I truly do not intend to make a pun here - but I wish the article had more meat. Ok - I get it. Sugar is toxic - but I feel like this article simply repeated that sentiment a dozen times in different words. SO.... if added sugar is toxic, why? How is it toxic? What types of sugars? All of them? Fructose from apples and bananas? or just the high fructose stuff from corn? I know they link to the scientifc study, but that's ALL meat. Surely there's some form of middle gound where the point is made, explained and backed up - and then linked to the study for the die hards who want the details.
Agreed. It feels like the author just took a quick scan of the title and then went on their own rant about how it's the FDA's fault for not regulating sugar levels. Toxicity is about dosage and exposure. You can have sugar. It's safe. It was in my food this morning. It's been in the food I've eaten almost every single day of my life. At reasonable levels. What the publication looks into is "high" levels of sugar: Not only that, almost no analysis is done as to why an FDA regulation is necessary. Where is the comparison to nutritional education and improving food availability? Has he never heard of a food desert?We also tested whether the number of years a country was exposed to “high sugar availability”, which we defined as at least 300 kcal/person/day (twice the upper recommended daily limit for men, [25]) had a relationship with diabetes prevalence, by introducing a count variable for the number of years exposed to high sugar. Under the hypothesis being tested, longer exposure to sugar would correspond to greater effects on diabetes risk. We found that each extra year of exposure to high sugar availability was associated with an increase in diabetes prevalence of 0.053% (p<0.05) after all other control variables were included (Table 3).
I think you bring up really good questions, and I'm sure that they are being addressed by those who study it. The main thing that's important about this research is that it shows that there is an undeniable link between refined sugar consumption and type II diabetes; I think that most earlier studies had similar conclusions but always left too many unanswered questions. This one appears to be very exhaustive. And to your point about fruit, the authors control for fruit intake, which due to all of the good stuff in fruits is considered a positive by most doctors, and conclude that the refined sugar is the problem. Also, for comparison, a can of Coke has 39g of sugar, while an apple has 3g. So even if the sugars are equal, one would have to consume 13 apples to get the same effect. This could be quite problematic for the corn syrup industry. In the past when companies are found to have been peddling a dangerous product, even in cases where the effects were unknown, they have been held civilly liable for their actions. Tobacco, asbestos, silicone implants, dioxin, and the list goes on and on. One wonders if diabetes patients can sue Yum, or Coke, or McDonald's for pain and suffering from their condition. Could be a huge can of worms, but hopefully it will get Congress talking about real, impactful changes to the farm bill.
Double-checking your numbers says it's actually 23g. They might be wrong, but 3g sounds awefully low...while an apple has 3g
WTF? I have no idea where the first source I checked got that number. I didn't make it up, but certainly its not correct. Looking into it further, I can't imagine why I believed that in the first place. I think 3g represents the fiber (indigestible sugar) content of an apple. Thanks.
The obese and diabetic would have grounds to sue if they can prove that the companies knew about the hazard of their product, but continued to peddle it or make it more addictive yet in spite of the knowledge. I understand this was instrumental in the massive tobacco lawsuits of the 90s, but IANAL and are not sure if you can win damages without this argument. Some fruits are better than others, even with equal sugar content, if they have a lower glycemic index. The lower the index, the slower the sugars are absorbed into the body. So cherries and avocados are considered good for diabetics and pre-diabetics, while orange juice is not. BTW: thanx for linking to the publication it's based on.
So real sugar causes diabetes and fake sugar causes cancer. Is one riskier than the other?
I thought the Bradford Hill deal was really neat. Had never heard of that.The study controlled for poverty, urbanization, aging, obesity and physical activity. It controlled for other foods and total calories. In short, it controlled for everything controllable, and it satisfied the longstanding “Bradford Hill” criteria for what’s called medical inference of causation by linking dose (the more sugar that’s available, the more occurrences of diabetes); duration (if sugar is available longer, the prevalence of diabetes increases); directionality (not only does diabetes increase with more sugar, it decreases with less sugar); and precedence (diabetics don’t start consuming more sugar; people who consume more sugar are more likely to become diabetics).