, red flag so to say, to take away from this report is that sugar is everywhere, and we need to be more aware of it! Many people are eating things completely unaware that there would be sugar in it, but for the sake of cost and mass production companies have used sugar to capitalize. So as some one decides that this is the year they are going to diet, they start buying low-fat/non-fat/0 calorie items, start using diet products only to find out that they are stocked with sugar. Sugar doesn’t have to be bad, but it is when everything you eat has some of it in there, and you’d never think it until you read through each ingredient list on the back of each product of food.

by crazyhorself April 2, 2012 10:17 PM EDT
I personally lowered my LDL by cutting sugar. My mother a RN was in a 10 year study on cholesterol back in the 80’s and 90’s her conclusion was eating low fat lots of veggies and fish made a minimal effect on her LDL but dropping surgar made a big % drop in LDL How do you explain that? You should make fuel out of sugar cane. I myself make Maple Syrup Love It In Moderation, It takes a whole lot of back breaking work to make it
the old fashion way. Exercise also needs to be in the mix here. If people had to go out -sow, grow, weed, cut, process their own sugar, bet they wouldn’t eat so much 🙂
by LittleMarySunshine April 3, 2012 10:18 AM EDT
There is NOTHING “all natural” about HIGHLY REFINED WHITE CANE SUGAR. If you want “natural sugar” then you would have to chop down a whole lot of sugar cane, and put THAT on your oatmeal.

by drsam8 April 2, 2012 12:10 PM EDT
CBS HAS BEEN PIVOTTING TOWARDS REPUBLICANS FOR A WHILE NOW.
First, they hired a rightwing anchor man for their evening news. Then came Steve Kroft dirty job last interview against Obama on 60 Minutes. This was followed by a hit against the President in its interview with then Archbishop Dolan, the rightwing political bishop, on contraception, with no room left for comments by readers so that it became completely a one-way communication. To rub it in, 60 Minutes, in its broadcast about joblessness in NASA town April 2, 2012, couldn’t help blaming the fate of town and its diminished workers on Obama—it’s all Obama’s fault. Nothing was said about the Bush administration that drove the economy to a recession, making money and jobs scarce or about the key role that Republican budget cuts played.
Dr. Sam
Reply to this comment

by drsam8 April 2, 2012 12:07 PM EDT
CBS HAS BEEN PIVOTTING TOWARDS REPUBLICANS FOR A WHILE NOW.
First, they hired a rightwing anchor man for their evening news. Then came Steve Kroft dirty job last interview against Obama on 60 Minutes. This was followed by a hit against the President in its interview with then Archbishop Dolan, the rightwing political bishop, on contraception, with no room left for comments by readers so that it became completely a one-way communication. To rub it in, 60 Minutes, in its broadcast about joblessness in NASA town April 2, 2012, couldn’t help blaming the fate of town and its diminished workers on Obama—it’s all Obama’s fault. Nothing was said about the Bush administration that drove the economy to a recession, making money and jobs scarce or about the key role that Republican budget cuts played. Now, CBS brings in Sarah Palin, a clueless Tea Party ideologue that not even Fox would hire as an anchor of any of its shows. The woman who could name any single paper that she read regularly is now poised to tell us all that we didn’t know about the world that we should have known. Talk about animal farm, or better strange world!
Dr. Sam
Reply to this comment

by Drock6 April 2, 2012 11:58 AM EDT
Most people don’t realize that in the the year 1900 the average consumption of sugar was 7 lbs / year. In 2012 it has risen to 130 lbs/year on average. You can plot this on a graph and it directly correlates with the rise in diabetes, obesity, and alzheimers Disease.(now called type III diabetes)

Its not that sugar is toxic but rather the level of consumption is toxic. Diet and exercise will help but its alot of holistic hooey. Eating this much much sugar does indeed increase the rick of cancer and also raises the level of TNF-A. Also known as tumor necrosis factor A.

Its simple folks. We are eating too much…..
Reply to this comment

by TheManWithNoName April 2, 2012 12:42 PM EDT
Yup, and in the 1900s the life expectancy was 46 years old. Now it’s in the 70s.

WOOPS!

by foo8259 April 2, 2012 1:11 PM EDT
Your point is well taken. I see the naysayers are here now. And to the “everything’s fine in moderation crowd” how bout Arsenic on fruit, mercury in fish or Dioxin in our air and water? Most people don’t realize that a typical breakfast of cereal (even whole grain or oatmeal)with skim milk, toast and a glass of OJ translates to eating about a cup of white sugar! Ask a diabetic what grains and fruit do to their blood sugar readings. Diabetes used to be called “sugar diabetes” and for good reason.

by nenicholas April 2, 2012 1:18 PM EDT
@TheManWithNoName – the reason life expectancy has risen is due to vaccines, antibiotics, and other advances in medicine, NOT because of an increase in sugar consumption.

by cpen29 April 2, 2012 1:21 PM EDT
sanitation and medical care are way better today than they were in 1900. sugar doesn’t make us live longer.

by Dgunner April 2, 2012 11:15 AM EDT
We have to do something as a nation. The obesity rate among african americans is almost double that of any other race. Surpising though african american men are only at 19% where white or anglo are 30%.If we continue to accept the behaviour of the suppliers then we have in a sense given into a dictatorship of the food industry. It is very diifucult not to feed your children to death when 90% of american foods are doctored by the industry.Please help save the next generation from massive heart disease and please stay out of walmart.
Reply to this comment

by TheManWithNoName April 2, 2012 12:39 PM EDT
Dgunner – I have to wonder about the scale of what is technically considered obese these days. I find it funny, actually, that there’s no hint at banning electronics to reduce obesity – when the ease and reduction of physical actions caused by it – are more of a contributor than anything.

by littleredtop April 2, 2012 11:01 AM EDT
Beware America, another medical scam is headed your way. This sugar thing has all the potential of the ongoing, multi-trillion dollar fat scam. The unfortunate thing is that people will now be educated, from the 1st grade through medical school, believing sugar is poison. The fat scam has or is killing millions of well educated, naive and trusting middle class people with good health insurance. They died either because of their fat free diet filled with carbohydrates and artificial dairy products, prescription medications or from unnecessary radical surgery. That middle class naivety will quickly fuel the sugar scam and millions of people will needlessly die from sugar free diets, artificial sweeteners, prescription medications and more radical surgery. Revelations such as the fat scam and now the sugar theory are only about cleaning out your bank account. I can’t help but wonder how accurate the claims about smoking are. One thing is for certain, I sure felt better when I was a smoker. I wonder whats happening to all that money the courts are awarding because of smoking’s harmful effects and lets not forget the tax windfall from $8.00 a pack cigarettes . I guess that most of it goes to doctors and lawyers with the tax money helping cover the cost of cultural diversity. When you look closely at all this it would appear that a specific segment of the population is being targeted.
Reply to this comment

by retm-w April 2, 2012 12:15 PM EDT
I love it smokers are paying for our 2 stadiums(taxes) yet smokers aren’t allowed to smoke in them and they are both open air stadiums. Now one city is trying to pass a no smoking law, no smoking in the parks. Funny they have no problem taking the taxes from tobacco products to support the parks. I don’t smoke and being outside the smokers don’t bother me as long as their not blowing it in my face which doesn’t happen. They took all the sugar drinks out of the schools, now most of the kids stop after school at the fast food places and convinience stores for their sugar highs. Then go home and sit in front of a computer playing games, instead of being outside getting some exercise.

by BarryBeith April 2, 2012 10:58 AM EDT
I thought the segment was excellent. I was disappointed by the fact that MDs such as the interviewer, Dr. Gupta Sanjay, and primary medical interviewees were referred to as Doctors but Kimber Stanhope, who holds a research doctorate from UC Davis and provided the primary basic research input to the segment, was never indicated as such. She is a Doctor in her specialty and deserved at least the Ph.D. behind her name in the script.
Reply to this comment

by ewcollins April 2, 2012 10:46 AM EDT
Which is more really more dangerous: sugar, aspartame or saccharin?
Reply to this comment

by gunshack1 April 2, 2012 10:41 AM EDT
My grandad put two teaspoons of sugar in his coffee every morning. I use to tell him, “Grandad that much sugar is not good for you”. I was correct. He died before his time at 96.
Reply to this comment

by chipdrone April 2, 2012 12:28 PM EDT
@gunshack1 – you do understand that there are folks who smoke a pack of cigarettes each day yet never develop lung cancer? Or heavy drinkers who will not become alcoholics or develop liver disease?

The two teaspoons of sugar your grandfather added to his coffee added up to about 30 calories. If a person already has gained a lot of mid-life weight around the belly, as most Americans do, that person might want to consider drinking his or her coffee black. If your grand-dad had a BMI in the normal range, was not diabetic, and had longevity genes on his side, then more power to him.

Life without pleasure may not be worth living. But saying that doesn’t give us permission to inhale all the liquor and sugary treats in the vicinity. It means we understand and respect the adverse effects that these substances have on our bodies.

by TheManWithNoName April 2, 2012 12:34 PM EDT
That’s sarcasm right? Before his time at 98? Seems he lived longer than most people.
by TheManWithNoName April 2, 2012 12:48 PM EDT
chip – “But saying that doesn’t give us permission to inhale all the liquor and sugary treats in the vicinity.”

If you find anyone doing that, yeah that’s a problem. But I *honestly* don’t believe there is a single person in the world with the power to ‘inhale all liquor and sugary treats in the vicinity’. The only person who can do that is Majin Buu, and he’s just a cartoon character.

Next time, try not to exagerrate – because it’s pretty much a lie. You forget also the different makeup of individuals, not to mention sugar cravings generally come from a psychologically depressed mindset.

And that, my friend, is a LONGER list of problems.

by andie52 April 2, 2012 10:16 AM EDT
It’s addictive but I’d worry more about artificial sweeteners
Reply to this comment

by gumbosally April 2, 2012 10:14 AM EDT
why was there no mention of agave,a naturally occurring sugar substitute?
Reply to this comment

by Drock6 April 2, 2012 11:47 AM EDT
Agave is still mostly fructose and will have the same negative health effects of suagr and corn syrup. Its just that its glycemic index is a little lower

by chipdrone April 2, 2012 12:33 PM EDT
Agave syrup is worse for the body than either table sugar or HFCS. Depending on how it’s made it’s got either a *little* more fructose in it, ounce for ounce, than HFCS or a *lot* more fructose.

Diabetics like agave because fructose doesn’t cause an insulin spike (only glucose stimulates insulin production). But the toxic load on the liver from the agave is higher because there’s significantly more fructose than glucose in it.

by rudybern April 2, 2012 10:01 AM EDT
Glucose is absolutly necessary at a sustanable rate. However, foods that spike the amount of glucose in our blood are the culprits for poor health.

Although soft drinks and corn syrup correctly indentifies two of the quickest sources of glucose, they tragicly miss the starches which are worse than cane sugar. Enriched wheat flour(breads, cakes,etc.), white potatoes, pasta and rice. One simply can check glycemic index of foods to identify worst offenders.

Great foods to eat are vegtables such as greens and red peppers, fresh ground flax seed, barly, beans, nuts and some fruit.
Reply to this comment

by chipdrone April 2, 2012 12:36 PM EDT
rudybern wrote: “One simply can check glycemic index of foods to identify worst offenders”.

You’re missing the point about fructose, Rudy, which is a toxin to the liver. Fructose has no glycemic load because insulin is produced only in response to glucose, yet fructose can only be metabolized by the liver, which turns much of it into bad cholesterol (vLDL) and stored fat.

Excess calories from starches (whether white flour or whole-grain flour, or starchy vegetables) are definitely a problem in our diet, but Dr. Lustig makes a compelling case for cutting sugar and HFCS first before worrying about the starches found in vegetables or whole grains.

by nilsvonre April 2, 2012 1:04 PM EDT
I agree with your statement except beans and soy are equally high in glucose effect as is dairy.

Dr. Lustig mentions in his YouTube video the,”Paleo Diet”,(It is more a lifestyle,like vegan). You can eat lean meats, fish, poultry, most vegetables, most fruit, most nuts and oils such as olive and canola. Try it for two weeks and you will watch the weight come off and your energy levels and overall health soar.

If you are use to sugars, dairy and grains,as we all are, it can be difficult to initially follow but just give it go for two weeks and the results are truly amazing.

by Forty-Four April 2, 2012 9:57 AM EDT
I think this picture nicely fits this

Reply to this comment

by TheManWithNoName April 2, 2012 12:52 PM EDT
Exactly! A good choice in diet helps, but it’s not the be-all end-all some people try to claim. It’s like Denis Leary said in No Cure for Cancer –

by mysticpizza April 2, 2012 9:55 AM EDT
Is sugar toxic? It is to my waistline that why I exercise and eat vegetables and limit my meat intake so I don’t have to worry about such things.
Reply to this comment

by pdchapin April 2, 2012 9:44 AM EDT
Some interesting science and bad reporting. Take, for example “sugar is addictive”. There evidence is that somebody takes a sip of soda and brain activity indicates pleasure. May just mean he likes soda. It would be interesting to see what my brain would look like since I hate all carbonated drinks. Then there’s the argument about increase tolerance, i.e., less pleasurable feedback, resulting in higher consumption. But an equally good explanation is that after twenty-five candy bars I’m just tired on them and my reaction isn’t going to be to go after a bigger candy bar. The report seems to confuse liking something and being addicted to it.

There may be some good and useful science here, but you’re not likely to find out based on a media report.
Reply to this comment

by downstateillini April 2, 2012 12:14 PM EDT
And that is exactly the crux of the matter. Beware of ANY report coming from “the media”. They have to be forever scaring us about some new threat. But you know what? They will eventually run out and then what?

by Old Timer 8080 April 2, 2012 9:24 AM EDT
DiHydrogen Oxide can be fatal when ingested in large quantities too!

Lets ban the NAIVE EVIAN production and OUTLAW ALL BOTTLES OF DIHYDROGEN OXIDE TOO!!!

Now you see just how SLANTED YELLOW JOURNALISM HAS BECOME!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism

Yeah, I can use ALL CAPS to generate headlines too…
Reply to this comment

by troutfishman2 April 2, 2012 9:25 AM EDT
dumb

by rntwined57 April 2, 2012 9:14 AM EDT
What about artificial sweeteners? Do they have the same effect ?
Reply to this comment

by henderson4423 April 2, 2012 9:41 AM EDT
GOOD QUESTION. IN THE REPORT THEY SAID, “I climbed into the MRI scanner to see how my brain would respond. That’s a straw that’s been rigged to deliver a tiny sip of soda into my mouth.

“Eric Stice: Stay as still as you can, ok?

“Just as it hit my tongue, the scanner detected increased blood rushing to certain regions of my brain. In these images, the yellow areas show that my reward region is responding to the sweet taste. Dopamine – a chemical that controls the brain’s pleasure center – is being released, just as it would in response to drugs or alcohol.

“Dr. Sanjay Gupta: So dopamine is released. That sort of makes me feel good. I’m experiencing some pleasure from having this Coke.

SINCE THE BRAIN STARTED REACTING WHEN THE SUGAR HIT THE TONGUE AND WAS NOT YET ABSORBED, WOULD THE BRAIN REACT SIMILIARLY WHEN AN ARTIFICIAL SWEETNER HIT THE TONGUE??? I HOPE SOMEBODY HAS THE ANSWER.

by ShakyBarnes April 2, 2012 12:22 PM EDT
Not the same effect, though for some people it appears artificial sweeteners may have some unwanted effects that compromise their ability to lose weight. Artificial sweeteners do not contain glucose or fructose, therefore they are not converted into blood sugar, triglycerides, or LDL cholesterol — which is good. However apparently some people find that the sweeteners can stimulate insulin production, and/or can make them crave real sweets — the body seems to be fooled int reacting to sugar, just based on the sweet taste. What I’m saying is based on anecdotal evidence and as far as I can tell is highly individual.

by troutfishman2 April 2, 2012 9:10 AM EDT
Sugar consumption is a HUGE risk factor for cancer.

Your body converts the sugar to glucose, which tumors need to grow. There is a very good book called “Anti-Cancer” by a doctor that explains how this works.
Reply to this comment

by foo8259 April 2, 2012 2:33 PM EDT
Yes, just Google “Warburg Effect” most cancer cells, due to defective mitochondria, must use sugar to grow and reproduce — they can’t survive on ketones — the preferred fuel for the human body when on a low-carb diet.

by mishellyone April 2, 2012 9:09 AM EDT
Recent Research indicates that High Sugar Levels Contribute to High Blood Pressure. There is a direct link. To Lower your Blood Pressure you need to Lower sugar. Why??? Because Insulin levels when high create extra insulin the body goes into overdrive to desolve it. Putting stress on kidness, pancreas, etc. Because the body cannot get rid of so much refine sugar that we were not created to take in all at once it stores the remainder in Fat cells. More Fat is diffently a cause of High Blood Pressure and Heart Disease. It’s not rocket science. Something is killing America and Making Teenage Children Type Two Diabetics. Just look around you will see what sugar is doing. Sources of Sugar in grams in moderation. I have done research on High Blood Pressure and to treat mine with out medicine I am on Carditone but also I have cut out all sugar. It is amazing the results. It can be done. You can treat blood pressure with a natural pill and by cutting out sugar.
Reply to this comment

by Celerunner April 2, 2012 8:43 AM EDT
The bottom line is: Eat a balanced diet and sweets in moderation. And the most important part: Exercise EVERY DAY for at least 30 minutes. Walk, bike, run, swim. Get up and do something active. If you have time to eat a cupcake, you have time to walk 30 minutes or take your bike out with your kids or go walk your dog. It’s not that difficult.
Reply to this comment

by troutfishman2 April 2, 2012 9:07 AM EDT
Sweets are not part of a healthy diet. Agree on the exercise though!

by MacDerb April 2, 2012 8:32 AM EDT
India Influence Over the United States
I’m going to say something that some of you will take offense to, but I apologize up front. However, our nation is substantially influenced right now and it is ever increasing by India. This is not necessarily a good thing. That means that persons from India are attempting to influence our children away from their Christian faith and heritage.

This culture is quite tenacious and persist in stripping away all things American until we hear their music, eat their dishes, take up their clothing styles and consequentially forget our own traditions, religion and ways.

I tell my children often because cultures that do this are parasitic. This means parasitic conduct is how they invade other nations. Preying on a public for its cash – as many families from India are doing in the resort industry now – and rapidly merging and acquisitioning many restaurant chains in the United States, hotels, and so forth.

And you ignore it completely.

But, the presence is becoming so substantial it is shocking. Now, in most cultures this is not a problem because most are not parasitic cultures.

India citizens, however, have no desire to remain in the United States for very long and this used to be a requirement of all immigrants or visitors carrying a green card.

India transfers ALL of its dollars to the Bank of India, which is becoming unjustly enriched against the value of the United States treasury.

That is a fact for you to consider this morning while you listen or read about Sanjay Gupta, or how Bobbie Jindal is thinking about running for president.

How these families often have several children and many Euro-Americans are now having smaller families and fewer children and you are losing your history that built the United States, especially in New England and on the East Coast where the population of citizens from India is rapidly taking over.

Sugar, like cows have been on earth for a very, very long time. Whenever anyone tells you that you should suddenly cut something out of your life because it is now regarded as “bad”, take caution and use your wisdom in evaluating why they might be influencing you this way.

The culture of the Hindu do not eat cows either, but worship them as a god.

I’m done – thanks for letting me exercise my free speech while I still have it.
Reply to this comment

by jaimieandlis April 2, 2012 8:38 AM EDT
now the liberals are coming after sugar? I think it’s time normal people went after liberals. this is getting to be too much.

by IEatMeat April 2, 2012 8:54 AM EDT
jaimie…
I’m as conservative as they get…it’s not liberals (heck, the liberal PETA people are driving the go meatless campaign). Sugar was killing me….now it is not (for over 10 years). Just eat meat.

by enlightenu April 2, 2012 11:35 AM EDT
I think you are on a sugar high.

by TheManWithNoName April 2, 2012 12:56 PM EDT
That’s true! I often wonder why Indian doctors are given some sort of pedestal – when India’s a pretty disease-laden country. They can’t even figure out a good way to not have cluttered phone lines everywhere.

by Sloughfoot April 2, 2012 8:15 AM EDT
Is CBS News becoming more and more of a tabloid?
Reply to this comment

by Dreadnut April 2, 2012 8:10 AM EDT
The real story is Obama is toxic.
Reply to this comment

by astancius April 2, 2012 7:51 AM EDT
sorry, raw sugar IS NOT the same as white sugar.
it still has natural minerals within it!
glucose, frutos, are not the culprits, but refined sugar is!
otherwise, why do hospitals use glucose saline solutions?
get your facts straight.
Reply to this comment

by anneable April 2, 2012 7:37 AM EDT
Sugar is bad for you. Period. Anything that is processed in any way – is not healthy. There is a reason why we are suffering from all types of illness, fat as hogs and lazy as all get out!

But, you can’t tell Americans that….. because they know EVERYTHING! Especially the ones who shove cake into their face every five minutes!
Reply to this comment

by astancius April 2, 2012 8:01 AM EDT
true, refined products are bad, and consuming large amounts is even worse.
however, manufactured glucose and such isn’t the same as refined sugar.
otherwise, you might as well state that hospitals are killing commatose patients daily.

by mopar1956 April 2, 2012 8:46 AM EDT
This is all crap. I had a grandmother that lived to be one hundred and that is all she ate. My mother is 84 and sugar is all she its. Give me a break. Everything you read that you eat is bad for you. Get a life.

by CalorieKen April 2, 2012 7:31 AM EDT
I was one of 132 volunteers in the multi-year CALERIE Study at the Tufts University Jean Mayer Human Nutrition Research Center. CALERIE is an acronym for Comprehensive Assessment of the Long-term Effects of the Reducing the Intake of Energy. This was a longevity study that focused not on radical restriction of calories, but on ingesting what you need and no more.

I’m 5′ 11″ with an average build. By targeting 2,235 calories per day, I dropped 30 pounds over a period of a year, and I maintained it for another year. Today, a year after I finished my commitment to the study, I’ve regained eight pounds and weigh in at 178, but that is still in my healthy weight range. I just don’t pay as close attention to total calories consumed like I did while in the study.

Like many viewers, I am dismayed and disappointed at the drama of this segment and the need to demonize sugar. The solution to obesity in America is very simple, yet also extraordinarily difficult in our I-want-it-now-I-deserve-it-too society. A good place to start is to eat a balanced diet of nutrient-rich and fiber-rich non-processed foods, avoid fast food as if your life depended on it (except for Subway!), don’t drink sugar-laden soft drinks, limit alcohol, and have dessert once a week instead of every day. It’s all about balance and thinking long-term. This segment alluded to that, but the common sense solution got lost in the hype.

Dr. Gupta, I challenge you to use your celebrity to help people find long-term, balanced solutions to weight and health management. I’d love to help.

Cheers!
Calorie Ken (Ken Brooks)
calorieken@gmail.com
Reply to this comment

by IEatMeat April 2, 2012 8:33 AM EDT
I guess you missed the part about sugar feeding cancer. “Balance” or “moderation” is what you define it as, not valuable guidance. My balance is a few leafy greens and lots of fatty meat. Have done so for over 10 years now and COMPLETELY rid myself of ALL the “syndrome” diseases that were encroaching upon my body as have many others.

by TheManWithNoName April 2, 2012 12:59 PM EDT
Guess what – Cancer is our natural predator. We are highest on the food chain – as Joe Rogan calls us, the cancer of the world, so it’s natural that the smallest organism is what takes us out.

by ballinrobe April 2, 2012 7:09 AM EDT
This news piece was another example of an appalling fake science and poor reporting. Every single thing we eat breaks down into simple sugars, it is the only form of nutrition our cells can absorb. So, a hundred calories in fructose ( natural fruit sugars not added) and a hundred calories in sucrose break down in exactly the same way in the body, one step break down to glucose. So explain to me how a teaspoon of sugar is suddenly more dangerous then a half an apple? It is an overall balance of diet that is important, not your TRULY STUPID attack on one particular food group. Crack Pot doctors are the worst. Especially those in the media. Have you forgotten you oath? First do no harm. Then make money.
Reply to this comment

by April 2, 2012 7:40 AM EDT
Umm, I don’t know how to politely reply to you. First, there is no known metabolic process to convert fat to sugar. Second, there are known metabolic processes for using fat and protein.

A teaspoon of sugar is not as dangerous as an apple; because an apple packages numerous protective substances called anti-oxidants. Mother nature often packages good with bad.

These doctors are the tip of the iceberg. FYI there are millions of people like me getting healthy by following high fat, low carb diets. I eat 70% of my calories in fat. I expect your reply to fully contradict your first post since you think by eating fat I am eating sugar. But really, my glycation and inflammation effects are greatly reduced, the pressures to degrade my lipoproteins are minimized, my lower levels of insulin mean I can burn off stored fat via lipoprotein lipase, and my iabetic complications are gone! This is not mystery magic. If you want to be upset, start crapping on our governmetn for leading us down this fat-is-deadly crusade with zero level 1 evidence. Start boycotting monsanto and kraft and general mills like the rest of us turning our lives around.

TRULY STUPID people don’t think. Please start paying attention people.

by tbmpharm April 2, 2012 8:34 AM EDT
Gee, I’m not sure where to start here. Firstly in the human body Glycogen (store in the liver) undergoes a process called “gluconeogenesis”, that’s right, the creation of glucose for fuel that can be burned by the heart and brain-the only two organs in the human body that exclusively burn glucose, all other tissues can burn alternative fuels , but more on that later. The two fuels of fat and protein are also available to the bodies metabolism as we carve off two carbon units and of fats (beta hydrolysis) and burn them for energy utilizing Kreb’s cycle to generate ATP (adenosine Tri-phospahate). Any of this coming back to you? The proteins are burned as a last resort in time of starvation and release ketones and the body chemistry changes as the we go into ketosis (think Sudan).

In the hospital they don’t administer glucose generally speaking, they hang D5W or dextrose 5% in Water.

Tom the Pharmacist

by IEatMeat April 2, 2012 8:38 AM EDT
Super post rdm1046. High fat, very low carb way of eating literally saved my life 12 years ago. Now, I’m 100 lbs lighter, never worry about food, and am in perfect health!! My skeptical Dr. has been amazed, and is now (slowly) converting to a low carb believer….Change is coming, albeit slowly….lots of carby “interest groups” to fend off.

by rdm1046 April 2, 2012 6:39 AM EDT
I watched this last night and decided that what is toxic is all of the health nut doctors that try to tell me what I can and can’t eat or drink. I won’t argue that too much sugar is bad for the body, but to listen to these health nazis one would think we are all on the road to self-destruction. Get a life.
Reply to this comment

by djseavy April 2, 2012 6:08 AM EDT
Here we go again with another wild story. I stopped believing researchers years ago. We had the Alar scare; Coffee was deemed a carcinogen; just about everything imaginable has been said to either cause or exaserbate cancer. Then down the road, they say “oops, we goofed.” If you really want to do some productive research, study the amount of radio waves in the air that we’re bombarded with every day. Radio is used far more today than ever before and we’re absorbing that energy all the time. I’m not talking about broadcast – but microwave transmission for phone service, paging transmissions, cell phone sites, control and reporting links and so on. Sugar has been used for thousands of years. Why is it that our grandparents lived to be a ripe old age after eating butter, sugar, etc?
Reply to this comment

by 62Matthew April 2, 2012 2:15 AM EDT
I watched your report on Sugar Being Harmful…it was shameful, a sham. This is new news? Have you not read “Sugar Blues?” The cult book came out 40 years ago…sugar should have been exposed for what it is years ago, wait, generations ago…This is not new news, its ancient history. Sugar was a controlled drug in the 1200’s. Americans are not the only country addicted and controlled by sugar companies, sugar is one of the largest businesses in the world, I urge every reader of this to buy the book, “Sugar Blues” and others like it. The USDA and FDA have been covering up the facts about sugar for decades, wait a century, at the cost of millions of lives all for the lobby of the dollar and kickbacks…I am an avid watcher of 60 Minutes but this was the absolute worst report I have seen on the show in the last 40 years I’ve been watching. Do what you do best 60 Minutes, expose the truth about sugar, the FDA and the USDA, knowingly covering up the fact that sugar should be as controlled as and addictive substance.
Reply to this comment

by peanee April 2, 2012 6:57 AM EDT
You are absolutely right! I read Sugar Blues and Sugar Shock years ago. This is not new information but maybe reports like this will finally get people to realize the dangers of refined sugar/high fructose corn syrup!!

by constitutionstillsupreme April 2, 2012 1:29 AM EDT
Elaine Gottschall was a biochemist who tested tons of foods for their starch/sugar levels decades ago to help people who had fibromyalgia, arthritis, crohn’s, celiac, autism, autoimmune, etc. Her book is Breaking the Vicious Cycle and if you search for pecanbread.com you’ll find her “legal foods” list based on whether the food tested safe as a single highly digestable sugar as opposed to the undigestable double sugars found in most of today’s foods in the good ole grocery & restaurants. Her diet heals you so you can then pursue a smart course of well chosen foods. This is an incredibly well known and popular diet protocol that blends into a lifestyle over time. Then there’s Dr. McBride’s GAPS concept on gaps.me which grew from Elaine Gottschall’s work and is mainly targeted at autism, epileptics, patients with bipolar/anxiety/depression, and heart patients (Put your heart in your mouth is her new text). Then if you go back before either of these ladies, Weston Price, a dentist, published findings from around 1915 on how all this sugar is responsible for tooth decay and it’s profiled in Cure Tooth Decay written by R. Nagel. He discusses the need for grass fed beef and lamb, free range chickens eating what God made them to eat, cod liver oil, good fats, broths, fermenting, etc. all outlined in Nourishing Traditions a book which you can get on amazon or you can go to westonaprice.org . Mr. Weston Price’s research which was shoved so far under the rug, I didn’t think medical science would ever pull it out. He was preaching way back then that metals did not belong in the mouth and it should be no surprise that his colleagues pushed him out and formed a new dental assoc to get rid of him and his research! 😉 Sugar in all it’s double forms is detrimental to health. I am glad to see that medical science is finally catching up. Now if we can get the toxic load of chemicals, pesticides & metals out of our lives, our modified food (AKA corn, soy, wheat and milk), our water and our healthcare, AND stop blaming bacteria and genetics for all our woes, we might have a chance of beating the big health threats of our day 😉 My family has been on the Specific Carbohydrate Diet by pecanbread for five years and we never get sick! I cannot go on how many various ailments were eradicated by following this no double sugars protocol-zero joint pain, hair growing back on balding heads, skin plump and shiny, pink fingernails, growing and focused kids, sound sleeping, resurrected energy levels, no sugar spikes or drops, normalized digestion, zero reflux, and clear rash free eczema free skin! It makes it very hard to watch the culture around us knowing it is all preventable and without a single prescription! If you think you are healthy, look up how to test your own ph level with ph test strips and read about how to check your am temp using the Barnes Basal Temperature test. Black and white answers and both you can do yourself 😉
Reply to this comment

by rptruth April 2, 2012 10:28 AM EDT
I’m glad to see that science is finally looking into the health problems that can be caused by excess sugar. The whole time I was watching this segment I was thinking about the work done by Dr. Weston A. Price nearly 100 years ago. I knew if I kept reading through the comments I would find a mention of Dr. Price, so kudos to you for your knowledge and your family’s improved health! The majority of the comments here are attacking this segment as some kind of junk science. People, please inform yourselves on this topic. Just a few minutes of actually reading and studying something can help guide you in making much more health-conscious decisions.

by CarolineSutherland April 2, 2012 12:46 AM EDT
From being a voice in the dark for several decades about cancer cells being glucose supported, we finally hear it from the big boys. CNN’s health expert, Dr. Sanja Gupta nails it with his recent CBS 60 Minutes interview with a number of top researchers who all blame sugar for the increased incidence of Adult Onset Diabetes, heart disease and …even cancer! I have been on the forefront of the alternative health movement for almost thirty years and I have been preaching to anyone who would listen, that sugar feeds cancer cells. In fact in 2003, I did a reading for one of the top researchers from one of the nation’s biggest pharmaceutical companies that produces many of the chemotherapeutic agents in circulation today. She concurred that “Yes, cancer cells are glucose supported but this fact is not widely discussed outside of scientific circles.” Why not? This piece of information could punch a huge hole in the lucrative cancer industry. But, because a cancer cell contains 16 more insulin receptors sites, it is proof that any fast growing cell needs sugar to grow and proliferate. Wake up people, cut down on the sugar and keep yourselves out of the cancer zone! Sugar (sucrose), fructose, high fructose corn syrup, alcohol, honey, maple syrup, processed fruit juice, and agave nectar, are all sugars and they act in exactly the same way. Good idea to keep these items to a minimum, and now this is confirmed by news-makers.

~Caroline Sutherland, International Bestselling Author of The Body Knows series of books: http://www.CarolineSutherland.com
Reply to this comment

by OConnorL April 2, 2012 12:25 AM EDT
This is NOT news. And if it is news, you must not have gone through any public education or have ever been exposed to authoritative figures who have said public education. OMG sugar is in tomato sauce??? Hahaha yeah it is, it’s on the label herpderp, that section under Carbohydrates where it says SUGARS. This includes high fructose corn syrup, sugar alcohols, and regular table sugar. Woo-freakin-hoo, now you can read!

Reply to this comment
by hornsnbr1 April 2, 2012 12:03 AM EDT
This is just more Health Nazi propaganda. Eat moderate amounts of a variety of foods and you will live a long healthy life.
Reply to this comment

by mav547166 April 1, 2012 11:21 PM EDT
Using their logic it seems to me that sugar makes you live longer. A 1000 years ago when sugar was not readily available to the majority of the people the life span was a ripe old 30 or so. Today it is in the 70s.
Reply to this comment

by ShakyBarnes April 2, 2012 12:10 PM EDT
Does your comment really make sense to you? Average life expectancy isn’t higher because people eat sugar; it’s very obviously higher because of massive advances in healthcare technology and hygiene, not to mention the much lower chance of getting eaten by a wolf. People in the remote past died young of cholera and infections and highway bandit attacks. If they avoided all that they lived into their 80s and 90s just as lucky ones do today. But they were much less likely to die in their mid-40s of diabetes and obesity-induced heart attacks.

by Htos1 April 1, 2012 11:21 PM EDT
Umm,no!Just self-important dhimmicrats or repugs.Hey gryphon,ever hear of honey,dates,etc?Yeah,I know,the world was unicorns and fairy dust before Americans came along.That’s right,think!
Reply to this comment

by kbbpll April 1, 2012 10:55 PM EDT
So because cancer cells feed on glucose, glucose causes cancer? Utterly ludicrous.

Certainly too much sugar is a problem, but this kind of ridiculous reasoning (and reporting) doesn’t do anyone any good. The way CBS presents all these “scientists” on one side, and then an industry rep on the “other” side, made this story worthless. CBS could have just yelled “Boogeyman! Run for your lives!” and saved us some time.
Reply to this comment

by carolyleo April 1, 2012 10:53 PM EDT
I can understand why regular sugar is toxic, due to pesticides, and weed chemical control. But there was no mention of Organic Sugar. I know there is no problems with organic sugar. Which I have used for years, my body show very little sugar consumed, no toxins since I eat organic.

Now corn and sugar beats are GMO which is very toxic and is now going to be sprayed with Agent Orange. The GMO foods are all deadly and cancer causing.
Reply to this comment

by OConnorL April 2, 2012 12:30 AM EDT
they’re talking about what the chemical composition of sucrose (i.e. sugar made up of fructose and glucose molecules) does to the human body if a more than limited amount is consumed daily. This has nothing to do with whatever pesticides or chemicals are added to it. Even organic raw sugar cane will contain glucose and fructose molecules and these will interact with your body and can cause diabetes and heart problems and obesity if consumed in large quantities.

by morleyrobbins April 1, 2012 10:52 PM EDT
Robert Lustig, MD is one of my true HEROES because he is willing to call a spade, a spade. But to suggest that sugar and HFCS are “equal” is like saying that a “cold” and “cancer” are the same. Not so. Sugar is, indeed, toxic. HFCS is, indeed, poison: it tweaks the Hypothalamus that regulates your hormones, destroys Leptin signaling causing Obesity, binds up Magnesium with zeal thereby creating metabolic chaos (i.e., Diabetes, Heart Disease, etc.) and totally destroys the individual’s appetite and sense of caloric limits. Other than that, it’s not too destructive…

And clearly this campaign of Dr. Lustig’s is having a much needed impact. The Corn Growers Association (www.sweetsurprise.com) has now been granted permission by the FDA to rename their darling sweetener HFCS, “Corn Sugars!” This will only add to the confusion and chaos surrounding this critical issue in the minds of the public.

Dr. Lustig, I applaud your focus and your impact, but let’s make sure that the public finally gets the full truth about the metabolic price being paid with this “sweet surprise…”
Reply to this comment

by brianwimer April 1, 2012 10:40 PM EDT
I tried my own experiment – I ate the same sugar load as the average US adolescent for 8 weeks (without increasing my caloric intake)- while I was followed by 6 doctors. Results: pre-diabetic in 2 weeks, ADHD in 4 weeks, change in body mass from 19% bodyfat to 25% bodyfat. I documented all of it. Even went to Haiti to talk about sugar cane and the origins of America’s love affair with sugar. Check it out at: http://sugardaddymovie.wordpress.com/ Our feature documentary SUGAR DADDY should be finished by this summer.
Reply to this comment

by ivanakadija April 1, 2012 11:08 PM EDT
Yes. I’ve been following the SUGAR DADDY MOVIE blog. In fact, I ran for school board on a “health is academic” platform that promoted, among other things, the reduction of sugar in public schools. The USDA allows every serving in school food to be made up of up to 35% sugar – which qualifies an item as “nutritious.”

Our schools could do much better by limiting sugar as was demonstrated in DeKalb, GA over 10 years ago – which eliminated sugar from an elementary school – disciplinary incidents went down 23%, counseling referrals decreased 30%… and reading scores improved 15%.

by rwsmith29456 April 1, 2012 10:25 PM EDT
Sugar has been killing people for hundreds of years.
Reply to this comment

by HiMyNamesChris April 1, 2012 10:23 PM EDT
Not another “if you eat this you will die eventually” article. Well, at least I’m left with a choice: either stop eating or stop listening to stupid articles.
Reply to this comment

by DFRANKPRODUCTION April 1, 2012 10:18 PM EDT
There is a breakthrough in fast food (otherwise considered junk food). On Long Island in New York, Willie Degel is starting to revolutionize the way people eat fast food. JACK’S SHACK, WWW.JACKSSHACK.COM offers food without chemicals, no steroids, no antibiotics, no hormones, no nitrates, no preservatives. The food is quality sourced, locally sourced whenver possible—with all sources identified. As another example, JACK’S SHACK does not sell Coke or Pepsi, but beverages with high quality, pure, natural ingredients. Willie Degel wants to see people eat healthy and make good diet choices.
Reply to this comment

by paragone1 April 1, 2012 9:57 PM EDT
The media is a business , they make there money from selling advertisements. The bigger the audience, the more money they they can charge. There job is not to inform you, but to make money!! Don’t buy into everything that is reported. Sometimes they have to make a story.
Reply to this comment

by foo8259 April 1, 2012 9:55 PM EDT
I was waiting to comment here on this important issue… but these comments already are surprisingly timely and accurate. You took most of the words right out of my mouth. You people are spot on! Well, buck to reading the book “Wheat Belly.”
Reply to this comment

by realcocoa April 1, 2012 9:24 PM EDT
We have been eating sugar forever. Anything in excess is probably not good for you. I really wish they would stop telling us what to eat. If you are stupid enough to eat too much sugar, than that is your fault.
Reply to this comment

by erasmus111 April 1, 2012 10:01 PM EDT
Yes, we have been eating sugar forever, and it seems that people are eating more and more. I don’t think they are telling us what to do, they are just telling us what they have found. There are a lot of people out there that don’t eat anything in moderation. A lot of them don’t really know about nutrition. They need to get this information. Once they have it, of course it’s up to them what they do with it.

I’m not one for all these studies they do because one minute they say this, and the next they say the exact opposite. BUT, on this, I think they are dead RIGHT. Everyone is focused on cutting out fat, but the real problem is probably the sugar. That’s probably why we aren’t seeing any improvements for heart disease and diabetes. When they cut out the fat in foods, they then load it up with sugar and salt to give it taste.

by gryphon501 April 1, 2012 10:26 PM EDT
humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of years. What fraction of that time have they been eating sugar? A very small fraction of it. It’s far from a natural part of the diet.

by OConnorL April 2, 2012 12:39 AM EDT
@gryphon501 sugars are present in a lot of places. Glucose, Fructose, and galactose are all molecules that make sugars in nature. Such as fruit sugar (Fructose) and Sucrose (Glucose and Fructose) or Lactose (Glucose and Galactose) is part of a very natural diet, it’s in a butt ton of things organically. Like all fruits, all dairy, and cane sugar (a plant, durr). so yeah sugar is in nature, and a natural part of the diet, although there is no recommended daily amount it’s going to get in there just to gain the nutrients necessary for life. ALSO fun fact: most carbohydrates are broken down into sugar (glucose) in the body to give you energy! YAY!

by DenversDIetDoctor April 1, 2012 9:11 PM EDT
Great job Dr Lustig. 60 minutes should do a follow up story regarding dietary fats. Americans have reduced dietary saturated fat since the McGovern report in 1977 and yet obesity, diabetes and heart disease are on the rise. Maybe these chronic diseases has very little to do with saturated fats and more to do with dietary carbohydrates! Dr Jeff Gerber http://denversdietdoctor.com
Reply to this comment

by foo8259 April 2, 2012 2:46 PM EDT
Dr Jeff Gerber http://denversdietdoctor.com Thanks for the link. A very informative web site. I also like “Fat Head” the movie and the book “Good Calories, Bad Calories” and “Wheat Belly”
by foodandart April 1, 2012 9:04 PM EDT
Yup. 75% of ALL medical COST comes down to *chronic*, (note that word..) diet-related illness.

HFCS is the root of the American junk-food, refined product diet and it’s no wonder that medical costs are so high.

The uninsured have little to do with this – the majority of cost, being *chronic* is more likely the result of the average ~insured~ American thinking that vigilance in what they eat isn’t required anymore since they’re “covered”, and they can (and do) abuse themselves with food because after all.. the doctor will ‘fix’ it.. right?

Right?

Ermmm.
Reply to this comment

by WanderingPaws April 1, 2012 9:03 PM EDT
For decades, people working in remote highly hazardous jobs, where absolutely positively no alcohol is allowed, are fed lots of sugary foods. Anyone who works at a detox facility knows that addicts coming clean crave sugar. And the fact that sugar is addictive and affects the brain the same as alcohol and drugs is NEW NEWS???
Reply to this comment

by TPlayer801 April 1, 2012 9:02 PM EDT
This segment made me laugh…

Dr. Atkins covered all this about 20 years ago.

But the medical and media community made him out to be a quack even though he had studies including his own patients, history of the food supply and not to mention common sense.

Dr. Atkins as well as the book The Sugar Blues exposed the problem with food processing, the anti fat dietary guidelines and the government’s subsidy of high fructose corn syrup business long ago.

It’s good to see some other Doctors finally coming around to the OBVIOUS.

Duh.

We didn’t become obese America from eating fat. It’s the sugar/high fructose corn syrup added to everything.

And by the way, your body requires fat in it’s diet to function properly. It’s all the sugar we eat that is converted to fat that is making us obese… more than the fat in our diet.

Just as we are to politics, we are blind to the obvious and keep making the same mistakes over and over.

WAKE UP!
Reply to this comment

by retm-w April 1, 2012 9:24 PM EDT
We became an obese America because Americans are lazy. We have a corner convience store, and most of my neighbors won’t even walk a block for a gallon of milk or a loaf of bread. Kids come home from school and instead of being outside riding their bikes or running around playing, they’re sitting in front of a computer playing games, stuffing their faces with junk food.

by MominNC April 2, 2012 12:15 AM EDT
in reply to retm-w — Most of Americans won’t walk to the local store not only because of being lazy but because of fear of thugs, or unleashed dogs. We’ve become afraid to step outside because we’ve lost trust in mankind. The economy is so bad many are looking for even a dollar to buy that loaf of bread and gallon of milk. Copper thefts are on the rise. There are increasingly more panhandlers standing on the corner with a sign begging for change. Parents don’t encourage their children to go play because they are afraid junior and suzy are going to be kidnapped thus it becomes a norm for the kids to be indoors behind those computer screens. Sadly it’s not safe in many areas of the States combined with a distrust and lost faith in the police who are sworn to protect and serve. Unfortunately crooked cops are a dime a dozen. Personally I carry a police whistle and the cell phone any time I am outdoors when gardening. My neighbors know if they ever hear me lay on that whistle to come running because I’ll be in trouble. I feel comfortable in my neighborhood but I am always on the defensive since I live next door to a park that attracts many kinds of people and not all of them have good in their hearts. Obesity we are going to have to learn to live with just as we learn to be aware of personal safety.

by Lindag10 April 1, 2012 9:01 PM EDT
Nice segnment. I think things are WAY too sweet most of the time, especially cereal which is AWFUL. Even the ones that aren’t pre-sweetned are way to sugary for me. Then there’s salt. I HATE salty foods and everything you buy has WAY too much salt unless you look for products that say “no salt added”. Convenience foods are nice, espcially for those who work and have little time for meal preparation but the manufacturers of these products don’t have any concern for the health of ocnsumers.
Reply to this comment

by lhoneil April 1, 2012 8:58 PM EDT
Humm, isn’t this what Dr. Atkins said back in the early 70’s too? He was totally put down and called a quack. Finally he has been vindicated.
Reply to this comment

by tbmpharm April 1, 2012 9:37 PM EDT
Not entirely, the Atkins diet as Dr Atkins expressed it had some serious deficencies with way too much importance put on the protein portion of the diet. If you look at human teeth you will find the first clue that we have evolved into “omnivors” in other words, we are meant to eat meat,fruit, roots, etc. Snakes phyla Reptilia, have only recurved sharp needle like teeth-mot grinding teeth. Herbivores have primarily molars and masticators, couple in some case to multiple stomaches (ruminants)in order to eat and digest/ferment high fibre plant material. We lie somewhere in between. And then we learned to cook and the whole thing went to hell and we invented MSG and BPA.

Tom the Pharmacist.

by dumaswala April 1, 2012 8:55 PM EDT
Dr. Gupta’s segment was interesting and informative. However,all the mentioned research is based on original observation of Prof. John Yudkin’s hypothesis of 1957 where he showed increased refined sugar consumption is correlated in increase in heart disease in western world. Dr. John Yudkin of England should have been mentioned and credited.
Dr. Umakant Dumaswala, Prof Emritus, University of Cincinnati
Reply to this comment

by pmksl1027 April 1, 2012 8:47 PM EDT
I was happy to see this segment. Thank you! I have a hard time with sugar. I can not eat very much of it. I can not even drink milk-it has too much sugar for me. Yogart is another problem-it is supposed to be “healthy”, but it can have so much sugar! Trying to find food with out sugar or HFCS can be a real challenge if you want to eat anything other than veggies, fruits and meats. I wish manufacturers would wake up and add less sugar to their products!
Reply to this comment

by tbmpharm April 1, 2012 9:41 PM EDT
Go to your local pharmacy and purchase some Lactaid tablets (generic if possible). Take 1 or 2 tablets just before the lactose containing food/meal and the lactase enzymes will help you digest the lactose in the ice cream, milkshake,cheese, yoghurt etc. Enjoy, but eat in moderation. And remember to hug your local pharmacist-he probably doesn’t get out much.
Tom the Pharmacist

by lynnbrew April 1, 2012 8:41 PM EDT
Doesn’t anyone remember the book Sugar Blues which was widely read in the seventies. It was written by William Duffy and compared sugar to cocaine. This is nothing new. Nobody wanted to listen then but it was still a best seller. Why not give credit where credit is due? This information has been around for a long time and a handful of scientists can thank William Duffy for his work on sugar a long time ago.
Reply to this comment

by Molly-Pchr April 1, 2012 8:33 PM EDT
Everything in moderation. Live, give thanks, enjoy. You’ll live longer than you will worrying about every morsel. Too much media is what’s toxic.
Reply to this comment

by Angelo457 April 1, 2012 8:09 PM EDT
Excellent report from Sanjay Gupta!

It seems like the same story is told every few years, and somehow everyone forgets and industry media campaigns effectively squash science.

Anyone remember the study from Rutger’s in 2007:
New evidence suggests that sodas sweetened with high-fructose corn
syrup may increase the risk of diabetes, particularly in children, (2007, Aug 23), http://news.bioscholar.com/2007/08/carbonated-soft-drinks-carrying-high-fructose-corn-syrup-raise-diabetes-risk.html

Or the study from Japan indicating HFCS is metabolized differently than regular sugar and believed to be the leading cause of Type II diabetes in that country?

How about the law suite Coca Cola lost in Japan over the use of HFCS instead of real sugar?

Is science suppressed in this country?
Reply to this comment

by tbmpharm April 1, 2012 9:12 PM EDT
No, you just stopped listening to us scientific types so you could watch “Storage Wars” and “Hog Hunters”. Luckily, my patients come to me for answers to their questions and try my best to put these inquiries into context. After all “a little bit of sugar makes the medicine go down”-Julie Andrews in Mary Poppins.
Tom the Pharmacist

by AtoZgenie April 1, 2012 9:46 PM EDT
This was a good report but didn’t stress the problems with High Fructose Corn Syrup. A Federal study shows that HFCS packs on pounds quickly and those pounds are much harder to get rid of. Let’s get rid of all HFCS in all foods first, and then cut down on regular sugar. I don’t think we need to throw the baby with the bathwater, yet.
by dbosley April 2, 2012 9:07 AM EDT
Tom,

I use Lactaid, I try to keep my sugar intake down, and I like my Pharmacist. Can I watch Storage Wars?

Dave

by linda10100 April 1, 2012 8:08 PM EDT
This thing with sugar is serious. Last year my husband and I started following an eating plan called Paleo. the focus is no processed foods. We eat mainly meat, vegetables, little fruit, some nuts, and occasionally very dark chocolate. We avoid, legumes, dairy, gluten, sugar and processed foods. We don’t worry about fat, weighing or measuring. We have lost weight, me almost 50 lbs, husband 40 lbs, cholesterol levels, have improved and my A1C has dropped. The Standard American Diet is killing people. If we don’t return to our roots and start growing and getting REAL food, disease and obesity will continue. WAKE UP PEOPLE. The big manufacturers are out to get the dollar at the cost of the health of the american people.

Reply to this comment
by HemiHead66 April 1, 2012 8:04 PM EDT
I’ll tell ya one thing, that high fructose corn syrup will send your blood pressure through the roof. That garbage is poison. And they put it in everything now-a-days. Ya see, we’ve gpt a new system in the U.S. it’s called profit over people. The crony politicians in Washington will feed us any kind of chemical or genetically modified slop that they can make money on.
Reply to this comment

by lmgilman April 1, 2012 8:04 PM EDT
I just finished watching the segment and I can understand the argument and why sugar could be an issue. However, it was suggested/shown that sugar effects the pleasure centers of the brain similar to that of Cocaine. I find that interesting given that I do not like sweets at all. In fact, watching the portion of this segment in which research subjects were given a low sugar diet for a few days then were introduced to a high sugar content drink it made me feel nauseous with just the thought of drinking it. I drink my coffee black, I don’t like chocolate, I can’t stand cookies, cake, pie or the like. Note, I do not really care for sweet fruit either (bitter or tart I can do).

As for liking sweets, it was said at one point during the segment that “we were born that way”.

That being said, for me mildly salty and highly spicy things are what apparently trigger my pleasure center and this has always been the case. There are no existing medical conditions which can explain this. I know I am not the only one who simply does not like sweets and feels nauseous at just the thought in most instances. If at all possible, I would like the experts to speak to this.

In summary, how can not liking sweets be explained when it is suggested that we are somehow programmed to like sweets and which is why so many people are drawn to them?

Thank you in advance for having your experts address this.
Reply to this comment

by tbmpharm April 1, 2012 9:07 PM EDT
The love of sweets is inate not learned, and mothers milk contains lactose which is half glucose, and has a mildly sweet taste. Try some. It has a high caloric value and also contains a bunch of other nutrients and immuno proteins to confer immunity on babies while nursing. Oz for oz is is the best thing for a newborn. As we mature, our love of sugar evolves and we start experiencing other tastes like spices etc. The tongue is dived into taste zones with sugar being located at the tip, salt and sour along the sides and bitter at the back side and rear of the tongue. To prove this try some simple tests. Get som salt, sugar, lemon and bitters out of the pantry. Does anybody still call it a pantry? Anyway take a Q-tip moisten it and touch it to each of these items the touch it on the tip, then the side , then the rear side and then the back. The taste buds are organized this way in humans to allow us to effectively sort through the myriad of vegetation that presents itself to us and select “safe” vs “not safe”. Interesting, most poisonous plants are full of alkaloids that cause irreparible harm to us and when chewed and ingested are gagged on when the hit the rear “bitter” taste buds. The staomach and brain are also wired to reject alkaloids by causing an emesis response or throwing up.

Tom the pharmacist

by lmgilman April 1, 2012 10:17 PM EDT
Tom the pharmacist, you DID NOT address my post! I understand taste buds – the way you put it, I’m likely to prefer poison. As I stated, I am put off by sweets, even my son preferred green beans over cookies at a year old and threw a fit around the same time about me not buying him Lima beans. And, YES, he was breast fed, that’s about the time he was weaned but he didn’t turn to sweets! So, this idea that a love for sweats is innate is highly questionable in my mind!

by tbmpharm April 1, 2012 11:44 PM EDT
No , actually the tongue is structured anatomically to allow you to try a variety of plants but just as you about to swallow the poisonous ones you gag and spit them out. It yakes a maturing and conscious effort to swallow something as foul tasting but good for you food like lima beans (personally they still make me gagand I refuse to eat them). The reason for the tip of the tongue being the main sugar tasting area is that nature has designed the various fruits we eat to have there seeds encased in sugary treats so that animals including humans will eat them, the seeds will passed through our gut an spread out over the landscape or we will husk the fruit and toss the seeded core into a ditch to rise to anothe apple tree a few metres from the original tree.

Tom the Pharmacist

by lmgilman April 1, 2012 11:54 PM EDT
That still does not explain why I do NOT like anything sweet and the thought of sweet stuff makes me nauseous in most instances. I am not the only one!

by RussOfWis April 1, 2012 8:02 PM EDT
The assumption of this and other health research assumes that we actually want to live to be old. If you make it into your 90s, you have a 50% chance of having Alzheimer’s disease. I would rather enjoy a shorter life than follow all the practices that doctors would force on us to gain an extra year or two. The research changes almost every month telling us something different. Sure, you can extend your life by near starvation too, but why? I am a healthy 65 years old. I have no interest in an extended old age–I have seen how miserable it is for most folks.
Reply to this comment

by tbmpharm April 1, 2012 8:01 PM EDT
Just watched the program. There are many misleading statements here. All cells, cancerous or not have insulin receptors on there surface in order to admit glucose into the cell as a fuel-so this is not shocking news. Cancerous cells by definition are those cells that grow in an unregulated way, often not recognizing each other, nor being recognized by the bodies own “normal” cells, hence the unbrideled growth, resulting in, initial “flat” tumours, that then when they reach a critical thickness, send out “siren” molecules that spur angiogenesis, or vascularization, which then allows the tumour to grow into a solid or ball like tumour. Oxygen and glucose are both required to acheive this and the tumour grows in an unrestrained fashion. In the section on the release of Dopamine by the brain, I noticed that the researcher did not say that he had the subjects ingest other substances and then measure the release of dopamine. If he had, he would have found that many foods, substances, indeed the veiwing of pornographic images or sexually “stimulating” images, all lead to increase in the release of the neurotransmitter dopamine. Cocaine happens to have a fairly universal appeal to the human species and has a highly stimulatory effect on the release of dopamine by the so called pleasure centres in the brain. This has been verified using PET scanners and has been known for some time. The research team that is working on the insulin receptor theory of stopping cancers will eventually reach a dead end, but will have spent millions of dollars of scarce pure research dollars in the process. Better to focus on the cell to cell recognition factors that tell our cells to stop mitotic growth. The intercellular communication is what tells the cells in our liver to stop growing “I am big enough”. What else did you expect and why do you think each of our organs has distinct shape, size and margins. Silly Humans. If anyone out there in blog space is interested in having a meaningful discussion on this or any other science topic-please post. If anybody at CBS would like to have a more in depth discussion-you have my e-mail address
Tom, B.Sc.Hons(biology), B.Sc.Phrm,RPH
Reply to this comment

by tehLoch April 1, 2012 7:55 PM EDT
Thank you for this segment. I have a family history of diabetes and try to watch my sugar intake but it is difficult when everything has sugar injected unnecessarily. I don’t think there is a single lunch meat that does not have sugar. Why does meat need sugar anyway?
Reply to this comment

by tbmpharm April 1, 2012 8:51 PM EDT
Sugar is used in luncheon meat to enhance the taste (palability), to help cover the taste of any rotting, provide caloric content and in some cases help to preserve the food. think honey and sugar cured ham.
Tom the Pharmacist

by OConnorL April 2, 2012 12:56 AM EDT
Truthfully if you have a history of diabetes and are worried about getting it yourself you probably should stay away from lunch meat all together and instead roast some organic (grass fed beef or free range chicken, which i know is more expensive but the benefit is exponentially greater healthwise) meats on the weekends while doing laundry or whatever to cut up for sandwiches. Lunch meat is one of the most processed and harmful foods out there and nitrates used to process lunch meats (and hot dogs, and bacon, and most processed cured meats out there) are going to do much more harm to you than a teaspoon of sugar in your coffee.

by judwein April 1, 2012 7:55 PM EDT
I do a lot of home scratch cooking. However, there are some foods I buy for convenience from time to time. I have noticed in the last couple of years, much to my frustration, that packaged foods have become intolerably sugary all of a sudden, even foods that we don’t expect to even contain sugar as an ingredient. Examples are salad dressing, barbecue sauce, tomato products, salty or cheesy crackers, bread and rolls, and sometimes even soup, among others. There are foods I have bought for years that I have had to stop buying and begin making from scratch because the commercial products are becoming inappropriately sweet for my palate. As people become increasingly addicted to sugar, apparently the manufacturers are steadily ramping up the sugar content of processed foods to meet the tastes of these addicted consumers. The labels often even list sugar as the first or second ingredient. But for those of us who don’t drink soda and who primarily nosh on fruits and nuts and popcorn, and even make our own cookies and ice cream, when we do buy a commercial food, we should not have to be assaulted with ridiculous sugar content in every convenience food. To an unaddicted consumer the change is dramatically noticeable. So don’t blame the public. Blame the manufacturers and purveyors who are creating this incremental need in people for sugar. Why do they have to do this?
Reply to this comment

by BobSci April 1, 2012 7:49 PM EDT
How about sugar free sweeteners? Are they free free from these toxic effects?
Reply to this comment

by BobSci April 1, 2012 7:47 PM EDT
Please comment on sugar free sweeteners. Are they free from these toxic effects?
Reply to this comment

by Molly-Pchr April 1, 2012 8:36 PM EDT
Artificial sweeteners…yuk. G-a-s! Sugar is a natural carbohydrate. Moderation.
by tbmpharm April 1, 2012 8:47 PM EDT
No Bob, they are not problem free either and have been linked to a number of metabolic disorders and Gastro-intestinal problems. Unfortunetly, most of the common ones are problematic but do act as sweet taste substitutes while removing the caloric issue of sugar. The newer ones like Stevia appear to be safer.

Tom the Pharmacist

by Skruffy1 April 1, 2012 7:46 PM EDT
If tobacco, which is known to kill people, can still be grown and sold in the US, there is absolutely zero chance of anything being done about the health hazards of sugar.
Reply to this comment

by aicohnx2 April 1, 2012 7:35 PM EDT
Better watch it. Somebody in the Obama FDA will read this & get the bright idea of regulating sugar as a drug. Or maybe they’ll just tax the h.e.l.l. out of it…
Reply to this comment

by voxpopulus April 1, 2012 7:57 PM EDT
Someone in ANYONE’s FDA should stop hidden sugars going into our foods.

My consumption of sugar should be MY choice.

Not a food processor’s.

by brianwimer April 1, 2012 10:35 PM EDT
Recent studies from Columbia University show that a penny per ounce soda tax would go a significant way to counterbalance the financial health liability of our nation’s over-consumption of sugar. Read it here: http://www.cumc.columbia.edu/news-room/2012/01/a-penny-per-ounce-tax-on-sugar-sweetened-beverages-keeps-the-doctor-away-and-saves-money/

by chipdrone April 2, 2012 3:14 PM EDT
The FDA is chartered to respond to acute toxins, not chronic ones, so sugar won’t be regulated. Also, sugar has GRAS status (Generally Regarded As Safe) simply because it’s natural.

Dr. Lustig, as a pediatric endocrinologist specializing in childhood obesity, has publicly stated that he would like to see sugary drinks and food controlled so that children under 18 yrs old could not buy it for themselves. I personally wish this would happen, but given the number of folks who don’t buy the evidence that long-term consumption of fructose is detrimental to health it’s not likely to come about.

by Skruffy1 April 1, 2012 7:32 PM EDT
“Toxic” is a technical term with a definite meaning, and my guess is that sugar does not fit the definition. But there is no doubt that (a) too much of it causes health problems, and (b) Americans consume way too much of it on average, and (c) it is a filthy industry. No doubt the sugar industry’s very strong lobbying firms will spend amazing amounts of money refuting the facts.
Reply to this comment

by houstontx006 April 1, 2012 7:32 PM EDT
Slow news day?
Reply to this comment

Toxic Sugar

About gerold

3 Responses to Toxic Sugar

Leave a comment Cancel reply

Email Subscription

Categories

Toxic Sugar

Rate this:

Share this:

Related

About gerold

3 Responses to Toxic Sugar

Leave a comment Cancel reply

Email Subscription

Categories