On Being poisoned - Fructose/CornSyrup

[Bugged]

I thought it was interesting why he promoted exercise. Not as a balance to calories coming it – he makes the point that one cookie = 20 minutes jogging – but as a stress buster and to stop our muscles becoming insulin resistant.

The third part of his stance on exercise was that it increases metabolism. It's in his projected notes, plus he acknowledged as much when questioned by someone in his audience. We all know that it isn't the calories burned during exercise that have the biggest impact, but rather the long-lasting effects of exercise on our metabolism (this is part of why resistance-training/muscle-building is extremely important).

It's simple, the higher the metabolic rate, the more calories burned. Burn as many, or more, calories than you take in and you won't gain weight. A number of health concerns have been attributed to excess weight.

As far as I'm concerned, Lustig shot himself in the foot when he acknowledged that it 'makes sense' for elite athletes to drink sports drinks, but that it doesn't make sense for fat kids to do so. I'm not arguing against that, but caloric expenditure is the sole reason for why it makes sense for one group, but not for the other.

[dieseltaylor]

I cannot agree with your last point and think it may be coloured by you percieving a weakness in his arguement on sugar as you seem to miss the point about increased sugar uptake.

Lustig also mentions sports drinks work for elite athletes who have used their glycogen reserves - not someone who has run around the park I suspect. He alos points out that Gatorade the original sports drink has been heavily sugarfied by Pepsi to make it taste good.

The average American consumes an astounding 2-3 pounds of sugar each week, which is not surprising considering that highly refined sugars in the forms of sucrose (table sugar), dextrose (corn sugar), and high-fructose corn syrup are being processed into so many foods such as bread, breakfast cereal, mayonnaise, peanut butter, ketchup, spaghetti sauce, and a plethora of microwave meals.

In the last 20 years, we have increased sugar consumption in the U.S. 26 pounds to 135 lbs. of sugar per person per year! Prior to the turn of this century (1887-1890), the average consumption was only 5 lbs. per person per year!

As I found the figures above hard to believe as I think the figure for 1970 is odd have found this:

http://www.corn.org/International%20Sugar%20Journal%20--%20Audrae.pdf

which proudly says that allowing for wastage the US citizen has 43lbs of HFC's per year [2003]. The overall figure is 141lbs for sugars. This does ignore sugar provided for the production of alcohol. The overall sugar figure allowing for wastage may be getting on for 2lbs per sugar per week. Try eating that in one go one would be barking but packaged with enough salt and water doable!!

The interesting thing though is the increase from 1970 to 2003 is shown as only 19lbs not the higher increase I quoted first from a macrobiotic site. However the amount of processed food intake has increased greatly and I suspect that with dropping exercise rates, the rise of the computer and game consoles, then the effect has been much magnified. It may also be that the liver has a tipping point and a few more ounces was all that was needed - the reduction in fat and fibrw must also be seen to occur over this period.

Curiousity lead me to this, which on reflection, shows were the extra sugar is coming from and its growth over the last thirty years:

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/fts/aug03/fts30501/fts30501.pdf

Yes I had forgotten fructose in fruit. Though the overall amount of oranges has not changed much with the figures provided I did wonder if home juicing is now much more common which is a different thing from easting an orange. Other fruits are adding to the fructose level. I am not sure what other fruits to look at ....

Lbs of bananas per person US

1976 --19.3

1977 --19.2

1978 --20.2

1979 --21.0

1980 --20.8

1981 --21.5

1982 --22.5

1983 --21.3

1984 --22.2

1985 --23.5

1986 --25.8

1987 --25.0

1988 --24.3

1989 --24.7

1990 --24.4

1991 --25.0

1992 --27.1

1993 --26.6

1994 --27.8

1995 --27.1

1996 --27.6

1997 --27.2

1998 --28.0

1999 --30.7

2000 --28.4

2001 --26.6

2002 --26.8

2003 --26.2

These are averaged over the entire population so there may be an interesting

line of inquiry that the growing older population are actually probably eating more

traditionally but less than average amounts. Thats a general point.

From the oranges .pdf you can see regional differences also.

Having said that I thought to read the pdf further and find my gut[!] reaction was correct:

Males consume a greater share of all orange products

than females (figs. 6 and 7). While males make up 49

percent of the population, they account for about 53

percent of total orange consumption. Females account

for 51 percent of the total population and account for 47

percent of total consumption. On any given day, however,

the portion of the general population consuming

each orange product does not differ greatly by sex.

Among males, those in the 20- to 39-year group

accounted for the biggest proportion of the population

and accounted for the biggest share of fresh, juice, and

drink consumption. On a per capita basis, however,

they consumed an average of 98.72 pounds (freshweight

equivalent) of oranges annually, less than males

in the 12- to 19-year group (table 8). Much of that

consumption came from orange juice, of which they

consumed an annual average of 83.96 pounds. Males

in the 12- to 19-year age group averaged 112.08

pounds of orange consumption annually, with 100.41

pounds in the form of orange juice. On average, males

consumed 93.5 pounds per capita of oranges per year.

Males 60 and over had the heaviest fresh orange consumption,

averaging 19.29 pounds a year, much higher

than the average for all males at 14.82 pounds.

Female orange consumption generally mirrored that of

males, but at lower quantities. The group of females

with the greatest consumption of oranges, however,

was those 60 and over. They averaged 92.75 pounds of

oranges per capita annually, with a higher usage of

fresh oranges than any other age group. This group of

women ate more fresh oranges, averaging 23.28

pounds annually, than any other age group, female or

male. Females in the 12- to 19-year group were the

second leading consumers of orange products, averaging

91.87 pounds per capita annually. Most of their

consumption was from juice.

[Bugged]

However the amount of processed food intake has increased greatly and I suspect that with dropping exercise rates, the rise of the computer and game consoles, then the effect has been much magnified.

That's just it. Lustig talks about the 'perfect storm' that brought about the popularity of HFCS in processed foods ('it all started with Nixon'). The perfect storm is actually this:

1.) We consume more calories than ever before. Lustig demonstrates this clearly with his Coca-Cola example - people don't think of a 20 oz bottle of Coke as 2.5 servings; most people will drink it in one go.

2.) We get far less exercise than ever before. You've said this as well.

3.) We eat less fibre than ever before. Processed foods are mainstream. They're loaded with salt, sugar and fat, but low in nutrients and fibre.

That is the perfect storm that's led to the obesity problem. And knowing that HFCS has basically the exact same composition as table sugar - something that's been around forever - tells me it's not the type of sugar that's the culprit. It's that we're eating too much sugar, along with too many other empty calories, for what we burn off.

Sure, Lustig has some charts to back up his theory, but he shows them at the exclusion of comparing diabetes rates to the decreased rates of exercise and fibre consumption over the past 30-odd years. Makes me question why.

[__Yossarian0815[jby]]

Would there be fewer obese people if they drank sodas which contained only glucose? Maybe marginally so, but I doubt you could show it outside a controlled experiment as shown in the movie.

I have a slight problem with the inevetability of obesity argument that Lustig seems to propose. Parents could just give their kids water to drink. Not cool enough? Serve water in colorful bottles with cool designs. So maybe some people/parents are really ignorant, but I think there are way more obese people than people who are ignorant of the fact that coke and pepsi contain a lot of sugar.

[Patrocles]

That's just it. Lustig talks about the 'perfect storm' that brought about the popularity of HFCS in processed foods ('it all started with Nixon'). The perfect storm is actually this:

1.) We consume more calories than ever before. Lustig demonstrates this clearly with his Coca-Cola example - people don't think of a 20 oz bottle of Coke as 2.5 servings; most people will drink it in one go.

2.) We get far less exercise than ever before. You've said this as well.

3.) We eat less fibre than ever before. Processed foods are mainstream. They're loaded with salt, sugar and fat, but low in nutrients and fibre.

That is the perfect storm that's led to the obesity problem. And knowing that HFCS has basically the exact same composition as table sugar - something that's been around forever - tells me it's not the type of sugar that's the culprit. It's that we're eating too much sugar, along with too many other empty calories, for what we burn off.

Sure, Lustig has some charts to back up his theory, but he shows them at the exclusion of comparing diabetes rates to the decreased rates of exercise and fibre consumption over the past 30-odd years. Makes me question why.

good point.

As many articles have recently stated there are more people exercising now more than 30 years ago yet we are seeing more obese people. I have seen some reports on how people today may be getting more "intense exercise" (as in going to a gym to workout) but these is being offset by lack of daily "everyday exercise" (walking up stairs to work instead of elevator, hiring professional dogwalkers instead of taking Fido out every evening, driving 2 miles to the store for a quart of milk instead of walking, etc.). I have seen some reports where if people who increase their "everyday exercise" and reduce their caloric intake to an appropriate amount do lose and maintain a healthy weight.

[Tero]

;1155833']Would there be fewer obese people if they drank sodas which contained only glucose? Maybe marginally so, but I doubt you could show it outside a controlled experiment as shown in the movie.

I have a slight problem with the inevetability of obesity argument that Lustig seems to propose. Parents could just give their kids water to drink. Not cool enough? Serve water in colorful bottles with cool designs. So maybe some people/parents are really ignorant, but I think there are way more obese people than people who are ignorant of the fact that coke and pepsi contain a lot of sugar.

So the safest bet is to blame the victims ? This is the kind of attitude which promotes the problems. What is the point in researching and criticising the food were are being fed if the rising problems are due to the afflicted people being lazy both physically and mentally, right ?

Not so long ago obese people were invariably wealthy. Now obese people (in the West at least) are for the most part poor. For the price of 1kg oranges you can by anywhere up to 10 liters of orange juice. Processed food used to be expensive compared to basic foodstuffs. Yes, there are more people around to consume the food. But the current explosing of health problems is NOT due to fat people being lazy cretins, it is because the drive to maximise profit far exceeds the need for the people to have access to healthy food.

[JennyXoXo]

This is why I eat healthy foods, like caviar. And, I drink at least 3 bottles of water a day and no soda =)

[dieseltaylor]

Most sturgeon species are endangered, having been overfished nearly to extinction in pursuit of their caviar. Caviar is a prized delicacy that can fetch more than $100 an ounce, and the Caspian Sea is home to beluga sturgeon (Huso huso), whose eggs are considered to be among the finest in the world. Despite evidence that beluga sturgeon stocks have declined by a staggering 90 percent in the past 20 years, CITES’ 2008 export quotas again permit the fish and their eggs to be harvested. The sturgeon quota system was established to ensure that trade in sturgeon products would only be permitted from sustainable fisheries, but much evidence indicates the quotas do not reflect the urgent need for protection and the rampant illegal harvest and trade.

The United States banned import of beluga caviar in 2006 after listing beluga sturgeon under the U.S. Endangered Species Act.

“Once again, the range States have agreed upon beluga export quotas that are too permissive and that will jeopardize sturgeon survival in the wild,” said Dr. Ellen Pikitch, Executive Director of the Pew Institute for Ocean Science, a leader in the effort to safeguard sturgeon. “We cannot recommend purchasing any wild-caught caviar given the sorry state of sturgeon fisheries management.”

Sturgeon can grow up to 2,500 pounds and 15 feet long. They can take 15 years to reach reproductive age, and females of many sturgeon species reproduce only once every three to four years. The fish must be killed to harvest caviar, and global demand for its eggs has prompted overfishing and rampant illegal trade. As a result, sturgeons are vulnerable to overfishing and unable to recover quickly. In 2007, quotas for beluga caviar were 3,761 kg and this year, the export quota is 3,700 kg. (This slight decrease reflects the absence of a quota for Turkmenistan, which is not a Party to CITES but in past years has been allocated an export quota through neighboring Kazakhstan). Since the beluga population in the Caspian Sea has certainly not increased or stabilized since 2007, the quotas should be reduced to reflect this.

So I don't buy or eat any caviar. From Jenny's link:

One variation that stands alone is the Osetra caviar because of its rich flavor and easy to swallow texture. If you're like most people, the idea of swallowing something extremely salty and slimey doesn't sound very appealing.

: )

[__Yossarian0815[jby]]

Tero

You´re overshooting there. I didn´t accuse anybody of being lazy. I am simply wondering if regulating fructose like ethanol or replacing fructose with other sugars will make any difference.