[KINDLE] ✽ The Case Against Sugar By Gary Taubes – Cheapnikeshoes.co

Amazingly eye opening, and truly terrifying It s hard to grasp the huge impact of refined sugar on human evolution, and once again thanks to greedy lobbies, we happily march towards our doom, so that the sugar industry barons may continue to enjoy the profits of providing us with our drug of choice It s unbelievable that governments try to regulate recreational drugs, at the same time when one of the most toxic inventions of humanity is virtually promoted as a healthy alternative to the oh so dangerous fat I know that all this sounds like a huge overstatement, and I wish it was, but sadly the evidence is here, and choosing not to see it does not make it less valid Read the book, and weep But don t eat candy to alleviate the pain ice cream is kind of OK though huh Oh, hell, I need to stop reading books on nutritional subjects I might as well lay down and wait to die on my own I m not sure that it d be much painful this way Having been on a zero sugar diet for the past three weeks and planning to make it a lifestyle change see my review of Zero Sugar Diet The 14 Day Plan to Flatten Your Belly, Crush Cravings, and Help Keep You Lean for Life , I wanted to read a bit about the science behind the claim that the added sugars in processed foods could possibly be the cause of the current obesity and diabetes epidemic Intuition, common sense and observation tells one it is true but so many diet fads have come and gone, that a little healthy skepticism is warranted This book does not provide proof but does give food for thought pun intended There are very few studies to back up any of this as the big clinical trial money has been focused on shoring up the theory that dietary fat is the main culprit so a leap of faith is still required, I m afraid, but I have to feel we re on the right track with wholesome, natural food Sometimes the simple answer IS the correct one Diet advice that recommends we eat whole foods and avoid processed foods foodlike substances remove virtually all refined sugar by definition diet advice to avoid sugar means, by definition, that we avoid virtually all processed foods. From The Best Selling Author Of Why We Get Fat, A Groundbreaking, Eye Opening Expose That Makes The Convincing Case That Sugar Is The Tobacco Of The New Millennium Backed By Powerful Lobbies, Entrenched In Our Lives, And Making Us Very SickAmong Americans, Diabetes Is Prevalent Today Than Ever Obesity Is At Epidemic Proportions Nearly % Of Children Are Thought To Have Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease And Sugar Is At The Root Of These, And Other, Critical Society Wide, Health Related Problems With His Signature Command Of Both Science And Straight Talk, Gary Taubes Delves Into Americans History With Sugar Its Uses As A Preservative, As An Additive In Cigarettes, The Contemporary Overuse Of High Fructose Corn Syrup He Explains What Research Has Shown About Our Addiction To Sweets He Clarifies The Arguments Against Sugar, Corrects Misconceptions About The Relationship Between Sugar And Weight Loss And Provides The Perspective Necessary To Make Informed Decisions About Sugar As Individuals And As A Society Guess what Sugar is not a healthy food Who knew In fact, according to Gary Taubes, it causes just about every disease of Western civilization and we probably shouldn t eat it at all, which kind of reminded me of all the other nutrition doomsday books I ve read over the years The China Studydon t eat meat or dairy, you will get sick and die Wheat Bellydon t eat wheat, you will get sick and die Eat More, Weigh Lessdon t eat fat, you will get sick and die The Paleo Solution or any other paleo bookdon t eat grains or beans, you will get sick and die Sugar Bluesoh wait, that was sugar again Two strikes against sugar.So I guess I need to hole up in my nutrition bunker with nothing but vegetables and salad greens, and wait out the food apocalypse, because there s nothing left to eat But, in all seriousness, I think any reasonable person can concede that sugar at least in the ginormous amounts it is consumed in our society is pretty much bad for us As to just how bad, Gary Taubes is here to explain, and I found a lot that was interesting or valuable in this book I ve read about sugar and metabolic syndrome potentially leading to type II diabetes, heart disease and other things before, but Taubes described the process convincingly, and I ran across a couple of new things, like the potential link between high sugar consumption and gout I also enjoyed the first few chapters about the history of the sugar industry.The second half of the book was not as satisfying for me, though For one thing, Taubes returned to a couple of his key issues that I ve always been a bit skeptical of, such as a complete dismissal of the calories in calories out equation for weight loss I get that it is not quite that simple a lot of things can go wonky with the metabolism, and the types of foods eaten do make a difference but at a certain level, yes, if you eat less and or exercise , you WILL lose weight, and we all know people who have done that And then there s the Ancel Keys bashing I get it, Taubes thinks Keys was completely wrong with his Seven Countries Study and theory of saturated fat causing heart disease, but honestly, his rancor towards the man comes across like a personal grudge match at times Especially since I actually do respect Keys contributions and as far as I m concerned, the saturated fat versus sugar issue hasn t been resolved yet Regardless, the Mediterranean diet that Keys ended up espousing is NOT high in sugar and, as far as population studies goes, appears to be quite healthful.Now maybe you are thinking that population studies are of limited use and that Keys cherry picked the Seven Countries Study to prove his point, and you would be right Which leads me to my main issue with this book, and why I couldn t give it higher than a three star rating in the last couple of chapters, Taubes shamelessly cherry picks population studies to prove his extreme anti sugar point, focusing on tribal peoples such as the Pima Indians and certain Pacific Islanders Much closer to home and much closer to the DNA mix of most of his audience, I m guessing , I could point out other, conflicting populations, such as the Amish, who eat a lot of sugar and refined flour and don t have anywhere near the levels of heart disease and diabetes as the rest of us.Another missed opportunity is that, while Taubes discusses the economics and politics of sugar in the past even the recent past , he doesn t address the political landscape that has created our current sugar glut I ve lived three places where sugar crops are a major part of the local economy Hawaii sugar cane , central Michigan sugar beets and currently central Illinois corn, a.k.a high fructose corn syrup I am surrounded by field upon field upon field of mono crops of genetically modified, pesticide laden corn, much of it bound for factories to be turned into HFCS and then splattered on just about every processed food in the market at cut rate prices, so that junk foods are cheaper than fresh vegetables Because of government farm subsidies And then the taxpayers are socked again at the end of the cycle, paying for all the health care But if we all stopped eating this crap, I don t even want to imagine the economic repercussions It s a messed up system, and it s entirely relevant to the issue of why so many North Americans are sick and obese, and it s barely addressed in this book Finally, towards the end of the book, the speculation and scare mongering about sugar reached an almost ridiculous level Implying that allowing a child to have a single scoop of ice cream per week would be unhealthy Wondering if we have messed up our health for generations to come by eating sugar At this point, I just stopped taking the author seriously.But I will admit, at one point he states that the people who say sugar is OK in moderation are the people who don t have a problem with it, and I guess I just proved his point Despite my many dietary vices, I don t have much of a sweet tooth, and can enjoy a bit of dark chocolate or a creme brulee once in a while Sugar isn t addictive for me, and I actually find the sweetness of many processed foods kind of off putting So I guess I would say, if you feel hooked on sugar, then definitely read this book Otherwise, it has a few interesting points but ultimately seems a bit overwrought to me. Medicine is mostly taught untethered from its history, asserts Gary Taubes at the beginning of this book Students are taught what to believe, but not always the evidence on which their beliefs are based This book is a much needed history of sugar I can think of nowhere else where failure to look at the evidence on which medical beliefs are based has had, and continues to have, such tragic consequences.The leading authority who dominated the teaching about diabetes during the twentieth and into the twenty first century was a dedicated doctor called Elliott Joslin His textbook, The Treatment of Diabetes Mellitus was first published in 1916 Revered as a bible, its most recent edition appeared in 2005, forty three years after his death Joslin argued that fats, and not sugar, were the cause of diabetes This belief was supported by Harold Himsworth, a very influential diabetes researcher based in London, who in 1931 proposed that a diet rich in carbohydrate should be recommended to diabetics Both Joslin and Himsworth pointed to Japan as a country where the diet was rich in carbohydrate and low in fat, and where there was very little diabetes What both men ignored was that sugar consumption in Japan at that time was comparable to that in England and America in the nineteenth century, when diabetes was very rare They both assumed that sugar and other carbohydrates were equivalent in their effects on the human body.Sugar sucrose is formed in plants by the condensation of two simpler sugars glucose and fructose Glucose, the molecule into which starches are digested, is used to provide energy Any surplus is converted, in the liver and muscles, to glycogen animal starch for storage until needed Conversion of glucose to glycogen is under the control of the hormone insulin Fructose, by contrast, is converted by the liver into fat Its fat forming effects seem to be enhanced when glucose is present.Joslin s and Himsworth s misconception might have been challenged by the research on metabolism, endocrinology, genetics and nutrition which was taking place in Germany and Austria before the Second World War Post 1939 this very valuable work was lost to the scientific community Nutritionists in the English speaking world focussed on energy balance A calorie was a calorie no matter where it came from Putting on weight was simply a matter of consuming calories than could be expended Excess weight caused both diabetes and obesity Diet and exercise were the solutions.When the technique of radioimmunoassay was developed in the 1960s, it brought with it the possibility of measuring hormone levels, and the problem of insulin resistance came to light Unexpectedly, high insulin levels could accompany high levels of sugar in the blood Insulin was no longer effective in moving glucose out of the blood and into cells This pattern was found in people suffering from obesity, and in those who developed diabetes later in life What caused insulin resistance was then a mystery It has since been linked to sugar consumption.By the 1950s it was recognised that heart disease was associated with both diabetes and obesity Whether too much fat or too much sugar caused heart disease was still an open question, and researchers were highly motivated to find an answer The hypothesis that fat was the murder weapon was supported by the very wealthy and powerful Sugar Association with its Food and Nutrition Advisory Committee The American Heart Association also came down on the side of fat It advocated low fat diets for every American, while its researchers were admitting that the dietary fat heart disease hypothesis needed much investigation Those who favoured the sugar hypothesis like John Yudkin in England faced ridicule and the charge of being quacks In the 1960s Yudkin fed human subjects sugar rich diets and reported that this increased their cholesterol and triglyceride levels It seemed to ratchet up their insulin levels and even make their blood platelets sticky.Clinical trials were set up in the US and in Europe to test the fat, but not the sugar hypothesis To date they have failed to show that high levels of dietary fat cause heart disease, obesity or diabetes Nevertheless, in 1986 the American government and health organisations committed themselves to getting Americans to eat a low fat diet Everyone else followed suit The epidemic of diseases included in metabolic syndrome has only worsened.Gary Taubes cannot prove that sugar is the cause of Western chronic diseases, but the evidence he gives is overwhelming I have concentrated on some of the scientific aspects, but this book contains much It is also as riveting as a good novel Taubes clarity of vision is very rare, and a book like this is worth its weight in gold. main take aways a calorie is not a calorie fats in food are not bad sugar causes diabetes, gout, cancer, bad breath, insomnia, restless leg syndrome, MRSA, depression, economic inequality, republicans, nazis, trump, and alzheimer s the sugar industry uses tactics similar to climate change deniers it is almost impossible to not eat sugar there is as much sense in eating a moderate amount of sugar as there is in smoking a moderate amount of cigarettes.it s not like any of these conclusions are hard to come by.the problem is that it takes so much effort not to consume sugar. I happened to be reading this at the same time as I was listening to a three part Freakonomics podcast series called Bad Medicine, and they both hit on the same problem the emphasis upon eminence based medicine, rather than evidence based medicine, i.e., if a renowned practitioner is behind a hypothesis, that can be enough to direct, or at least influence, decades of research and practice This is especially critical in the science of sugar, because Taubes point is that the damage done by sugar is not something that can be easily researched The damage if it is indeed caused by sugar takes not days or weeks but decades to manifest, and it would require literally billions of dollars of research to establish a firm scientific link But the case that Taubes presents is pretty alarming, especially showing that, as aboriginal peoples are introduced to the Western diet, a host of Western diseases start showing up.Taubes book does a good job of laying out the case, but perhaps falls short in a prescriptive sense Eat less or no sugar is about the long and short of it And of course, take the medical advice of those being funded by the sugar industry very, very skeptically FYI, as someone who works in finance, I thought the quote from C.W Barron, about investing in vices, was quite interesting, so I actually set up an index focusing on gambling, alcohol, tobacco, and carbonated beverage producers setting up and testing indices is what I do for a living In the period from 1999 2016, the annualized return was approximately 3X greater than the SP500 over the same period, with lower standard deviation and drawdown, and higher Sharpe ratio and dividend yield So, Barron was on to somethingthough I d personally be pretty queasy about investing in such an index. I could not read this book without getting red faced with frustration every other sentence One of the most hyperbolic, poorly researched in terms of actual scientific studies pieces of hysteria I have read in a long time The accolades given to Gary Taubes are beyond confusing His fervent advocacy supported by limited peer reviewed work and even junk science reminds me of another popular cause du jour, the anti vaxxer movement The fact that he has taken to consorting with a dangerous self promoting snake oil salesman like anti vaccine anti mammogram advocate Joe Mercola tells me all that I need to know about his agenda It isn t for the betterment of society it is to stake a claim in a controversial realm that will help enrich himself even if its foundation is built on a bold face lie As for the book, the constant quoting of 50, 70 and even 100 plus year old newspaper articles or books, detailing the intricacies of how early cereal makers came to add sugar to their product or spending an annoying amount of time explaining how tobacco is processed doesn t make for actual science or a good read All it does is give the illusion of it for those too ignorant or lazy to see past the dog and pony show that is The Case Against Sugar If he spent time reading actual peer reviewed research, or even conducted some himself, the book would have been better served Instead he comes in with an agenda on page one and twist and shapes what little research he does present to ensure that it fits into his preconceived box, ignoring what isn t convenient to his argument and using massive amounts of fluff to fill in any gaps and draw unsubstantiated conclusions.On one hand the author claims that science has proved his theories as correct, they haven t, in fact an institute he helped found argues against many of his beliefs, oops and on the other he attacks any and every scientist that disagrees as being a shill for big sugar The outrageous claims he pushes sugar has killed people in the last century than war or guns are ludicrous He states early on that all, ALL, diseases are caused by sugar There is clearly enough evidence to indict sugar as the single prominent environmental trigger of disease, This sets the stage to be able to make the previous claim that big sugar is essentially committing mass murder on a global scale using the declaration that it is the root cause as proof All without providing any evidence to back either assertion up.Why after reading this book would anyone take him serious is beyond me I would posit that most people aren t actually reading the book and understating what he says and, importantly, doesn t say But rather looking for an example to point to while they pat themselves on the back for being so enlightened Look, we all know sugar is bad when consumed in large amounts I guess it just isn t sexy enough to point out that we need to practice much better moderation as we should with all things It is much easier to come out all crazy like screaming that the sky is falling and suggesting that the government make its use illegal At least that sells books Gary Taubes has done an excellent job in explaining why sugar is so terrible for the body I am seeing a nutritionist to help me with my weight and on my last visit she stated to me that you can eat any food in moderation My response to her was, What does moderation mean I guess a person could smoke crack in moderation but no one recommends that Taubes stated it clearly in his book that the people who say eat in moderation typically don t have a weight problem, and my nutritionist does not therefore what moderation looks like to one person would look totally different to another For me, I am staying away from as much sugar as possible It is in so much foods I don t know if I can totally abstain from it, but I can stop eating the main culprit of sugar delivery systems candies, cookies, cakes, pop, fruit juices Y all, the stuff is deadly and toxic My father lost a foot to diabetes and another family member kidneys recently failed due to diabetes and high blood pressure Just like his book Good Calories, Bad Calories convinced me not to eat so much refine carbohydrates, The Case Against Sugar has convinced me to go cold turkey with sugar Highly recommend all three of his books on nutrition if you want to be in the best health possible. This book delves into Western civilization s history with sugar and its increasing rate of consumption since introduction of refined sugar into the Western diet With this increased consumption also came the economic power of the sugar industry that throughout most of the twentieth century was the funder of nutritional research that tended to focus of causes for Western diseases in directions other that sugar itself.The rate of occurrence of diabetes, heart disease, gout, and a host of other chronic conditions pretty much parallels the rate of increase of sugar consumption Throughout the twentieth century researchers seemed to want to blame saturated fats and cholesterol but had difficultly establishing links through subsequent health studies Reluctance to distinguish between complex carbohydrates and simple sugar carbohydrate and refusing to accept the possibility of different metabolism routes for sucrose, fructose and other sugars made nutritional researchers blind to the possible role of sugar.In the manner of a good prosecuting attorney, Taubes in this book lays on layer after layer of additional evidence in making his case against sugar This data is gleaned from medical history and multiple population studies of the relationship between the consumption of sugar with diabetes and then with all the other medical problems associated with diabetes Today the American rate of diabetes is nearly one in ten adults, and approximately one in ten children are estimated to have nonalcoholic fatty liver disease which is a precursor of diabetes.I found particularly alarming the concept of perinatal metabolic programming a.k.a metabolic imprinting as a hypothetical means by which succeeding generations may be likely to develop diabetes, insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome than is true for today s population.The conditions in the womb in the intrauterine environment influence the development of the fetus, so that subtly different conditions will lead, in effect to the birth of newborns who respond differently to the environment they face outside the womb In particular, the nutrients that the developing child receives in the womb including the supply of glucose pass across the placenta in proportion to the nutrient concentration in the mother s circulation The higher the mother s blood sugar, the greater the supply of glucose to the fetus The developing pancreas responds by overproducing insulin secreting cells The baby is not diabetic, says Roy Metzger, who studies diabetes and pregnancy at Northwestern University, but the insulin producing cells in the pancreas are stimulated to function and grow in size and number by the environment they re in So they start over functioning That in turn leads to a baby laying down fat, which is why the baby of diabetic mother is typified by being a fat baby I interpreted the above as probably leading to increased sensitivity to the detrimental effects of sugar However, Taubes elsewhere says it may increase or decrease sensitivity, he s not sure which.I thought once Taubes had established the link between sugar and diabetes that he would be finished But he proceeds to link heart disease to diabetes through the indirect link of insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome that leads to hypertension He didn t stop there He then proceeded to name sugar as the culprit in ALL Western diseases if sugar causes insulin resistance and elevates triglycerides and makes us fat, then it very likely causes hypertension, too if not directly, then at least indirectly, through its effect on insulin resistance and weight Sugar is the culprit.So here s the if then hypothesis If these Western diseases are associated with obesity, diabetes, insulin resistance, and metabolic syndrome, which many of them are, then whatever causes insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome is likely to be the necessary dietary trigger for the diseases, or at least a key player in the causal pathway Because there is significant reason to believe that sugars sucrose and high fructose corn syrup in particular, the nearly fifty fifty combinations of glucose and fructose are the dietary trigger of insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome, it s quite likely they are a primary cause of all these Western diseases, including cancer and Alzheimer s disease Without these sugars in the diet, these chronic diseases would be relatively rare, if not, in some cases, virtually nonexistent.At this point Taubes proceeds to address the major Western diseases, one by one, to discuss the likelihood that sugar is responsible, or at least largely responsible He proceeds to go into a detailed discussion of the hypothetical biochemical mechanisms by which ingestion of sugar can be linked to gout, hypertension, cancer and Alzheimer s disease Taubes doesn t claim definitive proof according to the rules of science, and indeed it may never be possible to establish absolute proof But Taubes has certainly laid out a string of circumstantial evidence and mechanisms by which simple sugars can lead to the Western diseases that I find compelling.Taube concludes with a discussion of what is the safe amount of sugar to eat He says the answer is similar to the answer for tobacco There is no safe amount for everyone There are some population studies that have shown that when primitive cultures begin to eat the Western diet that problems begin to appear at about seventy pounds per capita per year of sugar consumption with a twenty year delay in the appearance of symptoms The FDA in 1986 said forty two pounds per capita per year was safe Current average per capita sugar consumption in USA is over 100 lb year less losses from discarded food But that is a generalized amount for the total population and doesn t account for some individuals who may be maladapted to sugar Further, future populations may be or less sensitive to sugar than in the past because of perinatal metabolic programming.Here s a link to an article about sugar addiction and withdrawal s a link to an NPR article titled, What The Industry Knew About Sugar s Health Effects, But Didn t Tell Us s a link to a NYT article about research on the negative health effects of sugar One study, from Emory University, found that regular consumption not only of drinks containing added sugars but also of naturally sweet fruit juice raised the risk of an early death by as much as 44 percent risk for developing heart disease and kidney stones rose in direct proportion to the amount of high fructose corn syrup they consumed.