Comment by muzster
9 years ago
RIP: British Scientist John Yudkin - The man who tried to warn us about the perils of sugar..
Source(s) : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/wellbeing/diet/10634081...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yudkin
Edit: Lest we not forget his arch-enemy Ancel Keys
My mother (1973, Edinburgh) bought "Pure, White, and Deadly," and we all read it. I was ten or so. Yudkin attacked white flour, white (processed) fat, and above all white sugar. It made perfect sense to us all, and cutting back on sugar became a slow, yet consistent part of our lifestyle. We never ate that much anyhow. I stopped eating sugar entirely at 15. I still recall the book's cover.
Edit: it took me a lot longer to cut fruit juice from our diet. I was so convinced by that "natural" label. Until I realized my daughter, who'd drank a lot of juice growing up, was addicted to sugar. Then we cut it out. My other kids, not addicted. I was fooled for so long...
The sugar industry has a lot to answer for. It is IMO comparable to the tobacco industry's suppression of cancer studies. Yet worse, because the effects of high-sugar diets are doing more damage, to more people, and last generations.
Think of the hundreds of millions of children who have eaten high sugar diets since they were babies... lifelong damage to their health. A hundred years of damage, these executives and corrupt scientists caused.
I tried arguing the dangers of concentrated fruit sweeteners not so long ago.
There was some debate about whether candy prices were too low.. But the truth is folks get much more sugar from supposedly "healthy" items in the form of fruit juice and concentrates. It is in the bread most folks eat (and sometimes whole grain bread is higher to make it more palletable), they put it in savory foods, and fruit juices and people put it in their coffee and tea. Granola bars and yogurts and a myriad of other supposedly healthy things? High sugar. It would be one thing if the sugar was simply what was contained in the fruit, but often it is above that.
It is much better to eat the piece of fruit than drink some juice - and I think if folks started drinking non-sweetened drinks and quit adding it to so much food (expecially commercially prepared food) it would help quite a bit. Personally, I lost weight after doing the adjustment. My only normal, daily beverages are black coffee or water and have been for years.
The thing is that you do somewhat miss the sugar at first, but I didn't find it any worse than missing some foods after moving countries. Over time, your tastes adjust and it isn't a bad thing.
I've been suspecting that another problem is modern roller mills break up the carbohydrate granules in wheat. It means making 'whole wheat flour' by adding back the bran after milling doesn't give you the same thing as more traditional course ground wheat flour.
The difference is when the carbohydrate granules are intact it takes much longer for the carbohydrates to hydrolyze and be absorbed in the gut. Rolled four because the granules are broken up hydrolyses and is absorbed quickly and results in spikes of blood sugar and insulin which is bad news.
2 replies →
" But the truth is folks get much more sugar from supposedly "healthy" items in the form of fruit juice and concentrates. "
Or, if you are here in Asia/Singapore, where T2 diabetes is starting to become a big issue- the 3-5 servings of white rice people eat each day is a front page issue on the newspapers.
12 replies →
I wonder if the tolerance, and then the love, of highly sweet things is acquired. And mostly probably, it is acquired when one is a child.
I have met and worked with many East Asians and Europeans who came to American in their 20's or older. Almost everyone of them thought American pastry and deserts are unbearably sweet. Most of them shun from soda drinks and other "food" containing high amounts of sugar. If they drink soda, they choose low- or zero-sugar kinds.
Related or not, a big percentage of American look overweight when compared to Europeans and East Asians.
I am of European descent, and while I had a sweet tooth in my teens, American pastries and desserts were barely edible.
Now that I'm older (and lost my desire for sweets somewhat), I wouldn't touch any of them with a 10 foot stick. They are disgustingly unfathomable to eat and whenever I tried, it upset my stomach greatly.
So are most of your soft drinks, by the way. I cut sweet teas and juices with water to 50/50 ratio and then drink it.
I don't think it's strictly a childhood thing. I moved to Australia several years ago and they cut down on the sizes of soft drinks especially compared to standard American sizing. It took some months to adjust, but now when I go back to the US on a visit the entire thing just seems to be way too much sugar. Same with alot of the pastries, although donuts and cakes are about the same level of sweetness. Maybe with less frosting and more other flavors in the Australian versions. And they're not as stingy as their neighbors down here when it comes to sweets.
When we bake from American recipes we often reduce the sugar by 1/2, sometimes even to 1/3.
Same here. I love sweets (though I don't eat that much lately because you know, health reasons, I'm not 18 anymore - but from time to time I indulge) but it is not easy to find good ones in US (I wasn't born in the US). Practically all mass-produces ones are unbearable once you have shed the sugar addiction and the built tolerance (which I did, see above). Custom-produced are also hit or miss - many of them are terribly over-sugared to my taste. Finding a good dessert is not easy for me now, though in some places they still know how to do it tastefully. Hopefully as more people become aware of how careful one has to be with sugar, the situation improves.
I also used to drink a lot of soda in my 20s, but once I stopped and my taste recovered, I can't drink the stuff anymore - too sweet.
My family is originally from China but have lived in the west for 30 years. We eat the sweets in the US just fine. My wife and her parents recently came to the US from China...the sweets in the US are too sweet for them and they just eat a little bit.
When I first came to US, I found it to be the case for chocolates as well (being a vegetarian, I stay away from pastries and cakes).
I specifically remember trying out KitKat out of craving and it was way sweeter than what I get in India. Tried switching stores before concluding the recipes are tweaked.
> And mostly probably, it is acquired when one is a child.
Most likely acquired when one is a suckling. Milk is kinda sweet and the first thing a mammalian baby tastes. All further taste preferences are then largely acculturation.
Americans saying that foods are too sweet is quickly becoming the new "I don't have a TV." It's a humblebrag to show off status.
4 replies →
When you say you don't eat sugar, what does that mean? Do you eat fruit? Bread? Things that metabolize to sugar -- potatoes, squash, tomatoes, grapes, watermelon, barbecue sauce etc. Do you ever indulge in chocolate cake? What about wine or beer?
I just find the term "sugar" to be extremely vague when 50% of foods metabolize to sugar...
The fact that it all ends up as "sugar" is less important than how long it takes to fully metabolize, how much energy and other resources it takes to do so, and what other byproducts the food provides. In the quantities used in many processed foods, the "sugar" that you see on the food label and that is used as an sweetener is generally undesirable for those characteristics.
The basic principle is to avoid refined carbohydrates. If a food is unrefined, then it is ok, with the exception of potatoes, which have way too much carbohydrate.
A good book on this is The Instinct Diet by Susan Roberts, who is a well-known nutrition researcher.
The paleos say we should eat the same diet as our foraging ancestors. The problem with that is different foraging tribes had very different diets. However, one thing they all had in common is they didn't eat any refined carbohyrates. That leads to the possibility our bodies are not well adapted for them, and there is a great deal of research that is n fact the case.
People used to ask me this all the time when I'd given up sugar. Everyone has their own idea what it means, but no food that has been sweetened to make it taste sweet is a good start. Personally I'll eat fruit that comes as fruit, but bread is a treat-only food.
That's because you are being extremely vague about the word "metabolize".
Perhaps you want to explore how that word unpacks into many different routes and rates of absorption of the various nutrients involved. How is this altered by the different states of starch before they become glucose? How does the presence or absence of fiber impact this? Which microorganisms are active in the gut in this process?
The issue is fructose and sucrose, people end up getting confused with glucose, which is not the problem.
1 reply →
Not OP, but have been ketogenic over 3 years. No bread, no fruit, no potatoes, squash, tomatoes, grapes etc.
well the lie has recently morphed into the laws slowing and prohibiting soda sales in schools and such all the while promoting juice which can be worse in many cases because people assume its healthy and you cannot over drink because of that
One time I was craving some juice or smoothie, so at the gas station I took one of those 'Naked' brands and glanced on the label, it had some ridiculous amount of carbs and sugar in it, more than 50g. Put it right back.
2 replies →
"The sugar industry has a lot to answer for."
I don't get this argument. What do you expect the sugar industry to do, argue for consuming less sugar?
It is not the industry's obligation to care for your nutritional well-being. It is the obligation of parents and teachers to be informed and teach kids what good food is. That starts with stopping to watch commercials. Avoiding processed foods in the grocery store and cheap restaurants. Not buying products that have more than 5 ingredients, and above all contain high fructose corn syrup.
Buying vegetables and fruit at farmer's markets. Learning again that there are seasons, and that there is no need to buy apples in spring or summer (when they have to be kept in coolers for half a year, or imported from the other hemisphere). Learning again that good products can often be recognized through the nose rather than the eye. Spending time on small-scale farms. Reducing meat intake to 1-2 a week. Consuming fresh water rather than salt water fish (which are harvested beyond sustainability and have led a multitude of fisheries to go extinct already). Preparing food by hand, even if it is "unhealthy" food like french fries (made from potatoes, e.g. in an oven with a bit of olive oil), pancakes (milk, egg, flour - no need to buy this as a product) or cakes (made just with flour, yeast, milk, eggs, and sugar).
Just switch off television to get back common sense.
Most people take in the information given without a second thought. If their information about sugar is biased by the sugar industry, by paying scientists to lie about their product... then yes they have so much to answer for. But, alas the entire food industry does as well. A lie is a lie, no matter which side you are on.
I'm pretty sure myths and old wives tales existed long before television. At worst television allows myths and untruths to travel faster and more pervasively. But I think generally we're better off with television, especially in a society that values not just individual responsibility but shared responsibility wherein media outlets and commercial interests don't have complete liberty to spout non-sense, like they did 100 years ago. Compared to most under-developed countries the U.S. values more of the latter than you would think. And so major media outlets generally, and television outlets in particular, are much more reliable and truthful than in many other places.
For that reason the internet is probably a net regression in advanced societies. Perhaps people need to watch more television.
>> lifelong damage to their health.
It's only lifelong damage if you don't change your diet and lifestyle. The world is filled with people who were morbidly obese and have made the changes necessary to reverse the damage and live far more healthy lives now.
The way you put it, it sounds like an irreversible course akin to a death sentence, which it most certainly is not.
That is a myth. Every legitimate long term study of non surgical weight loss shows that it doesn't happen for the vast, vast majority of people.
1) ["In controlled settings, participants who remain in weight loss programs usually lose approximately 10% of their weight. However, one third to two thirds of the weight is regained within 1 year, and almost all is regained within 5 years. "](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1580453)
2) Giant meta study of long term weight loss: ["Five years after completing structured weight-loss programs, the average individual maintained a weight loss of >3% of initial body weight."](http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/74/5/579.full)
3) Less Scientific: [Weight Watcher's Failure - "about two out of a thousand Weight Watchers participants who reached goal weight stayed there for more than five years."](https://fatfu.wordpress.com/2008/01/24/weight-watchers/)
4) [The reason why it's impossible seems to be that although calories in < calories out works, the body of a fat person makes it extremely difficult psychologically to eat less.](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/magazine/tara-parker-pope-...) This is borne out by the above data.
5) [The only thing that does seem to work in the long term is gastric surgery.](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1421028/)
Moreover, you won't find any reputable study on the web where the average person lost 10%+ of their body weight and kept it off for five years. Not even one.
25 replies →
Many of my extended family got sick and some died from adult-onset diabetes brought on by eating too much sugar. My father and grandfather suffered and died from low-fat diets (where sugar was never a concern because doctors were obsessed with eliminating dietary fat, period). Even if the outcome isn't obviously fatal, the accumulated damage does not go away and it carries real health risks until death.
And please don't use that weasel word "lifestyle" which the sugar industry wielded as a weapon against their victims. Oh, fatty, go and exercise some more! It's your lifestyle that's wrong, not the rubbish we've put on your table.
And we still see supermarkets with rows and rows of sugar-based junk foods. It's going to take decades to undo the cultural and educational damage let along the health damage.
2 replies →
The number of fat cells is set in childhood and stays constant throughout adulthood, according to research conveniently titled "Fat cell number is set in childhood and stays constant in adulthood" http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2008/05/04/fat-cell...
The size of those fat cells can be changed through diet and lifestyle, but since the number of fat cells cannot be lowered naturally, sticking to a healthier lifestyle is extremely hard for a [formerly] obese person, as there's just one thing the fat cells are programmed to do, and that is to grow in size.
If you where fat as a child, you'll have more fat cells than normal. Those cells stay with you basically forever. So while eating less food makes you lose weight, those extra fat cells will keep messing with your hormones.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18454136?otool=karolib&t...
Anyone who has been morbidly obese has permanent damage as a result. It is certainly better to right the ship, but some damage does not go away.
Sugar does have some nutritional value, and is a hallmark of primate diet. Tobacco is an addictive insecticide that won't even get you high.
> Sugar does have some nutritional value, and is a hallmark of primate diet. Tobacco is an addictive insecticide that won't even get you high.
This statement reflects a glaring ignorance of both scale and science. First of all, sugar is a hallmark of a primate diet only in complex not in simple forms, which is not the kind being referred to here. By nutritional value do you mean has calories? So does Vodka. And what at all do the calories have to do with the scale of harm?
42 replies →
It is true that many monkeys are tree dwellers and are heavy fruit eaters. Humans and other primates are neither. They will eat fruit as part of a mixed diet that is more omnivorous than anything. And wild fruit is not as rich in sugar as you imagine. It's mostly fibre. The stuff you buy in the supermarket is not a hallmark of a primate diet. Soft drinks are not a hallmark of a primate diet. Cakes and biscuits, they are not a hallmark of a primate diet. They are fake food.
8 replies →
> Tobacco is an addictive insecticide that won't even get you high.
Nicotine is an addictive substance which suppresses appetite and increases focus; as found in tobacco leaves, it has a pleasant smell and taste.
4 replies →
As a former smoker, you are absolutely wrong. Tobacco will give you a kick, as nicotine is a stimulant.
I'd describe it as being similar to caffeine, it makes you more alert. Of course there are downsides that everyone knows about.
Fructose is a hallmark of primate diet. Refined fructose is not. The only refined fructose in the wild is honey and that is way too rare and too well defended to be the hallmark of anyone's diet (other than honeybees, of course).
Humans are perfectly capable of eating all the fructose they may ever want in its unrefined state as it appears in nature without any adverse effects. I.e. you can eat fruit until you are full, and nothing bad will happen. It is in fact quite healthy. But once you refine it into pure fructose, such as crystal sugar or molasses, then all hell breaks loose.
Another good discussion of Yudkin's work and how it was received: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/07/the-sugar-co...
Along with Robert Atkins. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Atkins_(nutritionist)
If you ask people to this day, they'll say Atkins died of his own diet. That was actually a total lie run by Harpers magazine. They corrected the mistake in the following edition, but the damage had been done.
Although there is little evidence to support it, the running conspiracy theory is that PR people in various arms of the food industry paid for that article.
Edit: Adkins died because he slipped on a piece of ice during a snow storm and cracked his skull.
I had no idea - I had dismissed the Atkins diet for years because I had heard that Atkins himself was morbidly obese and died from a heart attack (neither is true according to his Wikipedia article).
1 reply →
To be completely fair, he slipped on the ice likely as a complication from heart disease. His doctors swear that his arteries and heart were the healthiest they'd seen for someone that age except for the infected portion.
17 replies →
A story every scientist should now. For its own sake.
Ancel Keys was certainly wrong when it came to sugars vs fats. However, he did live to be 100... so there's got to be at least some merit to his ideas, such as the Mediterranean diet, etc.
Isn't the merit of the Mediterranean mainly about increasing the amount of omega-3 fatty acids through increased consumption of high-fat low-carb foods such as fish, green leafy vegetables, olives, cheeses and olive oils?
Which is the complete opposite of low-fat high-carb diet recommended by Keys?
There are also heavy smokers and drinkers who live to 100 and more.
No, there doesn't