There was a recent 60 Minutes broadcast about sugar being toxic. The premise of the story, relied on the theory of an endocrinologist in San Francisco, Dr. Robert Lustig. His theory is not new, and is based upon his practice and research. However, other obesity experts do not agree, nor do I – about sugar being the underlying toxin in our environment. By the way, eating sugar doesn't cause Type 2 diabetes - obesity does.
The fact is, we as a nation have been eating more calories and expending less. It’s the simple law of physics: Energy in – Energy Out. Overweight and obesity are caused by an accumulation of lifestyle habits and behaviors – not the ingredient du jour.
The challenge with demonizing the word “sugar” in this discussion – is that many believe that sugar (aka carbohydrate) is BAD… which would include fruits, vegetables, whole grains, beans and even milk products. The foods left to consume would be meat, poultry, fish, eggs, nuts and oil. Recent research suggests eating less beef (not necessarily eliminating it), would increase longevity. Note, non-nutritive sweeteners are not the answer (http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/08/16/skinny-on-sweeteners/).
Blood sugar is called blood glucose. It is not table sugar. All foods are made up of one of three macronutrients: amino acids (protein), fatty acids or carbohydrates. Regardless of the origin of carbohydrates, once they are absorbed from the small intestine, they are transported to the liver, and sent out to the body as glucose. Glucose is the master fuel for the body and brain. Just ask any endurance athlete if they load up on protein or fat to sustain their workouts.
Serving sizes are not the same as portion sizes. The portions listed on packages are supposed to be standardized by the food type (i.e. – all beverage are eight fluid ounces) in order to show the required Nutrition Fact panel. Some packages reflect the calorie of one package (like a 12 ounce soda can being one can versus 1.5 servings per container). The grams of sugar on a food label do not distinguish added sugars from naturally occurring carbohydrates – which is why this is so misleading to rely upon.
The solution is to CHOOSE foods that are closer to the way they are found in nature. It is okay if you eat food out of a package (after all, bread and pasta come out of package). Canned and frozen vegetables are examples of “packaged” plant foods that can be affordable and nutritious. Too many food “rules” will leave you and your family with very little left to consume – unless you live on a farm and grow it all yourself.
It's also an oversimplification to say that sugar does not cause diabetes. We don't fully understand what causes diabetes, but we're fairly sure that Type 2 diabetes is at least partly caused by taking in more calories than are expended, and often (but not always) the excess calories come from sugar. Some studies suggest that fructose is more hazardous than other sugars, and fructose is about half the content of both table sugar (sucrose) and high fructose corn syrup. Don't get me wrong. After the oversimplifications in the first paragraph, I think this is a good article. But I also think it's incomplete. It doesn't mention that you could drink too many calories. It's OK to drink water. Nor does it mention that restaurant servings are almost always much too big for one meal. I think Michael Pollan said it best: Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. And what he means by "food" is pretty much what the author said: "... closer to the way they are found in nature."
It's not only science that shows that the healthy ratio of calories (energy units) in versus out helps one become physically fit -- it's simple, pure logic. Ensuring that those calories actually have nutritional value as opposed to non-nutrive value makes even better sense. People just have to educate themselves and there's tons of nutrition info on the internet that's easy to read. So are labels on food products. I hope you keep blogging here about health and nutrition!
Understand, this is a blog - not a book. I write for FoxNews.com as well - always limited space to cover a subject :)
Let's stop "sugar coating" the research. We don't know exactly what causes type 2 diabetes. It's a complex problem, and it's a mistake to blame any one cause (sugar, obesity, or whatever) and ignore the others. Sugar is certainly part of the problem, if only because some obese people got that way by consuming too much sugar. But neither obesity, nor sugar, nor fat, nor red meat, nor inactivity can be identified as the sole cause of any disease.
When a newly diagnosed diabetic calls my office for an appointment, 100% of the time, I ask them if they are overweight - they always say "yes". You can wait until professional associations take 5-10 years to publish updated position statements on health to change your opinion. It is naive to demonize sugar and "make excuses" for poor food choices. Want to see what people really eat? Input and intrepret a few thousand individual's food journals - then tell me what you think. Better yet - go to graduate school , get a science degree and then tell me if sugar is the demon. Dr David Katz from Yale disagrees. BTW, Dr. Lustig's article was an OPINION published in Nature.
His new book ('Fat Chance...') explains his theory -- entirely based on scientific facts -- in more detail. Also I disagree with your statement, "Too many food “rules” will leave you and your family with very little left to consume – unless you live on a farm and grow it all yourself". I've made the decision with my family to eat clean. We rarely consume anything out of a package, which has pushed us to become creative with meal planning. We actually have MORE choices because we cook from scratch. And regarding canned foods and frozen vegetables? You fail to realize that many times they have added sodium and/or other preservatives.