11 ms·

Sugar: The Bitter Truth (UCSF lecture)

153 points by chipsy 17y ago

chipsy 17y ago
I was struck by the allusion Lustig makes to sugar being as poisonous as alcohol. It makes ours look like a world of drug fiends.
- gregwebs 17y ago
  This is an interesting anecdote from someone who claims to have cured his alcohol abuse problems by going low carb. http://fathead-movie.com/index.php/2009/04/30/primal-body-primal-mind-primal-tools/ http://fathead-movie.com/index.php/2009/04/30/primal-body-pr...
  - shiny 17y ago
    The paleo diet is awesome. I've lost a considerable amount of weight on it, and feel and look much better. Also, a diet with staples like grass-fed beef, pastured butter (or any other healthy animal fat), avocado, and fish is my kind of diet. No more forcing down bitter grain or soy products in fruitless attempts to go "healthy". Plus, my meals are so substantial and high in fat that I only need to eat once or twice a day. For anyone interested, there's a lot of good paleo sites out there, but I'd start with http://paleonu.com http://paleonu.com and http://freetheanimal.com http://freetheanimal.com And if you can, pick up Nourishing Traditions by Sally Fallon.
- gaius 17y ago
  If you have ever tried going low- or no- carb, it is exactly like withdrawal. You feel awful and then just a taste, just a little, won't affect the diet, and you feel OK again...
pg 17y ago
I highly recommend watching this.
- rarrrrrr 17y ago
  The natural health community has been screaming this for decades. Few take heed. My family has spent many years studying human health. The well-researched conclusions are so far from mainstream American beliefs that the ignorant dismiss them as absurd. I'll get down voted, but in the interest of countering groupthink, here are some examples anyway: - Food basics: Avoid hydrogenated oils, sodium nitrite, MSG/yeast extract, artificial colors, high fructose corn syrup, all artificial sweeteners, all grains that aren't whole. Replace sugar with agave nectar or stevia. Know the smoke points for the cooking oils you use an don't exceed them. - Any multivitamin which packages B12 solely as "cyanocobalamin" is cheaply manufactured. Quality vitamins package hydroxocobalamin. You'll probably have to look online or at health food stores to find good quality vitamins. Many of the options sold at pharmacies are little better than candy. - As much as 60% of Americans are deficient in vitamin D. The body makes it in response to skin exposure to direct sunlight (not through glass.) Sufficient vitamin D reduces risk of nearly all cancers by around 70%. Why isn't the American Cancer Society screaming this message? - A cup of blueberries a day is more effective at reducing cholesterol than current pharmaceuticals. Tastes better, too. - Eating refined carbohydrates depletes the supply of B vitamins. For women, this contributes to the discomfort of menstruation. - A number of plants have strong cancer prevention or anticancer properties. Examples: turmeric with black pepper, maca root, garlic. ...a few thousand more little details.
  - m_eiman 17y ago
    As much as 60% of Americans are deficient in vitamin D Unlike many other vitamins, it's also very hard to overdose on D. Taking too much of some of the others is worse than not taking any at all, but with D that's not a problem.
    - pyre 17y ago
      IIRC, it's the same with Vitamin C since it's water soluble (i.e. excess escapes through your urine). Just note that -- like everything -- it is possible to overdose, so don't down a whole bottle of Vitamin C/D pills in a single go. It's just in these cases your body can readily deal with excess (as long as it's not too much excess).
gregwebs 17y ago
This guy is a great presenter. The hypothesis behind the damages of fructose actually gets worse than what is presented here, as fructose is implicated in the creation of toxic AGE. For a more in depth overview of the science behind fructose that is accessible, I would recommend Good Calorie, Bad Calorie by Gary Taubes. Aside from fructose, I would actually recommend that book to anyone concerned about their health. I think it is important to differentiate between normal (hunter-gatherer) levels of fructose consumption (< 5% of total calories, normally closer to 1%, except perhaps in the summer when fruit is more abundant) and the amount we are eating today. That is, if fructose is harmful, the dangers only seem to manifest at the high levels of intake seen today. Pragmatically, we may not need to be concerned about fructose at all, as eating refined sugar is obviously bad for health, so it should be eliminated anyways. (You need vitamins and minerals, and refined sugar doesn't have any!). Unrefined sources of sugar are not very good nutritional resources either. Tragically, the damages of fructose may have been multiplied by the government recommendations to replace saturated fat intake with polyunsaturated fat. http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/2009/12/cirrhosis-and-corn-oil.html http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/2009/12/cirrhosis-and...
- MikeCapone 17y ago
  Thanks for the recommendation, I've requested it from the public library.
  - gregwebs 17y ago
    Actually, I shouldn't call it accessible since it is extremely detailed (and long). But now without purpose, as this is what is required to make a solid scientific case. It is easy to follow as long as you can maintain an interest in the subject at hand.
    - Tichy 17y ago
      I must admit eventually I became of suspicious of "Good Calories, Bad Calories", too - who says he didn't handpick the studies to quote, like everybody else? The format of the book was very weird, just this stream of quotes. Not very pleasant to read at all.
nearestneighbor 17y ago
Someone will have to answer for sapping and impurifying our precious bodily fluids!
rdouble 17y ago
Jack LaLanne tried to warn us about this 50 years ago: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJVEPB_l8FU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJVEPB_l8FU
dustineichler 17y ago
If you want the jist of this lecture, around 1:15:00 is a good place to start, he rants about Gatorade and McD's. Otherwise, it's O-Chem(?) up to that point. Very interesting stuff. Less Fructose, more Fiber. Less Frankenburgers, more Fruits.
- dustineichler 17y ago
  He also mentions the paleolithic diet as a cure of type 2 diabetes. Link here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_diet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_diet
  - CamperBob 17y ago
    Ah, yes. To live longer, eat like people who were lucky to see the far side of 30.
- dcurtis 17y ago
  I suggest you do not skip the chemistry. It's fascinating and provides solid evidence to back the stuff he talks about later.
  - nearestneighbor 17y ago
    Exactly how does fiber work as an antidote to fructose? I didn't catch that. Did he even explain that?
    - dcurtis 17y ago
      Leptin and ghrelin are the hormones produced in the pancreas and stomach that signal to your brain that you should start or stop eating. Some of the byproducts of fructose metabolism in the liver first cause the production of ghrelin, which stimulates hunger, and then inhibits the production leptin, which prevents the signals that you should stop eating from reaching your brain. The result is that you feel artificially hungrier and then you don't stop eating after you're full. Eating lots of fiber with fructose should theoretically counteract this cycle to some extent, by regulating the hormones and preventing overeating. Almost everywhere fructose is found naturally, it is coupled with huge amounts of fiber. Because of this, humans haven't really been harmed by the negative effects of fructose until very recently. The speaker in the video suggests that you can kind of mitigate the negative effects of fructose by eating lots and lots of fiber, but I don't think this has been scientifically studied yet. It makes sense theoretically, though. Fiber also does a whole lot of other great things for you, too, and he discusses some of them in the video.
nearestneighbor 17y ago
I watched the whole video. I thought he was going to explain why they put salt in coke, but it seems he never did. Was he just implying that they are trying to get people to drink more?
- onoj 17y ago
  salt is hygroscopic - it sucks water from your body making you thirsty / sets off a mechanism which makes you feel thirsty. This is why beer and coke etc have salt in them (also explains free peanuts and pretzels in bars)
  - m_eiman 17y ago
    Salt also tastes good, which is why people want to eat/drink it (and there's probably an evolutionary reason for this - the body needs it). Try peanuts without salt, it's not quite the same.
    - nearestneighbor 17y ago
      Besides those who lived by the sea, where could our ape-man ancestors find salt?
      - middus 17y ago
        Minerals in stones?
      - m_eiman 17y ago
        In the blood of other animals, apparently. http://www.salt.org.il/main.htm http://www.salt.org.il/main.htm The fact that we like it so much, as with sweets, suggests that it was hard to find - a significant mental reward was required to make us make the effort to find it.
        hachiya 17y ago
        Why would the fact that we like things that taste sweet indicate that they were hard to find? Our bodies run on sugar; sources of sugar, such as fruits and starches were not hard to find. Availability and use of fruit in our diet long ago is hardly anything new. It certainly was not hard to find. http://www.health101.org/art_diet2.htm http://www.health101.org/art_diet2.htm Research Yields Surprises about Early Human Diets Teeth Show Fruit Was the Staple By Boyce Rensberger May 15, 1979 issue of the New York Times
jeremyw 17y ago
So this is another odd failure case for science, where researchers from many areas selectively ignored (since the 1970s, let's say) a roughly-worked-out biochemistry. Add political chilling effects and mix. Given that there aren't particularly impervious ties in either political party to sugar/carbs (activists being health advocates on the left and anti-subsidy advocates on the right) I hope this set of research pathologies gets a kick in the pants when sugar support detonates.
- camccann 17y ago
  The sugar lobby is the corn lobby, because that's where most refined sugar comes from. In other words, Midwest farmers, particularly in Iowa. See the problem now?
  - jeremyw 17y ago
    Understood -- I'm saying there are growing factions in both parties that will make these old allegiances obsolete.
pkrumins 17y ago
I watched it a while ago but I did not understand what was the key idea that he wanted to say. Okay, the corn syrup is just fructose, and as I understood from the lecture it's equivalent to poison so we should avoid it. But then sugar from plants and fruit also contains fructose! For every gram of natural sugar there is half a gram of fructose. If we eat natural sugar it seems equivalently bad? I don't get it. So what does the lecture tell? Does it say we shouldn't be consuming sugar at all? Or should we only be consuming glucose part of sugar? Or what? Can anyone explain? Thanks!
- gaius 17y ago
  IIRC T-nation had an article on this. Fructose in an apple is OK because the fibre etc means it is absorbed more slowly. The body isn't designed to have a huge amount of fast-digesting carbs dumped into it in one go - even if the total calories are the same.
- fauigerzigerk 17y ago
  I think what he means is that the amount of fructose you get from eating fruit is much less as a proportion of beneficial nutrients than if you were drinking fruit juice or stuff with high fructose corn syrup added. I think the main message is to avoid fructose in all forms. The rest is basically ABC analysis. Identify where most of your fructose intake originates from and cut down on that source.
voidpointer 17y ago
This was really very interesting. I for one was mostly ignorant to the big difference there was between glucose and fructose. Also the bit on ethanol was quite interesting in itself. The fact that HFCS is made from normal corn syrup (almost 100% glucose), which is processed into fructose seems almost ironic.
scotty79 17y ago
Eat food. No too much. Mostly plants.
- nunb 17y ago
  As the professor points out in that lecture, plants have their own problems (fiber). Human digestive tracts are made for high-quality (bio-available energy/mass) nutrition-dense foods, unlike ruminants, or large apes like the gorilla. And most people get plants confused with seeds. No other animal eats seeds in the quantities we do, especially as Omega-6 rich seed-oils. Pollan has become a touchstone for many, but imho he's fairly wrong.
  - ivan_ah 17y ago
    if i understood correctly, fiber the good part of fruits (fructose being the bad part) ref: ... packaged the poison with the antidote... very good video, learned a lot
- kingkongreveng_ 17y ago
  The whole video is about how fructose is toxic. Many, many plants are rich in fructose. It's not as simple as "eat plants." A modern variety apple or orange is a blast of fructose. It's also perfectly healthy to eat predominantly meat, organs, and dairy if the animals are properly pastured. So the "mostly plants" claim makes little sense without a lot of qualification.
  - ericd 17y ago
    He says that fiber mitigates the fructose in fruit. It's when it's separated from the fiber as juice that it becomes a problem.
    - kingkongreveng_ 17y ago
      The fiber does not compensate for the high levels of fructose in modern fruits. Modern varieties are much sweeter than they were even thirty years ago. Modern seedless grapes are basically candy.
Freebytes 17y ago
Wow. I just read a lot about sugar last night. I wanted to know if glucose was truly the only sugar the brain needed. I found that processed sugars are used almost immediately by the body; whereas, the sugars from natural sources are released at a later time in smaller quantities. I read an article that stated that these large doses of sugar cause a sudden, large increase in insulin which can actually starve the brain from getting all of the sugar it needs as the body tries to dispose of excess sugar. It was a very interesting series of articles that I might hunt down again and post on HN at some point.
johnl 17y ago
If you are going to see grandparents this holiday, a good discussion might be to ask them about their sugar consumption, prevalent health problems now and then, and compare those to your own. Bet there is a big difference.
- CamperBob 17y ago
  If they're honest, what they'll report is that their own grandparents died about 20 years younger than they are now.

153 points by chipsy 17y ago

I was struck by the allusion Lustig makes to sugar being as poisonous as alcohol. It makes ours look like a world of drug fiends.

gregwebs 17y ago
This is an interesting anecdote from someone who claims to have cured his alcohol abuse problems by going low carb. http://fathead-movie.com/index.php/2009/04/30/primal-body-primal-mind-primal-tools/ http://fathead-movie.com/index.php/2009/04/30/primal-body-pr...
- shiny 17y ago
  The paleo diet is awesome. I've lost a considerable amount of weight on it, and feel and look much better. Also, a diet with staples like grass-fed beef, pastured butter (or any other healthy animal fat), avocado, and fish is my kind of diet. No more forcing down bitter grain or soy products in fruitless attempts to go "healthy". Plus, my meals are so substantial and high in fat that I only need to eat once or twice a day. For anyone interested, there's a lot of good paleo sites out there, but I'd start with http://paleonu.com http://paleonu.com and http://freetheanimal.com http://freetheanimal.com And if you can, pick up Nourishing Traditions by Sally Fallon.
gaius 17y ago
If you have ever tried going low- or no- carb, it is exactly like withdrawal. You feel awful and then just a taste, just a little, won't affect the diet, and you feel OK again...

pg 17y ago

I highly recommend watching this.

rarrrrrr 17y ago
The natural health community has been screaming this for decades. Few take heed. My family has spent many years studying human health. The well-researched conclusions are so far from mainstream American beliefs that the ignorant dismiss them as absurd. I'll get down voted, but in the interest of countering groupthink, here are some examples anyway: - Food basics: Avoid hydrogenated oils, sodium nitrite, MSG/yeast extract, artificial colors, high fructose corn syrup, all artificial sweeteners, all grains that aren't whole. Replace sugar with agave nectar or stevia. Know the smoke points for the cooking oils you use an don't exceed them. - Any multivitamin which packages B12 solely as "cyanocobalamin" is cheaply manufactured. Quality vitamins package hydroxocobalamin. You'll probably have to look online or at health food stores to find good quality vitamins. Many of the options sold at pharmacies are little better than candy. - As much as 60% of Americans are deficient in vitamin D. The body makes it in response to skin exposure to direct sunlight (not through glass.) Sufficient vitamin D reduces risk of nearly all cancers by around 70%. Why isn't the American Cancer Society screaming this message? - A cup of blueberries a day is more effective at reducing cholesterol than current pharmaceuticals. Tastes better, too. - Eating refined carbohydrates depletes the supply of B vitamins. For women, this contributes to the discomfort of menstruation. - A number of plants have strong cancer prevention or anticancer properties. Examples: turmeric with black pepper, maca root, garlic. ...a few thousand more little details.
- m_eiman 17y ago
  As much as 60% of Americans are deficient in vitamin D Unlike many other vitamins, it's also very hard to overdose on D. Taking too much of some of the others is worse than not taking any at all, but with D that's not a problem.
  - pyre 17y ago
    IIRC, it's the same with Vitamin C since it's water soluble (i.e. excess escapes through your urine). Just note that -- like everything -- it is possible to overdose, so don't down a whole bottle of Vitamin C/D pills in a single go. It's just in these cases your body can readily deal with excess (as long as it's not too much excess).

gregwebs 17y ago

This guy is a great presenter. The hypothesis behind the damages of fructose actually gets worse than what is presented here, as fructose is implicated in the creation of toxic AGE. For a more in depth overview of the science behind fructose that is accessible, I would recommend Good Calorie, Bad Calorie by Gary Taubes. Aside from fructose, I would actually recommend that book to anyone concerned about their health. I think it is important to differentiate between normal (hunter-gatherer) levels of fructose consumption (< 5% of total calories, normally closer to 1%, except perhaps in the summer when fruit is more abundant) and the amount we are eating today. That is, if fructose is harmful, the dangers only seem to manifest at the high levels of intake seen today. Pragmatically, we may not need to be concerned about fructose at all, as eating refined sugar is obviously bad for health, so it should be eliminated anyways. (You need vitamins and minerals, and refined sugar doesn't have any!). Unrefined sources of sugar are not very good nutritional resources either. Tragically, the damages of fructose may have been multiplied by the government recommendations to replace saturated fat intake with polyunsaturated fat. http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/2009/12/cirrhosis-and-corn-oil.html http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/2009/12/cirrhosis-and...

MikeCapone 17y ago
Thanks for the recommendation, I've requested it from the public library.
- gregwebs 17y ago
  Actually, I shouldn't call it accessible since it is extremely detailed (and long). But now without purpose, as this is what is required to make a solid scientific case. It is easy to follow as long as you can maintain an interest in the subject at hand.
  - Tichy 17y ago
    I must admit eventually I became of suspicious of "Good Calories, Bad Calories", too - who says he didn't handpick the studies to quote, like everybody else? The format of the book was very weird, just this stream of quotes. Not very pleasant to read at all.

nearestneighbor 17y ago

Someone will have to answer for sapping and impurifying our precious bodily fluids!

rdouble 17y ago

Jack LaLanne tried to warn us about this 50 years ago: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJVEPB_l8FU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJVEPB_l8FU

dustineichler 17y ago

If you want the jist of this lecture, around 1:15:00 is a good place to start, he rants about Gatorade and McD's. Otherwise, it's O-Chem(?) up to that point. Very interesting stuff. Less Fructose, more Fiber. Less Frankenburgers, more Fruits.

dustineichler 17y ago
He also mentions the paleolithic diet as a cure of type 2 diabetes. Link here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_diet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_diet
- CamperBob 17y ago
  Ah, yes. To live longer, eat like people who were lucky to see the far side of 30.
dcurtis 17y ago
I suggest you do not skip the chemistry. It's fascinating and provides solid evidence to back the stuff he talks about later.
- nearestneighbor 17y ago
  Exactly how does fiber work as an antidote to fructose? I didn't catch that. Did he even explain that?
  - dcurtis 17y ago
    Leptin and ghrelin are the hormones produced in the pancreas and stomach that signal to your brain that you should start or stop eating. Some of the byproducts of fructose metabolism in the liver first cause the production of ghrelin, which stimulates hunger, and then inhibits the production leptin, which prevents the signals that you should stop eating from reaching your brain. The result is that you feel artificially hungrier and then you don't stop eating after you're full. Eating lots of fiber with fructose should theoretically counteract this cycle to some extent, by regulating the hormones and preventing overeating. Almost everywhere fructose is found naturally, it is coupled with huge amounts of fiber. Because of this, humans haven't really been harmed by the negative effects of fructose until very recently. The speaker in the video suggests that you can kind of mitigate the negative effects of fructose by eating lots and lots of fiber, but I don't think this has been scientifically studied yet. It makes sense theoretically, though. Fiber also does a whole lot of other great things for you, too, and he discusses some of them in the video.

nearestneighbor 17y ago

I watched the whole video. I thought he was going to explain why they put salt in coke, but it seems he never did. Was he just implying that they are trying to get people to drink more?

onoj 17y ago
salt is hygroscopic - it sucks water from your body making you thirsty / sets off a mechanism which makes you feel thirsty. This is why beer and coke etc have salt in them (also explains free peanuts and pretzels in bars)
- m_eiman 17y ago
  Salt also tastes good, which is why people want to eat/drink it (and there's probably an evolutionary reason for this - the body needs it). Try peanuts without salt, it's not quite the same.
  - nearestneighbor 17y ago
    Besides those who lived by the sea, where could our ape-man ancestors find salt?
    - middus 17y ago
      Minerals in stones?
    - m_eiman 17y ago
      In the blood of other animals, apparently. http://www.salt.org.il/main.htm http://www.salt.org.il/main.htm The fact that we like it so much, as with sweets, suggests that it was hard to find - a significant mental reward was required to make us make the effort to find it.
      - hachiya 17y ago
        Why would the fact that we like things that taste sweet indicate that they were hard to find? Our bodies run on sugar; sources of sugar, such as fruits and starches were not hard to find. Availability and use of fruit in our diet long ago is hardly anything new. It certainly was not hard to find. http://www.health101.org/art_diet2.htm http://www.health101.org/art_diet2.htm Research Yields Surprises about Early Human Diets Teeth Show Fruit Was the Staple By Boyce Rensberger May 15, 1979 issue of the New York Times

jeremyw 17y ago

So this is another odd failure case for science, where researchers from many areas selectively ignored (since the 1970s, let's say) a roughly-worked-out biochemistry. Add political chilling effects and mix. Given that there aren't particularly impervious ties in either political party to sugar/carbs (activists being health advocates on the left and anti-subsidy advocates on the right) I hope this set of research pathologies gets a kick in the pants when sugar support detonates.

camccann 17y ago
The sugar lobby is the corn lobby, because that's where most refined sugar comes from. In other words, Midwest farmers, particularly in Iowa. See the problem now?
- jeremyw 17y ago
  Understood -- I'm saying there are growing factions in both parties that will make these old allegiances obsolete.

pkrumins 17y ago

I watched it a while ago but I did not understand what was the key idea that he wanted to say. Okay, the corn syrup is just fructose, and as I understood from the lecture it's equivalent to poison so we should avoid it. But then sugar from plants and fruit also contains fructose! For every gram of natural sugar there is half a gram of fructose. If we eat natural sugar it seems equivalently bad? I don't get it. So what does the lecture tell? Does it say we shouldn't be consuming sugar at all? Or should we only be consuming glucose part of sugar? Or what? Can anyone explain? Thanks!

gaius 17y ago
IIRC T-nation had an article on this. Fructose in an apple is OK because the fibre etc means it is absorbed more slowly. The body isn't designed to have a huge amount of fast-digesting carbs dumped into it in one go - even if the total calories are the same.
fauigerzigerk 17y ago
I think what he means is that the amount of fructose you get from eating fruit is much less as a proportion of beneficial nutrients than if you were drinking fruit juice or stuff with high fructose corn syrup added. I think the main message is to avoid fructose in all forms. The rest is basically ABC analysis. Identify where most of your fructose intake originates from and cut down on that source.

voidpointer 17y ago

This was really very interesting. I for one was mostly ignorant to the big difference there was between glucose and fructose. Also the bit on ethanol was quite interesting in itself. The fact that HFCS is made from normal corn syrup (almost 100% glucose), which is processed into fructose seems almost ironic.

scotty79 17y ago

Eat food. No too much. Mostly plants.

nunb 17y ago
As the professor points out in that lecture, plants have their own problems (fiber). Human digestive tracts are made for high-quality (bio-available energy/mass) nutrition-dense foods, unlike ruminants, or large apes like the gorilla. And most people get plants confused with seeds. No other animal eats seeds in the quantities we do, especially as Omega-6 rich seed-oils. Pollan has become a touchstone for many, but imho he's fairly wrong.
- ivan_ah 17y ago
  if i understood correctly, fiber the good part of fruits (fructose being the bad part) ref: ... packaged the poison with the antidote... very good video, learned a lot
kingkongreveng_ 17y ago
The whole video is about how fructose is toxic. Many, many plants are rich in fructose. It's not as simple as "eat plants." A modern variety apple or orange is a blast of fructose. It's also perfectly healthy to eat predominantly meat, organs, and dairy if the animals are properly pastured. So the "mostly plants" claim makes little sense without a lot of qualification.
- ericd 17y ago
  He says that fiber mitigates the fructose in fruit. It's when it's separated from the fiber as juice that it becomes a problem.
  - kingkongreveng_ 17y ago
    The fiber does not compensate for the high levels of fructose in modern fruits. Modern varieties are much sweeter than they were even thirty years ago. Modern seedless grapes are basically candy.

Freebytes 17y ago

Wow. I just read a lot about sugar last night. I wanted to know if glucose was truly the only sugar the brain needed. I found that processed sugars are used almost immediately by the body; whereas, the sugars from natural sources are released at a later time in smaller quantities. I read an article that stated that these large doses of sugar cause a sudden, large increase in insulin which can actually starve the brain from getting all of the sugar it needs as the body tries to dispose of excess sugar. It was a very interesting series of articles that I might hunt down again and post on HN at some point.

johnl 17y ago

If you are going to see grandparents this holiday, a good discussion might be to ask them about their sugar consumption, prevalent health problems now and then, and compare those to your own. Bet there is a big difference.

CamperBob 17y ago
If they're honest, what they'll report is that their own grandparents died about 20 years younger than they are now.