Sugar: The Bitter Truth

[supernova]

This is a YouTube video of a lecture by Robert Lustig, MD, UCSF Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology on the effects of sugar (specifically fructose) in the modern diet. He goes into the biochemistry of sugar metabolism and how it affects liver function and things like insulin sensitivity. And busts a few myths about the simple equation calories in/calories out.

This lecture is approximately 90 minutes. So either clear your calendar or watch it in bits. :-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

[zipplewrath]

1. If you watched it, what are the high points?

90 minutes is a long time for something about which there is little information offered. Can you hit the high points? Much of what you've said is already known to anyone who has been paying attention.

[supernova]

3. Well, it's more than that

It's not that it's not well known. Of course we know that eating too much sugar is bad for you. The question is why? And the debate has always been around eat carbs! vs don't eat carbs!

He goes into the chemical reactions of why sugar is bad. If you aren't a chemistry nerd, it can be bit of a rough go. But he does give you some fixes at the end.

It's a lot to digest and I would really prefer to discuss it with those who take the time to watch it.

[zipplewrath]

5. Different from Atkins

Does he deviate from Atkins particularly? Or does he go deeper and more "chemical"?

[supernova]

6. Chemical

as in the formulae and chain reactions of sugars and enzymes in the liver and hormones coming from the endocrine system.

[old mark]

8. FWIW, I have diabetes and heart/circulatory disease. My cardiologist

ORDERED me to go on Atkins in early February. My blood sugar dropped to normal levels after a few days - I stopped taking insulin after less than a week. Carbs obviously are not good for me. The doc says we will control the evil of the meat/fat with medication and exercise/weight loss. (I lost nearly 25 pounds and started at a local gym.)
I get most of my carbs from fruit and vegies.
My worst foods are breads and rice.

mark

[supernova]

9. I'm trying to get back to Atkins

since I have a sensitivity to highly processed carbs (read: high sugar).

I do very well on lean protein, low GI veggies and fruits and nuts.

[zipplewrath]

17. I'm not diabetic

But I lost about 40 lbs cutting out carbs. The reality is, it is an indication of how little exercise I do get. Even with my 1 hour per day of aerobic exercise, it just can't support any real level of carbs. There are those better than others, and white sugar (or HFCS) is really beyond pointless. But even bread, rice, and pasta have to be strictly controlled. Beer is pretty much out of the picture too. I allow some fruit, since it is relatively low in fructose (per serving). It's why my interest was peeked by the OP. My blood sugar is a bit higher than usual and I'm kinda wondering where it is "sneaking" in.

[supernova]

19. I have problems with carbs too

I have congenital heart disease. I was born with it. THe major thing is that can't exercise enough to lose weight. I can exercise to feel good and maintain weight. But it usually takes me a serious illness, complete with not eating for three or four months to lose weight.

Atkins is the only thing that I have ever lost weight with intentionally. I could do it eating Atkins style and exercising.

I have a theory that the more active you are, the more carbs you can safely consume. And he talks about the typical image of marathoners carb loading for races. I wouldn't dare do that. I'd weight 15 lbs more the next morning. :P

[zipplewrath]

21. 'Taint no theory

You're absolutely right that significant increases in daily activity levels can make carbs not only "safe" but necessary. It has to do with the time differential between when you consume something and when it is available to be used. The real issue is that basically the activity level has to be truly "daily", and the time between consumption and that activity is measured roughly in hours, not days. Much beyond that and you are on some variation of the weight "yo yo". i.e gain it/lose it/repeat.

Part (only a part) of our dietary culture is related to our agrarian past. Up before dawn, chores before breakfast, largest meal probably about 3 to 4 hours into the day. Cold lunch in the day, VERY early "supper" that was as much bread and vegetables as anything else (stews and casseroles were as much veg, beans, and carbs as meat). Cold "snack" some where a couple of hours prior to going to sleep (fruit, sandwich, etc.). That diet is (relatively) fine if you are working 10 hours a day at manual labor. But it morphed into the industrial culture with a large breakfast first thing, cold lunch with too much protein, and a large evening meal with a sugar laden dessert. All screwed up and out of order.

[old mark]

22. Very interesting - I live in a formerly all agricultural area, PA Dutch

Berks County in PA - Breakfast here in my grandmother's house was eggs, sausage, scrapple, potatos and coffee, and she was typical of this area - her holiday dinners were amazing in quantity and quality of food.
Of course, her family came from farms and worked for an hour or so before breakfast every day and 5 hours more before lunch. They were not fat till they all moved to the towns and got jobs in my grandmother's generation.
My mom and 3 of my 4 uncles died before age 60 of heart disease, and I had 2 heart attacks and a quintuple bypass at age 54.

My lunch today was some cheese and about 8 strawberries, with sugarless herbal iced tea.

I'm going on 63.

mark

[zipplewrath]

23. Yup, the diet changed differently than the activity

If you went back 100 years or more that breakfast probably came a good 2 hours or more after morning (more chores, fire fed stoves had to be warmed up, etc). It involved less meat and eggs, more starches, and maybe more "nonmeat animal products". As we became more industrialized, and had access to more meat, cheese, eggs, and other protiens our diets shifted. And the amount of manual labor declined at the same time. Bad combo. About the time of the commercial farm, and industrialization, you'll also find folks ADDING sugar to their fruit pie recipes. Consequence mostly of under ripe fruits, and access to more and more refined sugar.

Mexico is seeing some of the same shifting. Away from basic vegetable dominated diets with starches to more fried foods including proteins and fat. They are beginning to see the same rise in diet related diseases that the US long ago experienced.

[salvorhardin]

24. Robert Lustig's main point is that fructose is making us obese

The primary mechanisms are that diets high in fructose cause increased de novo lipogenesis and decreased insulin and leptin response (metabolic syndrome).

His reasoning is that:

1. All sugar consumption is up dramatically since WWII (roughly 3 fold if I remember correctly) (he includes sucrose - table sugar , high fructose corn syrup and pure fructose in the form of fruit juices)
2. Both sugar and HFCS are glucose + fructose*
3. Since glucose doesn't have the adverse metabolic effects of fructose, he concludes that it must be the fructose.

He also recognizes that diets high in fiber are good for us. Thus he believes that diets low in sugar and high in fiber are what is needed to reverse the obesity epidemic. He does present the science behind his reasoning.

The scientific consensus is that it's still all calories in = calories out.

*Lustig accepts that there is no metabolic difference between sucrose and HFCS. HFCS is metabolized at the same rate as sucrose because the sucrase in our stomach disolves the lone ether bond between the glucose and the fructose in sugar within a couple of seconds of food hitting our stomach.

[gblady]

2. bookmarked......

for later....thanks for the info.

[MineralMan]

4. No sugar. No meat. What am I supposed to eat?

I suggest moderation in all things.

[supernova]

7. Twigs?

:silly:

[MineralMan]

10. But no berries. They're loaded with fructose.

:rofl:

[supernova]

11. But they have fiber, so that's good

:D

According to him, if you do consume fructose or any other sugar, combine it with fiber, because that's the way you find it in nature. So, if you have the opportunity, eat the apple, skip the apple juice and here's why chemically.

[MineralMan]

12. Does that mean that, when I eat chicken,

I have to eat the feathers and bones, too? Ewwww....

[supernova]

14. Maybe just some broccoli

or other greens. :D

[tabatha]

15. Not unless you are a hyena.

[semillama]

18. No, but you should be cracking the bones

so you can suck out the marrow.

[supernova]

20. I don't crack bones

to eat usually, but I do put them in soup stocks and get the marrow that way. Yum.

[tabatha]

13. Lean meat is fine.

Try sardines (no mercury); turkey.

[supernova]

16. I love sardines!

The irony is I used to eat them as a kid. We acquired the habit from one of carpenters of our house who happened to be a recent transplant from Italy. :-)

I mostly eat fish and poultry now. Some pork. I try to limit red meat to 1 or 2x/month.

[salvorhardin]

25. So does Lustig

What he does recommend is to get your sugars in the form of glucose, and avoid the fructose. In other words, pasta is fine because it's all glucose. He also recommends a high fiber diet.

[BadgerKid]

26. I would add the simple vs. complex carb aspect.

My accumulated knowledge for how best to eat carbs (should one choose to eat carbs):

1. Smallish amounts of simpler sugars, within an hour or so after exercise, for replenishing/repairing the body. Blood sugar spikes are the point here.
2. Moderation in complex sugars (i.e., starches, preferably whole grains) for sustained energy and little to no blood sugar spiking.
3. Virtually unlimited non-starchy/fibrous vegetables.

At least that's the theory. Specific health issues bring their associated amendments.

[BadgerKid]

27. (moved)

[BadgerKid]

28. There's dairy sources and sports supplements.

For protein, make you own cheese or buy powdered whey. For fiber and nutrients, there's non-starchy vegetables (e.g., green beans, broccoli).