3 ms·

Well I have a grandmother who lived to 92 years old and smoked heavily everyday, she never developed OCPD, carcinoma of the lungs, or any other health issues co

Well I have a grandmother who lived to 92 years old and smoked heavily everyday, she never developed OCPD, carcinoma of the lungs, or any other health issues commonly related to cigarette smoking. Again the first case of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in a child was 1983, today 10% have it. Compare the sugar content of the Hi-C, fruit loops and ice cream of the 70's and compare it with the products of today. And that's not to say if you were born 10 years later you would have non alcoholic fatty liver disease or childhood type 2 diabetes, but the point is those didn't exist at all in the 70's. And it's not exactly controversial, talk to any pediatrician, 100% of all childhood cases of type 2 diabetes and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease could have been avoided through diet.

lisper 9y ago
> Again the first case of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in a child was 1983, today 10% have it. Sure, but what I'm saying is that if sugar were the sole cause, the first case should have shown up long before 1983. I was eating tons of sugar through the seventies, and I doubt very much that I was anywhere close to alone in that. I do not doubt that sugar (fructose in particular) is bad for you. But it seems to me that it can't be just sugar consumption that accounts for today's higher disease rates. There has to be something else going on that we haven't figured out yet.
- will_brown 9y ago
  Just to reemphasize my first comment, sugar is an obvious contributing factor to obesity. As to the diseases (type 2 diabetes and fatty liver) in children, there may be other contributing factors but ask any pediatrician, remove the sugar from the diet and these diseases can be prevented in 100% of cases. So someone such as yourself who ate a ton of sugar in the 70's, you primed your body for obesity, whether or not you were ever obese or simply overweight. What does that mean? Well when you consume glucose and it enters the blood your body releases insulin, insulin enlarges all the cells in the body but especially fat cells, and that significantly alters how your body stores and burns fat. All things being equal if you don't have a caloric surplus your body won't store the excess fat. A caloric surplus that leads to fat storage is about 30 calories per day or about 2 peanut m&ms, so it's not much. That said not knowing anything more about your childhood diet, I do know if your sugar consumption was the same but you were a child today on average you would be consuming 500-600 more calories today than in the 70's. Therefore, you would be more likely to be overweight or even obese today than in the 70's. You don't need to be obese to have fatty liver or type 2 diabetes, but statistically you would be more likely to have those diseases if you were obese. I am not suggesting sugar is the sole factor of obesity or these disease, rather sugar removal would prevent 100% of these diseases in children, otherwise I can't argue against your anecdotal evidence of eating a ton of sugar but only highlight the reality kids today are consuming significantly more sugar on average and significantly more calories on average. See: http://www.cleveland.com/fighting-fat/index.ssf/2010/04/americans_are_consuming_more_calories_than_ever.html http://www.cleveland.com/fighting-fat/index.ssf/2010/04/amer...
  - lisper 9y ago
    I think I'm still not making myself clear. I don't disagree with anything you say. But something changed around the 1970s-1980s time frame that increased the incidence of these diseases from zero to 10%. Whatever it was that changed, I don't think it was that kids were eating less that some critical threshold of sugar and now are eating more than that. Something else changed, and we don't yet know what it is. But it would be worth figuring it out IMO.
    - will_brown 9y ago
      As to the fatty liver disease, it's the sugar. And I understand it does not sound reasonable, because humans had been consuming sugar, even in large quantities before 1983, so your conclusion on its face seems reasonable. However, non alcoholic fatty liver disease isn't anything new in humans it's just new in children. It used to take until adulthood to develop the disease and now it's being developed as young as 1-2 years old. From the Liver Foundation, to the Cleveland clinic, to any pediatrician, the conclusion is all the same...it's sugar. And for thousands of years humans have been purposefully over feeding animals for the sole purpose of causing fat livers. From the ancient Egyptians to modern foie gras, humans forcefeed these animals grains (sugars). There have been no mystery variables for thousands of years, feeding animals grains (sugars) leads to fatty livers. As to humans it's the same thing, over consume sugar and you'll eventually develop fatty liver, it just didn't happen until adulthood until consumption of sugar exploded. Still you are right, let's assume it's not sugar but some recently introduced variable, it is worth finding it out, but it's honestly not worth debating at the expense of kids health when we know whether or not there is some mystery variable, all that needs to be modified is sugar consumption and the disease would be eradicated. But IMO yes, kids used to eat less than some critical threshold of sugar, to claim otherwise is telling the Liver Foundation, Cleveland Clinic and American Diabetes Association they are wrong, it's even telling the sugar industry their accounting of sugar consumption is wrong. Humans have always gotten fatty liver from sugar, only the rate has increased and the age has decreased consistent with the increased sugar consumption. It really is on par with tobacco saying lung cancer or OCPD isn't caused by smoking but some other variable, and so we should find that variable rather than change our smoking habits.

lisper 9y ago

> Again the first case of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in a child was 1983, today 10% have it. Sure, but what I'm saying is that if sugar were the sole cause, the first case should have shown up long before 1983. I was eating tons of sugar through the seventies, and I doubt very much that I was anywhere close to alone in that. I do not doubt that sugar (fructose in particular) is bad for you. But it seems to me that it can't be just sugar consumption that accounts for today's higher disease rates. There has to be something else going on that we haven't figured out yet.

will_brown 9y ago
Just to reemphasize my first comment, sugar is an obvious contributing factor to obesity. As to the diseases (type 2 diabetes and fatty liver) in children, there may be other contributing factors but ask any pediatrician, remove the sugar from the diet and these diseases can be prevented in 100% of cases. So someone such as yourself who ate a ton of sugar in the 70's, you primed your body for obesity, whether or not you were ever obese or simply overweight. What does that mean? Well when you consume glucose and it enters the blood your body releases insulin, insulin enlarges all the cells in the body but especially fat cells, and that significantly alters how your body stores and burns fat. All things being equal if you don't have a caloric surplus your body won't store the excess fat. A caloric surplus that leads to fat storage is about 30 calories per day or about 2 peanut m&ms, so it's not much. That said not knowing anything more about your childhood diet, I do know if your sugar consumption was the same but you were a child today on average you would be consuming 500-600 more calories today than in the 70's. Therefore, you would be more likely to be overweight or even obese today than in the 70's. You don't need to be obese to have fatty liver or type 2 diabetes, but statistically you would be more likely to have those diseases if you were obese. I am not suggesting sugar is the sole factor of obesity or these disease, rather sugar removal would prevent 100% of these diseases in children, otherwise I can't argue against your anecdotal evidence of eating a ton of sugar but only highlight the reality kids today are consuming significantly more sugar on average and significantly more calories on average. See: http://www.cleveland.com/fighting-fat/index.ssf/2010/04/americans_are_consuming_more_calories_than_ever.html http://www.cleveland.com/fighting-fat/index.ssf/2010/04/amer...
- lisper 9y ago
  I think I'm still not making myself clear. I don't disagree with anything you say. But something changed around the 1970s-1980s time frame that increased the incidence of these diseases from zero to 10%. Whatever it was that changed, I don't think it was that kids were eating less that some critical threshold of sugar and now are eating more than that. Something else changed, and we don't yet know what it is. But it would be worth figuring it out IMO.
  - will_brown 9y ago
    As to the fatty liver disease, it's the sugar. And I understand it does not sound reasonable, because humans had been consuming sugar, even in large quantities before 1983, so your conclusion on its face seems reasonable. However, non alcoholic fatty liver disease isn't anything new in humans it's just new in children. It used to take until adulthood to develop the disease and now it's being developed as young as 1-2 years old. From the Liver Foundation, to the Cleveland clinic, to any pediatrician, the conclusion is all the same...it's sugar. And for thousands of years humans have been purposefully over feeding animals for the sole purpose of causing fat livers. From the ancient Egyptians to modern foie gras, humans forcefeed these animals grains (sugars). There have been no mystery variables for thousands of years, feeding animals grains (sugars) leads to fatty livers. As to humans it's the same thing, over consume sugar and you'll eventually develop fatty liver, it just didn't happen until adulthood until consumption of sugar exploded. Still you are right, let's assume it's not sugar but some recently introduced variable, it is worth finding it out, but it's honestly not worth debating at the expense of kids health when we know whether or not there is some mystery variable, all that needs to be modified is sugar consumption and the disease would be eradicated. But IMO yes, kids used to eat less than some critical threshold of sugar, to claim otherwise is telling the Liver Foundation, Cleveland Clinic and American Diabetes Association they are wrong, it's even telling the sugar industry their accounting of sugar consumption is wrong. Humans have always gotten fatty liver from sugar, only the rate has increased and the age has decreased consistent with the increased sugar consumption. It really is on par with tobacco saying lung cancer or OCPD isn't caused by smoking but some other variable, and so we should find that variable rather than change our smoking habits.