17 ms·

John Yudkin: the man who tried to warn us about sugar

230 points by tomhoward 13y ago

gojomo 13y ago
Another anti-sugar bestseller from the same era was William Dufty's 'Sugar Blues' [1975]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_Blues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_Blues
loganfrederick 13y ago
Mentioned in the article, here is the direct link to Professor Lustig's talk "Sugar: The Bitter Truth". I can personally attest to its high quality: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
- chillax 13y ago
  You might be interested in Alan Aragons take on it too: http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/ http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-ab...
  - pvnick 13y ago
    This is a brilliant article and everyone should really listen to people like Alan Aragon (and Lyle Mcdonald too fwiw). They know and communicate the science very well and aren't about to resort to the sensationalist rhetoric that's so prevalent in nutrition. Thanks for posting!
mistakoala 13y ago
They can prise my sugar... from my cold, dead hands.
b1ueocean 13y ago
Parents really need to stop giving this poison to their children. All birthday parties & events geared towards kids has this poison as the main attraction. And don't get me started on breakfast cereals....
- EpicEng 13y ago
  Oh c'mon, lighten up. Sure, kids shouldn't be eating frosted flakes and garbage like that on a regular basis, but you're not going to give your kid a birthday cake? No occasional ice cream cones? Must be fun to be your kid. Everything in moderation.
  - pradocchia 13y ago
    Birthday cakes, Halloween candy, Christmas candy....this is a tremendous amount of sugar, and is kind of shocking to one who grew up without it. The ubiquity of sugar today discourages moderation by normalizing consumption. It would be like having ash trays in every public space and cigarette ads on tv, with "enjoy responsibly" as the tag line.
    - sosborn 13y ago
      > It would be like having ash trays in every public space and cigarette ads on tv, with "enjoy responsibly" as the tag line Like they do with alcohol? Seriously, what's wrong with enjoying sugar responsibly?
    - EpicEng 13y ago
      The ubiquity of sugar today discourages moderation by normalizing consumption. Ok, and that's bad, but I can't control other people's kids. I can however treat my son every so often without fear of anything terrible happening. It would be like having ash trays in every public space and cigarette ads on tv, with "enjoy responsibly" as the tag line. Not really. Adults chose to smoke. They're grown ups, they get to make choices and live with the consequences. I'm fine with them smoking outdoors as well because it doesn't take away my choice to be in a smoke free environment the vast majority of the time. So how is indoor smoking like eating candy again? I'd like to see some data which shows that occasional sugar intake leads to real health problems.
    - king_jester 13y ago
      > Birthday cakes, Halloween candy, Christmas candy....this is a tremendous amount of sugar, and is kind of shocking to one who grew up without it. Each of those events happens 1 time per year. Having the occasional slice of cake or some candy is not the problem in terms of a diet.
wozniacki 13y ago
I know that Business Insider is practically detested in these parts, but the piece linked here neatly summarizes - with line charts - the misguided dietary trends in the U.S., that have led to the high prevalence of chronic conditions like obesity and diabetes and the general state of poor health and thereby, soaring medical costs. http://www.businessinsider.com/whats-wrong-with-the-modern-diet-charts-2014-2 http://www.businessinsider.com/whats-wrong-with-the-modern-d...
- ams6110 13y ago
  And yet we still keep thinking the government has the answers to health care. The FDA promoted most of these trends.
  - CEyzaguirre 13y ago
    And yet others have such faith in the market behind such regulatory capture.
fredgrott 13y ago
a former molecular bio major, Be careful folks.. the sugar they are referring to is corn syrup which was used as fat taste replacement..sucrose fructose in small doses is still fine..although do not use it a diet plan as its a hunger enhancer as it blocks a body released chemical that tells are body to stop eating.
- voltagex_ 13y ago
  >blocks a body released chemical that tells are body to stop eating Got any more info on this?
sjtrny 13y ago
It's not as simple as "sugar is poison". Some form of "sugar" is in virtually everything we eat. It is unavoidable. Just stick to the rule of "Eat food, not too much, mostly plants" and quit screaming about sugar.
- rosser 13y ago
  Interestingly enough, the very source of that quote goes on to make a bright-line distinction between food and food products, which, not coincidentally, are chief on the "sugar is poison" crowd's "avoid" list.
  - sjtrny 13y ago
    I don't agree with most of what Michael Pollan suggests. To me there is no distinction between food and food products. I just think the quote is a good general guideline.
- specialist 13y ago
  You need to be more clear by what you mean by "sugar".
shpx 13y ago
This must be what it feels like when people started accepting that smoking or drunk driving is bad for you. I mean I didn't even think to consider that sugar is essentially a drug...
eliben 13y ago
Interesting to see this, having just finished one of Gary Taubes' books and reading another. Especially "Good Calories, Bad Calories" is an extremely well-researched work talking exactly about the issues discussed in this article, presenting countless researches and scientific facts related to it.
Jun8 13y ago
As they say: "The dose makes the poison". Stating that sugar is toxic, as Lustig and others do, (see his talk on YouTube or http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.htm...) to me does not make much sense in fighting against the super high levels of consumption: When you argue a position that's too far removed from most people's accepted positions, they tend to tune you out. Note that high-fructose corn syrup (water+glucose+fructose) is included in this generalized definition of "sugar", which, of course nobody would add to their coffee or tea (that would be sucrose or table sugar), but is now used ubiquitously in the food industry (http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/edible-innovations/sugar2.htm http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/edible-innovatio...). A better option would be to single HFCS out and fight against its use. While reading this the following question came to mind: If Yudkin's results were so groundbreaking and well backed up, why was he kind of shut off from the academic community. Stating that the "sugar lobby" ended his career sounds a bit too far fetched.
- spindritf 13y ago
  Note that high-fructose corn syrup (water+glucose+fructose) is included in this generalized definition of "sugar" I cannot imagine a narrower definition of "sugar" than glucose+fructose. It's exactly what you add to your coffee and tea, just in the form of sucrose crystals. There is no functional difference between HFCS and table sugar. If the regulators/activists force the food industry to replace HFCS with some other sugar, all they'll achieve is a minor increase in prices.
  - theophrastus 13y ago
    I have no idea what you mean by "functional difference" here. But there are significant differences in both metabolic requirements and sugar structure between fructose and sucrose (that being one whole glucose moiety). The glycosidic bond of the disaccharide requires a specific enzyme sucrase.
  - Jun8 13y ago
    I think when you say that there "is no functional difference between HFCS and table sugar" you mean that sucrose is broken down to 50% glucose and 50% fructose during digestion, which is correct (although HFCS is not 50-50 but close). The move to HFCS was for price reasons, so it won't be a "minor increase in prices", this may actually be more acceptable way to curb sugar use than taxing it.
res0nat0r 13y ago
Currently reading Salt, Sugar, Fat by Michael Moss, check it out if this interests you. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/15797397-salt-sugar-fat https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/15797397-salt-sugar-fat
pvnick 13y ago
I'm getting sick of this ignorant sugar alarmism. Sugar is not the culprit behind all the diseases listed in the article. Obesity is [5] [6]. Unless of course you're talking about cavities. Then not brushing your teeth is the culprit. The reason sugar gets such a bad rep is that high-sugar foods tend to be less-filling and lead to overeating [1]. Stay at a healthy weight by controlling caloric consumption [2]. The article mentions such scientific evidence as "nearly two-thirds of the studies cited there to repudiate Lustig's views were funded by Coca-Cola." Seriously? Normally I wouldn't care - sugar alarmism = more candy for me - except that, as the article notes, "Lustig ... calls for sugar to be treated as a toxin, like alcohol and tobacco, and for sugar-laden foods to be taxed, labelled with health warnings and banned for anyone under 18." That's just bullshit extremism. Doughnuts, one of my favorite foods, can be part of a healthy diet just like anything else. In fact, sugar is fantastic for stimulating muscle growth [3], and can help with diet adherence during a caloric deficit [4]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin_index http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin_index - this page lists satiety indexes for common foods. Notice all the lowest scores are bakery goods and sugary snacks. [2] http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2009/10/14/ajcn.2009.28595 http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2009/10/14/ajcn.2009... [3] http://jcs.biologists.org/content/122/20/3589.full http://jcs.biologists.org/content/122/20/3589.full [4] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11126336?ordinalpos=47&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11126336?ordinalpos=47&it... [5] http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/health-topics/topics/obe/risks.html http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/health-topics/topics/obe/ris... [6] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19801534 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19801534 Edit: People are taking my words out of context. This is my reply to another comment below that elucidates my meaning: "I advocate moderation and balance. Consume reasonable calorie and macronutrient (protein, fat, carbohydrate) quantities. Eat what allows you to do that. For me, those carbs come from doughnuts and candy but also from brown rice and pasta. Just like my meats include both lean meats (chicken breast) and fatty, delicious meats (bacon). Combine this with exercise and all you'll avoid all the scary things the article talks about."
- smtddr 13y ago
  >>Doughnuts, one of my favorite foods, can be part of a healthy diet just like anything else. When you say "doughnut" you mean this[1], right? If so that's 100%, Grade A nonsense and abruptly ends any consideration I was giving your comment. 1. http://twincitiesdonut.com/images/donut.jpg http://twincitiesdonut.com/images/donut.jpg
jimeuxx 13y ago
Lustig could no doubt write some great posts here about growth hacking and selling your product, but if there's one thing he's proven about nutrition, it's that he's no one to be taken seriously when talking about it. One taste of what Joe Public doesn't see in his unintended hyperbole is here: http://sweetenerstudies.com/sites/default/files/resources/files/Scientific-Review-of-Lustigs-Fat-Chance.pdf http://sweetenerstudies.com/sites/default/files/resources/fi... Blaming sugar for everything is no better than what the fat-bashing crowd do. It leads to self-parodying solutions like the "keto-adapted" lifestyle. We don't eat rice or bananas because refined sugar is to blame for all the ills of the world. Those crazy Japanese are probably just lying about their lack of heart disease anyway (when we remember the place exists at all). As long as people only understand nutrition in terms of reductionist extremes, "alternative" diets are going to continue being a bad joke that achieves little more than inflating the ego and bank balance of people like Lustig.
- ynniv 13y ago
  Wow, thanks for linking a really awful rebuttal. Not only does "Mark Kern, PHD, RD, CSSD, Professor of Exercise and Nutritional Sciences" start off by saying that Lustig is inherently biased by selling a book "Even if all proceeds are being donated to charity", he later goes on to drop such gems as: The key for preventing obesity and metabolic syndrome is to avoid consuming excessive energy (Calories) Maybe this is still debated in the (surely non-profit) exercise world, but I see no evidence that eating too many calories of lean meat would cause metabolic syndrome, or that limiting daily intake to 2000 calories of soda would cause one to become healthier. Much of Kern's lengthy rebuttal are technical points that are beyond me to evaluate, but I suspect that the book is intended for a non academic medical audience. In fact Kern says It is possible that the author’s intent was to simplify these processes for the reader, but doing so inaccurately calls into question his knowledge of metabolism, upon which he bases much of his book. Perhaps one could use other material he has authored for a technical audience. And Kern is pedantic with quotes like "real food doesn’t have or need a Nutrition Facts Label". A casual reader would understand that a mango does not have a complicated ingredient list, Kern says: While it is true that labels do not need to appear on unpackaged foods such as a produce, the Code of Federal Regulations is clear regarding nutrient labeling for these types of foods. The regulation from the Federal government is that nutrition facts must voluntarily be posted for at least 90% of fresh food items in a conspicuous place by at least 60% of companies that sell food. Perhaps Kern doesn't understand who the audience of a trade book is. Kern also cites many studies that I'm not going to track down and evaluate for their own biases. Giving talks, writing papers and selling books is how our world works. If that's the only thing Lustig is doing wrong, then he's doing alright by me. but if there's one thing he's proven about nutrition, it's that he's no one to be taken seriously when talking about it If you're going to grind your axe here, please make better arguments.
PakG1 13y ago
The underlying premise that there's something strange about the correlation between the rise of sugar and the rise of health issues is stark. Obviously, we can't say that correlation = causation. But such data points should be taken seriously for more investigation, much like for example, global warming (which is a debate that I still don't completely understand either). This is the key quote for me: Yudkin's detractors had one trump card: his evidence often relied on observations, rather than on explanations, of rising obesity, heart disease and diabetes rates. "He could tell you these things were happening but not why, or at least not in a scientifically acceptable way," says David Gillespie, author of the bestselling Sweet Poison. "Three or four of the hormones that would explain his theories had not been discovered." Let's apply that towards global warming. This reminds me of Al Gore's little movie where he talks about his old prof gathering climate data. The temperature kept going up, and he could not figure out why. Lots of data, no explanation. What should have been the proper response? Dismissal because there's no explanation or further study? I worry that there are other things where the timeline required to truly observe and understand things is not possible, and that risks are completely accepted because no current viable explanation can be made as to why the thing is actually dangerous. The biggest one for me is wireless communications. Can cell phones and other wireless devices cause cancer? Generally, we say no. But we don't have enough data to truly say no, and we probably won't have that data until kids born after 2000 become geriatrics, as they'll be the first generation to truly grow up from birth in an age with ubiquitous cell phones. And besides that, it's not like anyone's been able to provide any widely acceptable explanation on the matter anyway. So we'll just trundle along blindly because our current data says there's no risk. I'm mostly sad because what other choice do we really have? You can't turn back the clock on technological progress even if you wanted to.
- adwf 13y ago
  Gonna have to call you up on the cell phones I'm afraid. It has been pretty conclusively proven that there is no link between cell phone radiation and cancer [1]. Unless you call a study of 420,000 people over 20 years insignificant... And as for a mechanical explanation why cell phone radiation doesn't cause cancer: It's because the radiation type used is non-ionising! As for thermal effects, it's orders of magnitude less than standing in direct sunlight. It's basic physics. (Well perhaps not the ionising radiation part, Einstein got a Nobel for the photoelectric effect...) This myth has been debunked as pure fear-mongering time and time again. The only slight recommendations that are issued are for longer term studies - simply because cell phones haven't really been in heavy usage for more than 20 years. Pure fear of the unknown, despite study after study showing no effect. [1] http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/98/23/1707.abstract http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/98/23/1707.abstract
asucks 13y ago
In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women.
gnusouth 13y ago
More info. Anti-sugar: http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3821440.htm http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3821440.htm Anti-anti-sugar: http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3888657.htm http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3888657.htm The whole thing strikes me as quite sensationalist, and I suspect that digging into the research would affirm the cholesterol <-> heart disease link. For now, I'll trust the scientific consensus over these crackpot types.
- ynniv 13y ago
  Week old accounts with no prior comments shouldn't be allowed to use hot button words like "crackpot". They should probably include IP addresses in their comments as well.
  - gnusouth 13y ago
    I had to start somewhere, didn't I? Yours truly, a new HN user. IP address: 115.64.60.28
    - ynniv 13y ago
      Perhaps cut your teeth on a nice technical discussion before calling an article in your local metro newspaper "crackpot".
    - 72deluxe 13y ago
      Greetings to Balgowlah, Australia! What's the weather like? Here in the UK, it is raining incessantly, and Worcester up the road is flooding due the Severn bursting its banks.
      - gnusouth 13y ago
        Very dry here, some rain would be nice if you could arrange that ;)
        72deluxe 13y ago
Pxtl 13y ago
I'm just guessing, but it occurs to me that prior to the 20th century the average European probably consumed more ethanol than refined sugar.
victorhooi 13y ago
I'm currently reading "The Low-Carb Fraud", by Dr. T. Colin Campbell, who was one of the original authors of the China Study. http://www.amazon.com/The-Low-Carb-Fraud-Colin-Campbell/dp/1940363098 http://www.amazon.com/The-Low-Carb-Fraud-Colin-Campbell/dp/1... Campbell has multiple degrees in biochemistry and nutrition, and from what I can tell, seems to be pretty well respected in his field. On the other hand, Gary Taube, who wrote Good Calories, Bad Calories, and who people here seem to hold up as some kind of nutritional guru - basically is a science writer, with no formal education in nutrition at all. Campbell basically spends the first few chapters debunking many of Gary Taubes's conclusions, and then talking about the current low-carb fads. Definitely a good read, and approachable.
- mistermann 13y ago
  Despite not being done the book yet, could you give us an idea what the general premise is, and how it somehow disproves what to me at least is the overwhelming real world effectiveness of a low carb diet for losing weight?
  - jacobolus 13y ago
    The author participated in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_China_Study https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_China_Study which compared rural Chinese diet and health outcomes to typical western ones. He’s been vegan for >20 years, and he studies and advocates a vegan diet, because he claims that eating animal products is unhealthy / causes disease. He is the darling of vegans, among whom he has a large following. Among books written from that perspective, my understanding from reading various reviews is that this is one of the best argued and supported ones, with lots of solid citations of scientific literature. Because the perspective is controversial (e.g. it’s different than the norm, it threatens “conventional wisdom” and food businesses) the book has also drawn some flak from other scientists who disagree with the book’s conclusions.
    - BSousa 13y ago
      While I'm not going to get into good or bad about vegan/meat eaters, you do know that the China Study has been heavily criticised for selective data picking right? Thus, just because he was part of it doesn't mean he is a reliable source. I've included the link below as a starting point for the criticism of the China Study. There is a good bit of scientific literature on it as well (am at work, don't have the links handy) http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/ http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fal...
sandGorgon 13y ago
Here's a very interesting, recent research paper that seems to corroborate AND defy the "sugar is evil" statement: Dietary composition and its associations with insulin sensitivity and insulin secretion in youth. - While long-term excess of energy intake has been shown to lead to overweight and obesity, dietary macronutrient composition is not independently correlated with insulin sensitivity (IS) and insulin secretion (ISct). HOWEVER, For every 1 % increase in daily protein intake (%), Area-Under-Curve(AUC) Insulin/Glucose t= 30 min decreased by 1·1 % (P= 0·033). FYI - increase of AUC is correlated with glycemic response to foods. [2] [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24047611 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24047611 [2] http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/13/2/172.abstract http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/13/2/172.abstract
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
Buonaparte 13y ago
I'm sure everyone would leave this earth much happier if they spent more time enjoying the life they have rather than arguing with others about nutrition. I guess that applies to everything...
source99 13y ago
Poll: Obesity is caused by?
- source99 13y ago
  Sugar
- source99 13y ago
  Fat
- sosborn 13y ago
  Eating too much.
- josefresco 13y ago
  Imbalance.
- logfromblammo 13y ago
  A subatomic particle: the adipon. These are sometimes produced in bogon-bogon collisions, and are the primary reason why people overeat when stressed.
bharatFNS 13y ago
Had I not cut down on my sugar intake, I would be bloating and down with diabetes by now. Gosh! I did it without John Yudkin's book, I am going to read it.
joyofdata 13y ago
XYLITOL :) We use it for coffee, baking, cocktails, Sushi rice and more. Xylitol has less intensive impact on the insulin system and does not cause a glycaemic peak as strong as you experience it with sugar. Xylitol is also proven to directly prevent Caries. There are numerous studies on Xylitol and its benefits - Google is your friend. How is it possible that in a thread on sugar even after 146 comments nobody mentions Xylitol? BTW ... Xylitol is for me not a sugar-subtitute because it tastes better than sugar. In case you live in Germany or EU and you need a realiably source - www.xucker.de. No I am not affiliated with them.
- Uberphallus 13y ago
  Versandkosten (brutto) 12,90EUR 13 € to send 1 Kg to a neighbouring country? Really?
- logfromblammo 13y ago
  Erythritol and glycerol are also decent sugar-alcohol sweeteners. Other types of sugar alcohols are not suitable as sugar replacements. Methanol and ethylene glycol are poisonous. Mannitol, sorbitol, isomalt, maltitol, and lactitol will all give you horrible gas and diarrhea. To a certain extent, xylitol and glycerol will also have a laxative effect, but as erythritol is absorbed by the gut, it is the only sugar alcohol that can be consumed in excess without dire colonic consequences.
cjf4 13y ago
Calories in v calories out is absolute in terms of weight loss/gain, but that's just a quantitative measure, not a qualitative one. For instance, the famed "Twinkies at a Caloric Deficit" diet will cause you to lose weight, but not in any sort of good way, and will do all sorts of terrible things to your health, not the least of which is deprivation of important micro and macro nutrients. Sugar isn't inherently "bad", but the way most people consume it is. High sugar foods, in essence, have very poor bang for your caloric buck.
valtih1978 13y ago
This is complete bullshit. The civilization is dying because of addiction to cars and private households (urban sprawl) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPS1y81b1Bw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPS1y81b1Bw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugv0OY6LyuE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugv0OY6LyuE http://www.postcarbon.org/ http://www.postcarbon.org/ This has nothing to do with sugar. Regarding the cardio-vasculous system, the viscous fats (everything besides the plant oil and fish fat) are really dangerous. I feel the chalestirol clogging my vessels every time I eat the viscous fats.
Anevenua 13y ago
Sixto Rodriguez singing "Sugar Man" in Background of this site.
yeureka 13y ago
On a recent BBC Horizon, two identical twins went for a month on two separate diets. One of the twins ate a high carb low fat diet, the other did the reverse. By the end of the experiment the one with the worse metabolical and biological outcomes was the twin on the high fat low carb diet. In fact the doctors told him to stop as he was becoming pre-diabetic. link to bbc programme: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03t8r4h http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03t8r4h
- JoeAltmaier 13y ago
  Sounds like it was bad, for those two. Hard to draw any further conclusions from that.
  - yeureka 13y ago
    It was definitely bad for both of them, however the twin on the high fat low carb diet fared much worse even though he was consuming less calories than the carb binging twin.
- eddiedunn 13y ago
  The doctors were uneducated, he was not at all becoming pre-diabetic.
rapala 13y ago
Sometimes it seams that people are interested in these technical and highly specific debates on how to eat right to avoid responsibility. They want to "know" that eating right is so difficult and badly understood that it can't be done without a special diet. When they then select a diet and it works, they attribute it to the diet and not the utmost care that they followed the diet with.
yetanotherphd 13y ago
I don't know if this man's views on sugar are accurate, but things like: >''Reviews of the body of scientific evidence by expert committees have concluded that consuming sugar as part of a balanced diet does not induce lifestyle diseases such as diabetes and heart disease,'' he says.If you look up Robert Lustig on Wikipedia, nearly two-thirds of the studies cited there to repudiate Lustig's views were funded by Coca-Cola. really disturb me. I think there is something wrong with are intellectual culture when we give completely undeserved credulity to studies with obvious biases.
jjindev 13y ago
I am not a nutritionist or a biochemist, but as a guy with an old BS Chem and a general knowledge, it does not surprise me to hear (again) that we are not all bomb calorimeters. We have long known that our metabolic pathways are neither uniform nor universal. There is no surprise there. When you eat fat, carbohydrate, or cellulose, different things happen. Thus, I think the extreme "calories is calories" argument is anti-scientific. Given the real complexity, I personally favor a varied and omnivorous diet, avoiding things both unnatural in their manufacture but also unnatural in their availability. A diet high in sugar is not natural. It would be very surprising if evolution and the evolution of our accompanying microbiome prepared us for it.

230 points by tomhoward 13y ago

Another anti-sugar bestseller from the same era was William Dufty's 'Sugar Blues' [1975]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_Blues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_Blues

loganfrederick 13y ago

Mentioned in the article, here is the direct link to Professor Lustig's talk "Sugar: The Bitter Truth". I can personally attest to its high quality: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

chillax 13y ago
You might be interested in Alan Aragons take on it too: http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/ http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-ab...
- pvnick 13y ago
  This is a brilliant article and everyone should really listen to people like Alan Aragon (and Lyle Mcdonald too fwiw). They know and communicate the science very well and aren't about to resort to the sensationalist rhetoric that's so prevalent in nutrition. Thanks for posting!

mistakoala 13y ago

They can prise my sugar... from my cold, dead hands.

b1ueocean 13y ago

Parents really need to stop giving this poison to their children. All birthday parties & events geared towards kids has this poison as the main attraction. And don't get me started on breakfast cereals....

EpicEng 13y ago
Oh c'mon, lighten up. Sure, kids shouldn't be eating frosted flakes and garbage like that on a regular basis, but you're not going to give your kid a birthday cake? No occasional ice cream cones? Must be fun to be your kid. Everything in moderation.
- pradocchia 13y ago
  Birthday cakes, Halloween candy, Christmas candy....this is a tremendous amount of sugar, and is kind of shocking to one who grew up without it. The ubiquity of sugar today discourages moderation by normalizing consumption. It would be like having ash trays in every public space and cigarette ads on tv, with "enjoy responsibly" as the tag line.
  - sosborn 13y ago
    > It would be like having ash trays in every public space and cigarette ads on tv, with "enjoy responsibly" as the tag line Like they do with alcohol? Seriously, what's wrong with enjoying sugar responsibly?
  - EpicEng 13y ago
    The ubiquity of sugar today discourages moderation by normalizing consumption. Ok, and that's bad, but I can't control other people's kids. I can however treat my son every so often without fear of anything terrible happening. It would be like having ash trays in every public space and cigarette ads on tv, with "enjoy responsibly" as the tag line. Not really. Adults chose to smoke. They're grown ups, they get to make choices and live with the consequences. I'm fine with them smoking outdoors as well because it doesn't take away my choice to be in a smoke free environment the vast majority of the time. So how is indoor smoking like eating candy again? I'd like to see some data which shows that occasional sugar intake leads to real health problems.
  - king_jester 13y ago
    > Birthday cakes, Halloween candy, Christmas candy....this is a tremendous amount of sugar, and is kind of shocking to one who grew up without it. Each of those events happens 1 time per year. Having the occasional slice of cake or some candy is not the problem in terms of a diet.

wozniacki 13y ago

I know that Business Insider is practically detested in these parts, but the piece linked here neatly summarizes - with line charts - the misguided dietary trends in the U.S., that have led to the high prevalence of chronic conditions like obesity and diabetes and the general state of poor health and thereby, soaring medical costs. http://www.businessinsider.com/whats-wrong-with-the-modern-diet-charts-2014-2 http://www.businessinsider.com/whats-wrong-with-the-modern-d...

ams6110 13y ago
And yet we still keep thinking the government has the answers to health care. The FDA promoted most of these trends.
- CEyzaguirre 13y ago
  And yet others have such faith in the market behind such regulatory capture.

fredgrott 13y ago

a former molecular bio major, Be careful folks.. the sugar they are referring to is corn syrup which was used as fat taste replacement..sucrose fructose in small doses is still fine..although do not use it a diet plan as its a hunger enhancer as it blocks a body released chemical that tells are body to stop eating.

voltagex_ 13y ago
>blocks a body released chemical that tells are body to stop eating Got any more info on this?

sjtrny 13y ago

It's not as simple as "sugar is poison". Some form of "sugar" is in virtually everything we eat. It is unavoidable. Just stick to the rule of "Eat food, not too much, mostly plants" and quit screaming about sugar.

rosser 13y ago
Interestingly enough, the very source of that quote goes on to make a bright-line distinction between food and food products, which, not coincidentally, are chief on the "sugar is poison" crowd's "avoid" list.
- sjtrny 13y ago
  I don't agree with most of what Michael Pollan suggests. To me there is no distinction between food and food products. I just think the quote is a good general guideline.
specialist 13y ago
You need to be more clear by what you mean by "sugar".

shpx 13y ago

This must be what it feels like when people started accepting that smoking or drunk driving is bad for you. I mean I didn't even think to consider that sugar is essentially a drug...

eliben 13y ago

Interesting to see this, having just finished one of Gary Taubes' books and reading another. Especially "Good Calories, Bad Calories" is an extremely well-researched work talking exactly about the issues discussed in this article, presenting countless researches and scientific facts related to it.

Jun8 13y ago

As they say: "The dose makes the poison". Stating that sugar is toxic, as Lustig and others do, (see his talk on YouTube or http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.htm...) to me does not make much sense in fighting against the super high levels of consumption: When you argue a position that's too far removed from most people's accepted positions, they tend to tune you out. Note that high-fructose corn syrup (water+glucose+fructose) is included in this generalized definition of "sugar", which, of course nobody would add to their coffee or tea (that would be sucrose or table sugar), but is now used ubiquitously in the food industry (http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/edible-innovations/sugar2.htm http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/edible-innovatio...). A better option would be to single HFCS out and fight against its use. While reading this the following question came to mind: If Yudkin's results were so groundbreaking and well backed up, why was he kind of shut off from the academic community. Stating that the "sugar lobby" ended his career sounds a bit too far fetched.

spindritf 13y ago
Note that high-fructose corn syrup (water+glucose+fructose) is included in this generalized definition of "sugar" I cannot imagine a narrower definition of "sugar" than glucose+fructose. It's exactly what you add to your coffee and tea, just in the form of sucrose crystals. There is no functional difference between HFCS and table sugar. If the regulators/activists force the food industry to replace HFCS with some other sugar, all they'll achieve is a minor increase in prices.
- theophrastus 13y ago
  I have no idea what you mean by "functional difference" here. But there are significant differences in both metabolic requirements and sugar structure between fructose and sucrose (that being one whole glucose moiety). The glycosidic bond of the disaccharide requires a specific enzyme sucrase.
- Jun8 13y ago
  I think when you say that there "is no functional difference between HFCS and table sugar" you mean that sucrose is broken down to 50% glucose and 50% fructose during digestion, which is correct (although HFCS is not 50-50 but close). The move to HFCS was for price reasons, so it won't be a "minor increase in prices", this may actually be more acceptable way to curb sugar use than taxing it.

res0nat0r 13y ago

Currently reading Salt, Sugar, Fat by Michael Moss, check it out if this interests you. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/15797397-salt-sugar-fat https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/15797397-salt-sugar-fat

pvnick 13y ago

I'm getting sick of this ignorant sugar alarmism. Sugar is not the culprit behind all the diseases listed in the article. Obesity is [5] [6]. Unless of course you're talking about cavities. Then not brushing your teeth is the culprit. The reason sugar gets such a bad rep is that high-sugar foods tend to be less-filling and lead to overeating [1]. Stay at a healthy weight by controlling caloric consumption [2]. The article mentions such scientific evidence as "nearly two-thirds of the studies cited there to repudiate Lustig's views were funded by Coca-Cola." Seriously? Normally I wouldn't care - sugar alarmism = more candy for me - except that, as the article notes, "Lustig ... calls for sugar to be treated as a toxin, like alcohol and tobacco, and for sugar-laden foods to be taxed, labelled with health warnings and banned for anyone under 18." That's just bullshit extremism. Doughnuts, one of my favorite foods, can be part of a healthy diet just like anything else. In fact, sugar is fantastic for stimulating muscle growth [3], and can help with diet adherence during a caloric deficit [4]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin_index http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin_index - this page lists satiety indexes for common foods. Notice all the lowest scores are bakery goods and sugary snacks. [2] http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2009/10/14/ajcn.2009.28595 http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2009/10/14/ajcn.2009... [3] http://jcs.biologists.org/content/122/20/3589.full http://jcs.biologists.org/content/122/20/3589.full [4] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11126336?ordinalpos=47&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11126336?ordinalpos=47&it... [5] http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/health-topics/topics/obe/risks.html http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/health-topics/topics/obe/ris... [6] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19801534 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19801534 Edit: People are taking my words out of context. This is my reply to another comment below that elucidates my meaning: "I advocate moderation and balance. Consume reasonable calorie and macronutrient (protein, fat, carbohydrate) quantities. Eat what allows you to do that. For me, those carbs come from doughnuts and candy but also from brown rice and pasta. Just like my meats include both lean meats (chicken breast) and fatty, delicious meats (bacon). Combine this with exercise and all you'll avoid all the scary things the article talks about."

smtddr 13y ago
>>Doughnuts, one of my favorite foods, can be part of a healthy diet just like anything else. When you say "doughnut" you mean this[1], right? If so that's 100%, Grade A nonsense and abruptly ends any consideration I was giving your comment. 1. http://twincitiesdonut.com/images/donut.jpg http://twincitiesdonut.com/images/donut.jpg

jimeuxx 13y ago

Lustig could no doubt write some great posts here about growth hacking and selling your product, but if there's one thing he's proven about nutrition, it's that he's no one to be taken seriously when talking about it. One taste of what Joe Public doesn't see in his unintended hyperbole is here: http://sweetenerstudies.com/sites/default/files/resources/files/Scientific-Review-of-Lustigs-Fat-Chance.pdf http://sweetenerstudies.com/sites/default/files/resources/fi... Blaming sugar for everything is no better than what the fat-bashing crowd do. It leads to self-parodying solutions like the "keto-adapted" lifestyle. We don't eat rice or bananas because refined sugar is to blame for all the ills of the world. Those crazy Japanese are probably just lying about their lack of heart disease anyway (when we remember the place exists at all). As long as people only understand nutrition in terms of reductionist extremes, "alternative" diets are going to continue being a bad joke that achieves little more than inflating the ego and bank balance of people like Lustig.

ynniv 13y ago
Wow, thanks for linking a really awful rebuttal. Not only does "Mark Kern, PHD, RD, CSSD, Professor of Exercise and Nutritional Sciences" start off by saying that Lustig is inherently biased by selling a book "Even if all proceeds are being donated to charity", he later goes on to drop such gems as: The key for preventing obesity and metabolic syndrome is to avoid consuming excessive energy (Calories) Maybe this is still debated in the (surely non-profit) exercise world, but I see no evidence that eating too many calories of lean meat would cause metabolic syndrome, or that limiting daily intake to 2000 calories of soda would cause one to become healthier. Much of Kern's lengthy rebuttal are technical points that are beyond me to evaluate, but I suspect that the book is intended for a non academic medical audience. In fact Kern says It is possible that the author’s intent was to simplify these processes for the reader, but doing so inaccurately calls into question his knowledge of metabolism, upon which he bases much of his book. Perhaps one could use other material he has authored for a technical audience. And Kern is pedantic with quotes like "real food doesn’t have or need a Nutrition Facts Label". A casual reader would understand that a mango does not have a complicated ingredient list, Kern says: While it is true that labels do not need to appear on unpackaged foods such as a produce, the Code of Federal Regulations is clear regarding nutrient labeling for these types of foods. The regulation from the Federal government is that nutrition facts must voluntarily be posted for at least 90% of fresh food items in a conspicuous place by at least 60% of companies that sell food. Perhaps Kern doesn't understand who the audience of a trade book is. Kern also cites many studies that I'm not going to track down and evaluate for their own biases. Giving talks, writing papers and selling books is how our world works. If that's the only thing Lustig is doing wrong, then he's doing alright by me. but if there's one thing he's proven about nutrition, it's that he's no one to be taken seriously when talking about it If you're going to grind your axe here, please make better arguments.

PakG1 13y ago

The underlying premise that there's something strange about the correlation between the rise of sugar and the rise of health issues is stark. Obviously, we can't say that correlation = causation. But such data points should be taken seriously for more investigation, much like for example, global warming (which is a debate that I still don't completely understand either). This is the key quote for me: Yudkin's detractors had one trump card: his evidence often relied on observations, rather than on explanations, of rising obesity, heart disease and diabetes rates. "He could tell you these things were happening but not why, or at least not in a scientifically acceptable way," says David Gillespie, author of the bestselling Sweet Poison. "Three or four of the hormones that would explain his theories had not been discovered." Let's apply that towards global warming. This reminds me of Al Gore's little movie where he talks about his old prof gathering climate data. The temperature kept going up, and he could not figure out why. Lots of data, no explanation. What should have been the proper response? Dismissal because there's no explanation or further study? I worry that there are other things where the timeline required to truly observe and understand things is not possible, and that risks are completely accepted because no current viable explanation can be made as to why the thing is actually dangerous. The biggest one for me is wireless communications. Can cell phones and other wireless devices cause cancer? Generally, we say no. But we don't have enough data to truly say no, and we probably won't have that data until kids born after 2000 become geriatrics, as they'll be the first generation to truly grow up from birth in an age with ubiquitous cell phones. And besides that, it's not like anyone's been able to provide any widely acceptable explanation on the matter anyway. So we'll just trundle along blindly because our current data says there's no risk. I'm mostly sad because what other choice do we really have? You can't turn back the clock on technological progress even if you wanted to.

adwf 13y ago
Gonna have to call you up on the cell phones I'm afraid. It has been pretty conclusively proven that there is no link between cell phone radiation and cancer [1]. Unless you call a study of 420,000 people over 20 years insignificant... And as for a mechanical explanation why cell phone radiation doesn't cause cancer: It's because the radiation type used is non-ionising! As for thermal effects, it's orders of magnitude less than standing in direct sunlight. It's basic physics. (Well perhaps not the ionising radiation part, Einstein got a Nobel for the photoelectric effect...) This myth has been debunked as pure fear-mongering time and time again. The only slight recommendations that are issued are for longer term studies - simply because cell phones haven't really been in heavy usage for more than 20 years. Pure fear of the unknown, despite study after study showing no effect. [1] http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/98/23/1707.abstract http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/98/23/1707.abstract

asucks 13y ago

In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women.

gnusouth 13y ago

More info. Anti-sugar: http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3821440.htm http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3821440.htm Anti-anti-sugar: http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3888657.htm http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3888657.htm The whole thing strikes me as quite sensationalist, and I suspect that digging into the research would affirm the cholesterol <-> heart disease link. For now, I'll trust the scientific consensus over these crackpot types.

ynniv 13y ago
Week old accounts with no prior comments shouldn't be allowed to use hot button words like "crackpot". They should probably include IP addresses in their comments as well.
- gnusouth 13y ago
  I had to start somewhere, didn't I? Yours truly, a new HN user. IP address: 115.64.60.28
  - ynniv 13y ago
    Perhaps cut your teeth on a nice technical discussion before calling an article in your local metro newspaper "crackpot".
  - 72deluxe 13y ago
    Greetings to Balgowlah, Australia! What's the weather like? Here in the UK, it is raining incessantly, and Worcester up the road is flooding due the Severn bursting its banks.
    - gnusouth 13y ago
      Very dry here, some rain would be nice if you could arrange that ;)
      - 72deluxe 13y ago

Pxtl 13y ago

I'm just guessing, but it occurs to me that prior to the 20th century the average European probably consumed more ethanol than refined sugar.

victorhooi 13y ago

I'm currently reading "The Low-Carb Fraud", by Dr. T. Colin Campbell, who was one of the original authors of the China Study. http://www.amazon.com/The-Low-Carb-Fraud-Colin-Campbell/dp/1940363098 http://www.amazon.com/The-Low-Carb-Fraud-Colin-Campbell/dp/1... Campbell has multiple degrees in biochemistry and nutrition, and from what I can tell, seems to be pretty well respected in his field. On the other hand, Gary Taube, who wrote Good Calories, Bad Calories, and who people here seem to hold up as some kind of nutritional guru - basically is a science writer, with no formal education in nutrition at all. Campbell basically spends the first few chapters debunking many of Gary Taubes's conclusions, and then talking about the current low-carb fads. Definitely a good read, and approachable.

mistermann 13y ago
Despite not being done the book yet, could you give us an idea what the general premise is, and how it somehow disproves what to me at least is the overwhelming real world effectiveness of a low carb diet for losing weight?
- jacobolus 13y ago
  The author participated in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_China_Study https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_China_Study which compared rural Chinese diet and health outcomes to typical western ones. He’s been vegan for >20 years, and he studies and advocates a vegan diet, because he claims that eating animal products is unhealthy / causes disease. He is the darling of vegans, among whom he has a large following. Among books written from that perspective, my understanding from reading various reviews is that this is one of the best argued and supported ones, with lots of solid citations of scientific literature. Because the perspective is controversial (e.g. it’s different than the norm, it threatens “conventional wisdom” and food businesses) the book has also drawn some flak from other scientists who disagree with the book’s conclusions.
  - BSousa 13y ago
    While I'm not going to get into good or bad about vegan/meat eaters, you do know that the China Study has been heavily criticised for selective data picking right? Thus, just because he was part of it doesn't mean he is a reliable source. I've included the link below as a starting point for the criticism of the China Study. There is a good bit of scientific literature on it as well (am at work, don't have the links handy) http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/ http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fal...

sandGorgon 13y ago

Here's a very interesting, recent research paper that seems to corroborate AND defy the "sugar is evil" statement: Dietary composition and its associations with insulin sensitivity and insulin secretion in youth. - While long-term excess of energy intake has been shown to lead to overweight and obesity, dietary macronutrient composition is not independently correlated with insulin sensitivity (IS) and insulin secretion (ISct). HOWEVER, For every 1 % increase in daily protein intake (%), Area-Under-Curve(AUC) Insulin/Glucose t= 30 min decreased by 1·1 % (P= 0·033). FYI - increase of AUC is correlated with glycemic response to foods. [2] [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24047611 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24047611 [2] http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/13/2/172.abstract http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/13/2/172.abstract

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

Buonaparte 13y ago

I'm sure everyone would leave this earth much happier if they spent more time enjoying the life they have rather than arguing with others about nutrition. I guess that applies to everything...

source99 13y ago

Poll: Obesity is caused by?

source99 13y ago
Sugar
source99 13y ago
Fat
sosborn 13y ago
Eating too much.
josefresco 13y ago
Imbalance.
logfromblammo 13y ago
A subatomic particle: the adipon. These are sometimes produced in bogon-bogon collisions, and are the primary reason why people overeat when stressed.

bharatFNS 13y ago

Had I not cut down on my sugar intake, I would be bloating and down with diabetes by now. Gosh! I did it without John Yudkin's book, I am going to read it.

joyofdata 13y ago

XYLITOL :) We use it for coffee, baking, cocktails, Sushi rice and more. Xylitol has less intensive impact on the insulin system and does not cause a glycaemic peak as strong as you experience it with sugar. Xylitol is also proven to directly prevent Caries. There are numerous studies on Xylitol and its benefits - Google is your friend. How is it possible that in a thread on sugar even after 146 comments nobody mentions Xylitol? BTW ... Xylitol is for me not a sugar-subtitute because it tastes better than sugar. In case you live in Germany or EU and you need a realiably source - www.xucker.de. No I am not affiliated with them.

Uberphallus 13y ago
Versandkosten (brutto) 12,90EUR 13 € to send 1 Kg to a neighbouring country? Really?
logfromblammo 13y ago
Erythritol and glycerol are also decent sugar-alcohol sweeteners. Other types of sugar alcohols are not suitable as sugar replacements. Methanol and ethylene glycol are poisonous. Mannitol, sorbitol, isomalt, maltitol, and lactitol will all give you horrible gas and diarrhea. To a certain extent, xylitol and glycerol will also have a laxative effect, but as erythritol is absorbed by the gut, it is the only sugar alcohol that can be consumed in excess without dire colonic consequences.

cjf4 13y ago

Calories in v calories out is absolute in terms of weight loss/gain, but that's just a quantitative measure, not a qualitative one. For instance, the famed "Twinkies at a Caloric Deficit" diet will cause you to lose weight, but not in any sort of good way, and will do all sorts of terrible things to your health, not the least of which is deprivation of important micro and macro nutrients. Sugar isn't inherently "bad", but the way most people consume it is. High sugar foods, in essence, have very poor bang for your caloric buck.

valtih1978 13y ago

This is complete bullshit. The civilization is dying because of addiction to cars and private households (urban sprawl) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPS1y81b1Bw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPS1y81b1Bw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugv0OY6LyuE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugv0OY6LyuE http://www.postcarbon.org/ http://www.postcarbon.org/ This has nothing to do with sugar. Regarding the cardio-vasculous system, the viscous fats (everything besides the plant oil and fish fat) are really dangerous. I feel the chalestirol clogging my vessels every time I eat the viscous fats.

Anevenua 13y ago

Sixto Rodriguez singing "Sugar Man" in Background of this site.

yeureka 13y ago

On a recent BBC Horizon, two identical twins went for a month on two separate diets. One of the twins ate a high carb low fat diet, the other did the reverse. By the end of the experiment the one with the worse metabolical and biological outcomes was the twin on the high fat low carb diet. In fact the doctors told him to stop as he was becoming pre-diabetic. link to bbc programme: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03t8r4h http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03t8r4h

JoeAltmaier 13y ago
Sounds like it was bad, for those two. Hard to draw any further conclusions from that.
- yeureka 13y ago
  It was definitely bad for both of them, however the twin on the high fat low carb diet fared much worse even though he was consuming less calories than the carb binging twin.
eddiedunn 13y ago
The doctors were uneducated, he was not at all becoming pre-diabetic.

rapala 13y ago

Sometimes it seams that people are interested in these technical and highly specific debates on how to eat right to avoid responsibility. They want to "know" that eating right is so difficult and badly understood that it can't be done without a special diet. When they then select a diet and it works, they attribute it to the diet and not the utmost care that they followed the diet with.

yetanotherphd 13y ago

I don't know if this man's views on sugar are accurate, but things like: >''Reviews of the body of scientific evidence by expert committees have concluded that consuming sugar as part of a balanced diet does not induce lifestyle diseases such as diabetes and heart disease,'' he says.If you look up Robert Lustig on Wikipedia, nearly two-thirds of the studies cited there to repudiate Lustig's views were funded by Coca-Cola. really disturb me. I think there is something wrong with are intellectual culture when we give completely undeserved credulity to studies with obvious biases.

jjindev 13y ago

I am not a nutritionist or a biochemist, but as a guy with an old BS Chem and a general knowledge, it does not surprise me to hear (again) that we are not all bomb calorimeters. We have long known that our metabolic pathways are neither uniform nor universal. There is no surprise there. When you eat fat, carbohydrate, or cellulose, different things happen. Thus, I think the extreme "calories is calories" argument is anti-scientific. Given the real complexity, I personally favor a varied and omnivorous diet, avoiding things both unnatural in their manufacture but also unnatural in their availability. A diet high in sugar is not natural. It would be very surprising if evolution and the evolution of our accompanying microbiome prepared us for it.