The Case Against Sugar
January 7, 2017 12:57 AM Subscribe
Is sugar the world’s most popular drug? 'It eases pain, seems to be addictive and shows every sign of causing long-term health problems. Is it time to quit sugar for good?'
Journalist Gary Taubes carved out his niche in the early aughts with an influential New York Times Magazine article that criticized health experts for decades of advice against dietary fat. Taubes elaborated his pro-fat/anti-carbohydrate argument in two later books: Good Calories, Bad Calories (2007) and Why We Get Fat (2010). Initially controversial, Taubes' views have become something closer to the new conventional wisdom.
In 2011 Taubes' revealed his next dietary target in another New York Times Magazine article: Sugar. And that is the subject of his latest book The Case Against Sugar (2016), which again indicts health authorities for failing to identify and mobilize against the right dietary targets in the increasingly globalized struggle against obesity and ill health.
For more, there's also The Sugar Wars in this month's Atlantic.
Journalist Gary Taubes carved out his niche in the early aughts with an influential New York Times Magazine article that criticized health experts for decades of advice against dietary fat. Taubes elaborated his pro-fat/anti-carbohydrate argument in two later books: Good Calories, Bad Calories (2007) and Why We Get Fat (2010). Initially controversial, Taubes' views have become something closer to the new conventional wisdom.
In 2011 Taubes' revealed his next dietary target in another New York Times Magazine article: Sugar. And that is the subject of his latest book The Case Against Sugar (2016), which again indicts health authorities for failing to identify and mobilize against the right dietary targets in the increasingly globalized struggle against obesity and ill health.
For more, there's also The Sugar Wars in this month's Atlantic.
OK, I was with Taubes before, but anti-sugar? Surely this is a bridge too far!
posted by naju at 2:38 AM on January 7, 2017
posted by naju at 2:38 AM on January 7, 2017
The main issue is a journalist who has a strong opinion but isn't really good at constructing a research-based argument about a health question. If there were scientific consensus he could have just interviewed a bunch of actual experts. But there is none so he's trying to answer a research and policy problem when his background is not science or research but journalism.
With that out of the way, the question he seems worried about is whether sugar causes physical and psychological problems at the global scale, in the form of long-term metabolic problems in humans and/or how it is a social control drug that screws with our reward systems. I like the question but I wish he would have worked with scientists in writing, revising, and editing this, for something to show up in the Guardian.
Also it's suppose to snow tomorrow, so I'm thinking of making this beauty.
posted by polymodus at 2:39 AM on January 7, 2017 [33 favorites]
With that out of the way, the question he seems worried about is whether sugar causes physical and psychological problems at the global scale, in the form of long-term metabolic problems in humans and/or how it is a social control drug that screws with our reward systems. I like the question but I wish he would have worked with scientists in writing, revising, and editing this, for something to show up in the Guardian.
Also it's suppose to snow tomorrow, so I'm thinking of making this beauty.
posted by polymodus at 2:39 AM on January 7, 2017 [33 favorites]
Is there any evidence sugar is even that bad for you, if you're within healthy weight bounds (apart from being not great for teeth)?
No. But, there is a problem if you routinely add substances which, in quantity, cause negative health effects, to processed and packaged food. This problem has two parts:
1. People get used to these flavours/mouth sensations and there's an inflationary effect in home cooking as well as packaged food as the 'normal' flavours are skewed.
2. People don't realise how much of the substance they are consuming and hence over consume.
This problem is largely socio-economic, on the one hand to do with profit-seeking behaviours (in agriculture and imports as well as food), on the other with lack of regulation and poverty (of choice, as well as economic poverty). But it's not just about sugar, it's also fat, or salt. Demonising one over the other is exactly what happened to cause the triumph of low-fat, which is precisely the attitude these anti-Sugar campaigners want to change, without, apparently, realising they're just repeating the same mistakes.
posted by AFII at 2:44 AM on January 7, 2017 [14 favorites]
No. But, there is a problem if you routinely add substances which, in quantity, cause negative health effects, to processed and packaged food. This problem has two parts:
1. People get used to these flavours/mouth sensations and there's an inflationary effect in home cooking as well as packaged food as the 'normal' flavours are skewed.
2. People don't realise how much of the substance they are consuming and hence over consume.
This problem is largely socio-economic, on the one hand to do with profit-seeking behaviours (in agriculture and imports as well as food), on the other with lack of regulation and poverty (of choice, as well as economic poverty). But it's not just about sugar, it's also fat, or salt. Demonising one over the other is exactly what happened to cause the triumph of low-fat, which is precisely the attitude these anti-Sugar campaigners want to change, without, apparently, realising they're just repeating the same mistakes.
posted by AFII at 2:44 AM on January 7, 2017 [14 favorites]
Considering a lot of artificial sweeteners turn me in a faucet of shit (don't complain about the "mental image", because I'll assure you it's not remotely as bad as the real thing), maybe opening up free gyms, tell people to walk more and drive less and other lifestyle changes is a better option than advocating to outlaw sugar.
posted by lmfsilva at 2:45 AM on January 7, 2017 [8 favorites]
posted by lmfsilva at 2:45 AM on January 7, 2017 [8 favorites]
I struggle with "we should entirely ban/cut out [food group]" as a course of action - sure, we live in a society where it's reasonably easy to end up addicted to sugar for reasons that are largely not your own fault, but we also live in a society where it's reasonably easy to end up with an eating disorder for reasons that are also largely not your own fault, and "ban this food!" falls so neatly into bed with the psychology of disordered eating that I can't really bring myself to embrace it.
Would I feel better and be healthier overall if I ate less sugar? Probably. Would it be worth the extremely likely path from "cut out this one thing" to "hmm being vigilant and rigid about one food thing is making me generally more rigid and vigilant about other food things" to "oh right we're back in full-blown eating disorder territory again"? Almost certainly not.
I also believe that it's super easy if disordered eating has never been your bag to assume that food is morally neutral and there's no deep reservoir of shame around eating and your body and all the things society tells you should do about eating and your body, so saying stuff like "ban sugar" can genuinely feel sensible and morally neutral if you're that person saying it. But it's harmful to do that without understanding that for a huge number of people there is no such thing as a shame-free and morally neutral relationship with food and with their bodies, and at least some of that has come from being inundated constantly with messages about what's good and what's bad (and whatever you do and are is probably bad) from people who get to stay stuff like that without any real personal emotional consequences.
It's also worth remembering that a huge amount of disordered eating doesn't come in the form of a young, painfully thin, middle-class-at-minimum white woman. The disordered eating of fat people and people of colour is massively ignored in terms of cultural perceptions and adequate medical treatment (even at the most basic level with severity being measured by stuff like BMI and losing your period rather than harm from behaviours or impact on quality of life). And fat poor people are largely the ones who have the hardest time avoiding sugar added to everything - basically the exact people Taubes is worrying about - and yet he's couching his message in a way that has the potential to make an existing eating disorder worse within that group.
I had seven years of active disordered eating and I would rather lose seven years off the end of my life from eating sugar than have to live another seven in that hell as a consequence of cutting it out.
posted by terretu at 3:06 AM on January 7, 2017 [69 favorites]
Would I feel better and be healthier overall if I ate less sugar? Probably. Would it be worth the extremely likely path from "cut out this one thing" to "hmm being vigilant and rigid about one food thing is making me generally more rigid and vigilant about other food things" to "oh right we're back in full-blown eating disorder territory again"? Almost certainly not.
I also believe that it's super easy if disordered eating has never been your bag to assume that food is morally neutral and there's no deep reservoir of shame around eating and your body and all the things society tells you should do about eating and your body, so saying stuff like "ban sugar" can genuinely feel sensible and morally neutral if you're that person saying it. But it's harmful to do that without understanding that for a huge number of people there is no such thing as a shame-free and morally neutral relationship with food and with their bodies, and at least some of that has come from being inundated constantly with messages about what's good and what's bad (and whatever you do and are is probably bad) from people who get to stay stuff like that without any real personal emotional consequences.
It's also worth remembering that a huge amount of disordered eating doesn't come in the form of a young, painfully thin, middle-class-at-minimum white woman. The disordered eating of fat people and people of colour is massively ignored in terms of cultural perceptions and adequate medical treatment (even at the most basic level with severity being measured by stuff like BMI and losing your period rather than harm from behaviours or impact on quality of life). And fat poor people are largely the ones who have the hardest time avoiding sugar added to everything - basically the exact people Taubes is worrying about - and yet he's couching his message in a way that has the potential to make an existing eating disorder worse within that group.
I had seven years of active disordered eating and I would rather lose seven years off the end of my life from eating sugar than have to live another seven in that hell as a consequence of cutting it out.
posted by terretu at 3:06 AM on January 7, 2017 [69 favorites]
I just sigh at the "one size fits all" proselytizing around food and diets. What works to make an individual lose or gain weight is not necessarily going to have the same effect on another.
Do this, not that!! is just another spin on the diet merry-go-round.
posted by lydhre at 3:16 AM on January 7, 2017 [5 favorites]
Do this, not that!! is just another spin on the diet merry-go-round.
posted by lydhre at 3:16 AM on January 7, 2017 [5 favorites]
I do better when I eat less sugar. (I eat almost no processed/pre-made foods. Those that I do eat, like the tahini that goes into my hummus recipe, are checked for all the "-ose" sugar ingredients... glucose, dextrose, maltose, sucrose, etc.)
I love sugar, don't get me wrong. It is delicious. I love brownies and no-bake cookies and sand tarts and peanut brittle and a tablespoon of sugar in my hot tea (travel mug size) and on and on.
But I do better if I eat less of it. Without sugar, it's a lot easier for me to stick to my daily calorie intake and I do not get hungry between meals. I do not crave snacks.
For me, sugar makes eating more complicated. Not eating sugar makes eating easier. Without sugar, food is still pleasurable and I can still eat lots of things I really enjoy. Just... on a day to day basis, I do not eat sugar and I carefully measure and account for "special occasion" sugar in my diet. (I weigh and log every bite of food that goes into my mouth. When I do not do this and depend on "satiety" cues, I gain about five pounds a year, which doesn't sound bad until four years go by, I'm twenty pounds heavier, and my jeans don't fit. It's just easier to do it every meal, every day as a habit.)
posted by which_chick at 3:49 AM on January 7, 2017 [18 favorites]
I love sugar, don't get me wrong. It is delicious. I love brownies and no-bake cookies and sand tarts and peanut brittle and a tablespoon of sugar in my hot tea (travel mug size) and on and on.
But I do better if I eat less of it. Without sugar, it's a lot easier for me to stick to my daily calorie intake and I do not get hungry between meals. I do not crave snacks.
For me, sugar makes eating more complicated. Not eating sugar makes eating easier. Without sugar, food is still pleasurable and I can still eat lots of things I really enjoy. Just... on a day to day basis, I do not eat sugar and I carefully measure and account for "special occasion" sugar in my diet. (I weigh and log every bite of food that goes into my mouth. When I do not do this and depend on "satiety" cues, I gain about five pounds a year, which doesn't sound bad until four years go by, I'm twenty pounds heavier, and my jeans don't fit. It's just easier to do it every meal, every day as a habit.)
posted by which_chick at 3:49 AM on January 7, 2017 [18 favorites]
It would have been nice if a single sentence in the article had begun "A longitudinal study that followed the diet and sugar intake of 10,000 men and women showed that ...". I don't feel I have anything beyond the vague sense of unease I had before reading the article with regard to whether I should avoid sugar more than I already do because it might not be (probably isn't) good.
posted by drnick at 4:21 AM on January 7, 2017 [5 favorites]
posted by drnick at 4:21 AM on January 7, 2017 [5 favorites]
How would a longitudinal study of 10,000 persons monitor sugar intake? How frequently would the waves be? How would the validity of data be assessed? How would compliance be enforced? (Who would fund this study?)
Isn't the primary problem that a such a study isn't feasible to carry out with the required rigour?
Sorry, only have questions.
posted by Gyan at 4:39 AM on January 7, 2017 [5 favorites]
Isn't the primary problem that a such a study isn't feasible to carry out with the required rigour?
Sorry, only have questions.
posted by Gyan at 4:39 AM on January 7, 2017 [5 favorites]
I'm into month four of completely cutting out sugar. Even not having been someone who ate a lot of it (I never drink calories, for instance, never add it to food and don't ever have it in the house), it has completely transformed my life. Despite eating more on a daily basis, I've lost 40 lbs, feel better in general and don't have the daily ups and downs with respect to energy levels and with seemingly insatiable cravings for more sugar and junk. It's pretty crazy.
So I don't know about "addictive" like heroin, nicotine or alcohol is addictive, but I know that when I'm eating SOME sugar, walking past that brownie or that handful or Oreos was a ton harder than it is now, 4 months later, when it doesn't even register on my radar. I've read some about glycemic happenings and the effects it can have on your body, but it's tough to cut through the junk science and the fad diet "science" and press-release "science" funded by the sugar industry and the woo to get through to what's really happening.
posted by nevercalm at 5:21 AM on January 7, 2017 [21 favorites]
So I don't know about "addictive" like heroin, nicotine or alcohol is addictive, but I know that when I'm eating SOME sugar, walking past that brownie or that handful or Oreos was a ton harder than it is now, 4 months later, when it doesn't even register on my radar. I've read some about glycemic happenings and the effects it can have on your body, but it's tough to cut through the junk science and the fad diet "science" and press-release "science" funded by the sugar industry and the woo to get through to what's really happening.
posted by nevercalm at 5:21 AM on January 7, 2017 [21 favorites]
I don't know that science can ever deliver an air-tight argument for or against sugar as it is deeply intertwined with the question "how to live", which science can only address obliquely. I do know that when I eat refined sugar, as well as other refined sources of carbohydrates, I get intense cravings and sometimes a hung-over, burnt-out feeling. It drains my energy and I gain flab. It's just a shitty way to live. So I'd like to avoid sugar, but when it gets added to everything, that becomes hard. So I welcome a cultural-culinary shift away from sugar, and in that sense articles like the linked piece are pleasing to read.
posted by dmh at 5:31 AM on January 7, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by dmh at 5:31 AM on January 7, 2017 [1 favorite]
Personally, I don't know how you'd do the studies and control for all the tricky factors, but this Cochrane-style meta analysis seemed able to conclude "intake of free sugars or sugar sweetened beverages is a determinant of body weight" using long term cohort studies, so studies have been done that can measure long term sugar intake and make conclusions about health outcomes. It'd just have been great to see some more science in the article.
posted by drnick at 5:39 AM on January 7, 2017 [3 favorites]
posted by drnick at 5:39 AM on January 7, 2017 [3 favorites]
I recently watched Sugarcoated on Netflix, which is more about the politics behind sugar and makes the case that the sugar industry is using the same tactics as the tobacco companies to limit research and deflect criticism.
My personal philosophy is that everything is ok in moderation, but things like sugar have addictive qualities that make moderation difficult for some people. Not to mention that it's really hard to limit your intake when it's added to just about every food.
posted by LizBoBiz at 5:45 AM on January 7, 2017 [14 favorites]
My personal philosophy is that everything is ok in moderation, but things like sugar have addictive qualities that make moderation difficult for some people. Not to mention that it's really hard to limit your intake when it's added to just about every food.
posted by LizBoBiz at 5:45 AM on January 7, 2017 [14 favorites]
Anecdotal evidence only, sorry:
As someone who drank soda (Dr Pepper, Mountain Dew) a almost exclusively for a decade, I suspect it has something to do with the 100 pounds I gained during said decade.
Prior to that, I drank Diet Dr Pepper almost exclusively, until one day my legs itched, inside the muscles.... an itch it's impossible to scratch... took a few days to figure it out, not fun.
Now, I'm cutting out the soda, drinking a lot of Warot Springs water, bottled at the source (my faucet)... hoping to reverse some of said damage, and get down to a someone less massive size. It's going to take a few years, obviously.
posted by MikeWarot at 5:46 AM on January 7, 2017 [9 favorites]
As someone who drank soda (Dr Pepper, Mountain Dew) a almost exclusively for a decade, I suspect it has something to do with the 100 pounds I gained during said decade.
Prior to that, I drank Diet Dr Pepper almost exclusively, until one day my legs itched, inside the muscles.... an itch it's impossible to scratch... took a few days to figure it out, not fun.
Now, I'm cutting out the soda, drinking a lot of Warot Springs water, bottled at the source (my faucet)... hoping to reverse some of said damage, and get down to a someone less massive size. It's going to take a few years, obviously.
posted by MikeWarot at 5:46 AM on January 7, 2017 [9 favorites]
Our supposed expertise about nutrition is remarkably error prone.
posted by idiopath at 5:50 AM on January 7, 2017 [9 favorites]
posted by idiopath at 5:50 AM on January 7, 2017 [9 favorites]
Yeah,this was a thing back in the 70's. They fellow pushing it back then was William Dufty, a man of many talents, and author of (besides Sugar Blues) Lady Sings The Blues. Hear and watch him and his wife Gloria Swanson chat here.
Everything goes in cycles.
posted by BWA at 5:51 AM on January 7, 2017 [2 favorites]
Everything goes in cycles.
posted by BWA at 5:51 AM on January 7, 2017 [2 favorites]
Sugar is not addictive
Prof Suzanne Dickson, of Gothenburg University and co-ordinator of the NeuroFAST project, said: "There has been a major debate over whether sugar is addictive.
"There is currently very little evidence to support the idea that any ingredient, food item, additive or combination of ingredients has addictive properties."
posted by hydropsyche at 5:52 AM on January 7, 2017 [5 favorites]
Prof Suzanne Dickson, of Gothenburg University and co-ordinator of the NeuroFAST project, said: "There has been a major debate over whether sugar is addictive.
"There is currently very little evidence to support the idea that any ingredient, food item, additive or combination of ingredients has addictive properties."
posted by hydropsyche at 5:52 AM on January 7, 2017 [5 favorites]
One of the things that bugs me about the anti-sugar crusaders is the emphasis they seem to place on the role of "hidden" sugars--with the corollary that for those trying to cut back or eliminate added sugar all together, it's critical to read every single label and avoid things like regular peanut butter, spaghetti sauce, or salad dressing. But the fact is, the vast majority of sugar in the diet is from precisely the places you'd expect it. If you cut back on sweetened drinks, candy, pastries, and sweet spreads (and here we're talking nutella and jam, not peanut butter with some sugar added) you will eliminate most of the sugar in your diet. Add sweetened yogurt to that list and you'll eliminate almost all added sugar (the British data in the link above indicates that sugar in traditionally savory products accounts for ~5% of added sugar, or less than 1% of total calories in the average Brit's diet). It seems illogical when you look at it that way that it's the hidden sugar in our ketchup that's resetting our taste buds, and not the blatant sugar in our cans of coke or pint of ice cream that's the main culprit.
posted by drlith at 5:58 AM on January 7, 2017 [36 favorites]
posted by drlith at 5:58 AM on January 7, 2017 [36 favorites]
I blame the Archies.
posted by jonmc at 6:06 AM on January 7, 2017 [20 favorites]
posted by jonmc at 6:06 AM on January 7, 2017 [20 favorites]
Additional personal testimony: I've been off sugar and artificial sweeteners for about 15 years now. It's easy once you get out of the habit, and it cleans up your life. Sugar is messy. I'm full of energy and am trim of figure. (I also don't drink or eat meat.) Back in the old days, I was constantly bargaining with myself over whether I should eat that donut or not. Now, life is peaceful. The answer is always no. And when the donuts come out, I don't even see them.
posted by Modest House at 6:16 AM on January 7, 2017 [5 favorites]
posted by Modest House at 6:16 AM on January 7, 2017 [5 favorites]
My personal philosophy is that everything is ok in moderation, but things like sugar have addictive qualities that make moderation difficult for some people. Not to mention that it's really hard to limit your intake when it's added to just about every food.
I don't really get into the idea of "good" vs "bad" foods (though I strongly suspect that with time we will come to see artificial sweeteners as having a host of negative effects); I don't have a strong sweet tooth so I watch ingredient lists to try and avoid sweetened savory foods which aren't to my taste. But it it is frustratingly omnipresent and hard to avoid, and shows up in the weirdest places. The thing I'm having to watch now are companies reducing sugar by swapping in artificial sweeteners, rather than just using less sugar; it takes watching labels more closely than I would prefer.
People really, genuinely like sweets, so even if the language of addiction isn't correct, it's also something that many people can't self-regulate well, either. Add in market-distorting subsidies and we have created a real force towards sweetened foods, which might not be serving us well.
That said, I also wish we could totally strip out all the language of judgement and guilt from discussions of food and health. I think it hurts a lot more than it helps, and there are much better and more practical ways of helping change.
posted by Dip Flash at 6:28 AM on January 7, 2017 [4 favorites]
I don't really get into the idea of "good" vs "bad" foods (though I strongly suspect that with time we will come to see artificial sweeteners as having a host of negative effects); I don't have a strong sweet tooth so I watch ingredient lists to try and avoid sweetened savory foods which aren't to my taste. But it it is frustratingly omnipresent and hard to avoid, and shows up in the weirdest places. The thing I'm having to watch now are companies reducing sugar by swapping in artificial sweeteners, rather than just using less sugar; it takes watching labels more closely than I would prefer.
People really, genuinely like sweets, so even if the language of addiction isn't correct, it's also something that many people can't self-regulate well, either. Add in market-distorting subsidies and we have created a real force towards sweetened foods, which might not be serving us well.
That said, I also wish we could totally strip out all the language of judgement and guilt from discussions of food and health. I think it hurts a lot more than it helps, and there are much better and more practical ways of helping change.
posted by Dip Flash at 6:28 AM on January 7, 2017 [4 favorites]
Yeah, as an eating disorder person, I find these discussions frustrating, not to mention triggering. I'm not great at interpreting my body's cues, and it was sort of a revelation to me when I realized that my sugar cravings were usually masking other needs. I crave sugar when I'm tired, upset, or hungry, and I need to address the real issue (and eat real food if I'm hungry) rather than reaching for a pound of gummi bears. But that doesn't mean that I'm a junkie who is going to relapse if I ever have a donut or a piece of birthday cake. I don't need to read labels to look for hidden sugar, and in fact I very much shouldn't do that, because obsessive label-reading is not healthy behavior for me. For me, the moral is more "don't eat honey by the spoonful when you are feeling bad, because that is not the solution to whatever is bothering you and will probably make you binge and feel worse" than "you should obsess about food in a way that kills you and bores everyone around you."
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:30 AM on January 7, 2017 [25 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:30 AM on January 7, 2017 [25 favorites]
It seems illogical when you look at it that way that it's the hidden sugar in our ketchup that's resetting our taste buds, and not the blatant sugar in our cans of coke or pint of ice cream that's the main culprit.
I hear you, but I find that even a little bit of sugar will create intense cravings for more sugars / carbs. So while the tiny amount of sugar in a splotch of ketchup is innocuous and the same goes for the salad dressing, if you then add e.g. a cup of coffee with two sugars, a couple of hours later I will be ravenous for a candy bar and then it just goes downhill from there. It's about avoiding that miserable feedback loop.
posted by dmh at 6:34 AM on January 7, 2017 [9 favorites]
I hear you, but I find that even a little bit of sugar will create intense cravings for more sugars / carbs. So while the tiny amount of sugar in a splotch of ketchup is innocuous and the same goes for the salad dressing, if you then add e.g. a cup of coffee with two sugars, a couple of hours later I will be ravenous for a candy bar and then it just goes downhill from there. It's about avoiding that miserable feedback loop.
posted by dmh at 6:34 AM on January 7, 2017 [9 favorites]
it was sort of a revelation to me when I realized that my sugar cravings were usually masking other needs. I crave sugar when I'm tired, upset, or hungry
This, too. For me it can also go the other way: I can get tired, upset or hungry because I crave sugar.
In the final analysis it's not so much the sugar that I want to avoid as the resulting cravings and loss of agency. In that sense it's a bit like alcohol, in that I have zero qualms about gorging myself at parties and OH GOD HE EMPTIED THE ENTIRE BOTTLE. That certainly is an indispensable part of the good life.
posted by dmh at 6:48 AM on January 7, 2017 [2 favorites]
This, too. For me it can also go the other way: I can get tired, upset or hungry because I crave sugar.
In the final analysis it's not so much the sugar that I want to avoid as the resulting cravings and loss of agency. In that sense it's a bit like alcohol, in that I have zero qualms about gorging myself at parties and OH GOD HE EMPTIED THE ENTIRE BOTTLE. That certainly is an indispensable part of the good life.
posted by dmh at 6:48 AM on January 7, 2017 [2 favorites]
So every time that I have cut something out of my diet for an extended period, I go back after a few months and just sample what I have omitted just to see how my body reacts and if I should stick with the plan. I stopped eating red meat about thirty years ago but after a year I went back and ate a cheeseburger, and it lay in my stomach like a stone.
I did give up refined sugar for several months once. I felt okay but did not notice any huge difference (mind you, I was pretty healthy already at that point). After maybe four months I went back to it by way of eating a Snickers bar. And let me tell you, within about three minutes, it was like someone in my brain was turning all the dials all the way to the right: sounds got sharper, colours got brighter, there was a feeling like cold ginger ale fizzing in my brain... I imagine this is what heroin might be like.
tl/dr: I have little doubt it is a drug.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 6:52 AM on January 7, 2017 [2 favorites]
I did give up refined sugar for several months once. I felt okay but did not notice any huge difference (mind you, I was pretty healthy already at that point). After maybe four months I went back to it by way of eating a Snickers bar. And let me tell you, within about three minutes, it was like someone in my brain was turning all the dials all the way to the right: sounds got sharper, colours got brighter, there was a feeling like cold ginger ale fizzing in my brain... I imagine this is what heroin might be like.
tl/dr: I have little doubt it is a drug.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 6:52 AM on January 7, 2017 [2 favorites]
I end up thinking that analogizing food to drugs on a grand scale is a bad idea. (I often think that analogizing drugs to drugs is a bad idea too, so to speak.) I'm not really interested in a life that contains zero sugar ever, any more than I'm interested in a life that contains zero sleeping late, zero alcohol, zero cholesterol-rich foods, etc, even if from a public health perspective I'd be a better worker bee if I never had alcohol, salt, excess sleep or egg yolks ever again. With public health, there's a balance, IMO, between the interest of the state in outcomes and the interest of the individual in experiences.
My household has just switched over to being very careful about salt, which is kind of neat. We're aiming for 80% of the normal daily salt level and everyone is realizing that, although we all eat differently, all of us were exceeding it at least a couple of days a week because of salt in commercial food. Not even salt in, like, ramen, but salt in tortillas, canned tomatoes and so on - the things where you don't really pay that much attention. It's one thing to say "it's ramen day, all bets are off!" and another to realize that you've made mostly home-made food all day and still eaten too much salt.
A knock-on effect of this is reducing our sugar intake because we're all having to cook more carefully and/or switch to home-made. Basically, what's working for us so far is that now we're eating sugar only when we intend to - I have a box of Hobnobs downstairs, for instance - and I feel like that's helping me strike a balance between "sugar is a drug that will kill you" and "I can't handle a joyless life without cake".
If we lived in a just society instead of a capitalist shitshow, the obvious thing to do would be to create policies which supported home cooking and set some standards for store bought breads, sauces, etc in terms of sugar, salt and other additives.
posted by Frowner at 7:02 AM on January 7, 2017 [13 favorites]
My household has just switched over to being very careful about salt, which is kind of neat. We're aiming for 80% of the normal daily salt level and everyone is realizing that, although we all eat differently, all of us were exceeding it at least a couple of days a week because of salt in commercial food. Not even salt in, like, ramen, but salt in tortillas, canned tomatoes and so on - the things where you don't really pay that much attention. It's one thing to say "it's ramen day, all bets are off!" and another to realize that you've made mostly home-made food all day and still eaten too much salt.
A knock-on effect of this is reducing our sugar intake because we're all having to cook more carefully and/or switch to home-made. Basically, what's working for us so far is that now we're eating sugar only when we intend to - I have a box of Hobnobs downstairs, for instance - and I feel like that's helping me strike a balance between "sugar is a drug that will kill you" and "I can't handle a joyless life without cake".
If we lived in a just society instead of a capitalist shitshow, the obvious thing to do would be to create policies which supported home cooking and set some standards for store bought breads, sauces, etc in terms of sugar, salt and other additives.
posted by Frowner at 7:02 AM on January 7, 2017 [13 favorites]
If one were to try and determine a single strategy most likely to help the most people lose weight and/or maintain weight, avoidance of sugar and high-glycemic starches would be the thing, without question. It is the thing that most often comes up any time a patient successfully loses substantial weight and maintains it. They simply (miserably) forced themselves off of most sources of sweets and starches until their cravings abated, usually 1-2 weeks or less. At that point they were simply less hungry. And eliminating the multiple daily sugar ingestions and their subsequent insulin-spike effects has multiple benefits, from decreased hunger to removing a direct source of visceral fat creation. For most people, if you ask them their 'weakness' it isn't fats but sweets and starches. If you take even a brief look at the effects of insulin release on our physiology this is not hard to understand. An equivalent amount of calories in the form of olives or nuts or eggs or tuna at lunch will be far more satiating and less problematic than almost any carb source unless it has zero processing. The goal does not need to be sugar elimination any more than exercise goals need to be attending Crossfit 6 days a week. But an understanding of how addictive it is, and how it has a direct effect on hunger and obesity, is crucial for public health.
posted by docpops at 7:04 AM on January 7, 2017 [15 favorites]
posted by docpops at 7:04 AM on January 7, 2017 [15 favorites]
Growing up without a ton of money, sugar was the backbone of many affordable treats - candy, cookies, sweet tea, soda. As an adult, I decided to cut out sugar - I can't even remember now what led to that decision - and I realized that I felt a lot better. I had fewer headaches and fewer "afternoon slumps." I felt crappy so much of the time in as a kid and in college; I wish I could go back in time and address that with more money and better nutrition.
I don't eat zero sugar now, but my groceries are mostly meat, veggies, eggs and cheese, and I don't drink sugary beverages or juice. At work most treats and rewards are in the form of cheap carbs - brownies, donuts, cookies, cake. It's very hard to avoid that and I often cave and have something, even when I know it will mess me up for a couple of hours. My preference is to keep my sugars picky and fancy - occasional tiramisu or tart rather than regular vending machine treats.
posted by bunderful at 7:20 AM on January 7, 2017 [3 favorites]
I don't eat zero sugar now, but my groceries are mostly meat, veggies, eggs and cheese, and I don't drink sugary beverages or juice. At work most treats and rewards are in the form of cheap carbs - brownies, donuts, cookies, cake. It's very hard to avoid that and I often cave and have something, even when I know it will mess me up for a couple of hours. My preference is to keep my sugars picky and fancy - occasional tiramisu or tart rather than regular vending machine treats.
posted by bunderful at 7:20 AM on January 7, 2017 [3 favorites]
I used to be a person who could honestly say I'd never dieted or followed any eating regimen except "aim for moderation, most of the time." Having stringent rules about eating or body size never felt healthy to me, but life has a way of demanding we reassess our opinions.
In her 60's, my mom finally figured out what was triggering her migraines: Sugar. And now that I'm in my 50's, I'm beginning to think that my lifelong skin issues stem from the same source. It's taken a while to work through the denial and even longer to get sugar out of my diet. It's complicated: I want to make cookies with the kids because that's a fun thing to do, builds their kitchen skills and makes nice memories...but if cookies are around I'll eat them. So now my husband does most of the cookie baking and I try to pretend that the cookies don't exist. Some days that's easier than others!
posted by heidiola at 7:26 AM on January 7, 2017 [3 favorites]
In her 60's, my mom finally figured out what was triggering her migraines: Sugar. And now that I'm in my 50's, I'm beginning to think that my lifelong skin issues stem from the same source. It's taken a while to work through the denial and even longer to get sugar out of my diet. It's complicated: I want to make cookies with the kids because that's a fun thing to do, builds their kitchen skills and makes nice memories...but if cookies are around I'll eat them. So now my husband does most of the cookie baking and I try to pretend that the cookies don't exist. Some days that's easier than others!
posted by heidiola at 7:26 AM on January 7, 2017 [3 favorites]
From the article:
Thomas Willis, medical adviser to the duke of York and King Charles II, noted an increase in the prevalence of diabetes in the affluent patients of his practice. “The pissing evil”, he called it, and became the first European physician to diagnose the sweet taste of diabetic urine – “wonderfully sweet like sugar or hon[e]y”.
The what now?
posted by TheClonusHorror at 7:31 AM on January 7, 2017 [6 favorites]
Thomas Willis, medical adviser to the duke of York and King Charles II, noted an increase in the prevalence of diabetes in the affluent patients of his practice. “The pissing evil”, he called it, and became the first European physician to diagnose the sweet taste of diabetic urine – “wonderfully sweet like sugar or hon[e]y”.
The what now?
posted by TheClonusHorror at 7:31 AM on January 7, 2017 [6 favorites]
it's hard for me to eat "well" when I do not gain weight. I tried to gain weight while working out and it caused such psychological discomfort I had to stop. I know for many of you, this like complaining that I have too much money, but the incentive to cut out sugar just isn't there for me (besides the teeth thing). All my bloodwork and physicals are consistently near-perfect. Why bother denying myself a donut when it has no apparent effect?
posted by AFABulous at 7:32 AM on January 7, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by AFABulous at 7:32 AM on January 7, 2017 [1 favorite]
The what now?
Taste buds are sensitive chemical receptors and you would be surprised at some of the things that get taste tested, especially in the absence of laboratory style tests.
posted by Bringer Tom at 7:40 AM on January 7, 2017 [11 favorites]
Taste buds are sensitive chemical receptors and you would be surprised at some of the things that get taste tested, especially in the absence of laboratory style tests.
posted by Bringer Tom at 7:40 AM on January 7, 2017 [11 favorites]
Why bother denying myself a donut when it has no apparent effect?
posted by AFABulous at 7:32 AM on January 7 [+] [!]
That's a great question. Aside from some abstract health benefit I don't know that there is one. Sort of like not consuming caffeine or salt when there really is not compelling rationale or health reason. The only thing I would say from a health perspective is to echo what others have said in various ways upthread - you may find, as you age, that your diet has more impact on your well-being than you realize, so simply being analytical and aware is important. It is amazing how often a simple, short conversation in practice sorts out what a patient is consuming that is giving them symptoms that are noxious. It does not implicate the food as dangerous, or an allergen, or anything else so meaningful. More that as we age what may have worked in the past (like social smoking, little sleep, etc) no longer works.
posted by docpops at 7:43 AM on January 7, 2017 [8 favorites]
posted by AFABulous at 7:32 AM on January 7 [+] [!]
That's a great question. Aside from some abstract health benefit I don't know that there is one. Sort of like not consuming caffeine or salt when there really is not compelling rationale or health reason. The only thing I would say from a health perspective is to echo what others have said in various ways upthread - you may find, as you age, that your diet has more impact on your well-being than you realize, so simply being analytical and aware is important. It is amazing how often a simple, short conversation in practice sorts out what a patient is consuming that is giving them symptoms that are noxious. It does not implicate the food as dangerous, or an allergen, or anything else so meaningful. More that as we age what may have worked in the past (like social smoking, little sleep, etc) no longer works.
posted by docpops at 7:43 AM on January 7, 2017 [8 favorites]
Why bother denying myself a donut when it has no apparent effect?
For me it's less about weight loss and more about feeling better when I have less sugar. And also about keeping my risk of diabetes low (it runs in my family).
posted by bunderful at 8:12 AM on January 7, 2017 [2 favorites]
For me it's less about weight loss and more about feeling better when I have less sugar. And also about keeping my risk of diabetes low (it runs in my family).
posted by bunderful at 8:12 AM on January 7, 2017 [2 favorites]
I certainly think sugar as a drug works as a metaphor. And like other recreational drugs some people can handle it effortlessly and others can't.
I unfortunately can't, or not without difficulty. If I have some I crave more. I'm not a teetotaler, as it were, but I treat high sugar foods with far more respect and caution than alcohol and don't keep them around the house. The change was a big benefit to my health & weight, though a bit embarrassing to my image as a rational being able to make good decisions.
Other people describe things as "too sweet." Or have like 20 M&Ms from a jar and then stop until tomorrow. I've never understood that (and I don't even like M&Ms.) Completely different responses.
I don't think Lustig's lecture was linked here?
Sugar is not addictive
But also from your link:
posted by mark k at 8:19 AM on January 7, 2017 [5 favorites]
I unfortunately can't, or not without difficulty. If I have some I crave more. I'm not a teetotaler, as it were, but I treat high sugar foods with far more respect and caution than alcohol and don't keep them around the house. The change was a big benefit to my health & weight, though a bit embarrassing to my image as a rational being able to make good decisions.
Other people describe things as "too sweet." Or have like 20 M&Ms from a jar and then stop until tomorrow. I've never understood that (and I don't even like M&Ms.) Completely different responses.
I don't think Lustig's lecture was linked here?
Sugar is not addictive
But also from your link:
Dr John Menzies [ . . . ] said: "Certain individuals do have an addictive-like relationship with particular foods and they can over-eat despite knowing the risks to their health.Not addictive, but induces behavior that is like addiction.
posted by mark k at 8:19 AM on January 7, 2017 [5 favorites]
There are also two kinds of body fat. Brown fat and white fat. The latter is linked to disease and likely related to excess sugars.
posted by Brian B. at 8:22 AM on January 7, 2017
posted by Brian B. at 8:22 AM on January 7, 2017
Not addictive, but induces behavior that is like addiction.
Which is not the same thing as addictive, which is generally used to mean actual physical dependence. Misusing words confuses people, including people like Gary Taubes, who then write best-selling books that confuse more people.
posted by hydropsyche at 8:25 AM on January 7, 2017 [5 favorites]
Which is not the same thing as addictive, which is generally used to mean actual physical dependence. Misusing words confuses people, including people like Gary Taubes, who then write best-selling books that confuse more people.
posted by hydropsyche at 8:25 AM on January 7, 2017 [5 favorites]
I have been trying various forms of dietary modification for years and years. Before the Internet, it was fad-based attempts based on what little nutrition information was available outside the mainstream. I was reacting to my basic sugar laden diet of my youth and teens leaving me feeling sluggish and lacking in basic normal robust health imho at the time. Nowadays you can find a wide range of facts, science and opinions on the subject. I recently did 17 weeks of ketosis and now think of that as a fad, userful information but not necessary for robust well being.
Wired had this article about obesity caused by a virus so there are many factors contributing to this problem. One very obese person I observed daily never seemed to overeat, perhaps she was suffering from this virus in her system.
The nut of the problem is existing in an industrialized food supply system which provides endless arrays of edible food stuff. Most people I see select for taste, satisfaction and cost and have only a smattering of nutritional knowledge. Talking about ancestral health or suggesting they change poor habits is a null zone and a fail.
When people see the lunch salad I make and bring, they often comment on how great it looks so people have the receptors for this it's just overridden by easy to prepare, tasty junk they have ready which is mfamiliar and satieting.
My zone now is intermittent fasting coupled with one meal a day of big delicious salad (no sugar allowed) then I fudge a little with a bit of chocolate or a snack and good quality dinners. And sometimes I just eat what's in front of me because rejecting a gift of food means you can lose out on sharing a meal with your social group whether at work or where-ever.
posted by diode at 8:37 AM on January 7, 2017 [4 favorites]
Wired had this article about obesity caused by a virus so there are many factors contributing to this problem. One very obese person I observed daily never seemed to overeat, perhaps she was suffering from this virus in her system.
The nut of the problem is existing in an industrialized food supply system which provides endless arrays of edible food stuff. Most people I see select for taste, satisfaction and cost and have only a smattering of nutritional knowledge. Talking about ancestral health or suggesting they change poor habits is a null zone and a fail.
When people see the lunch salad I make and bring, they often comment on how great it looks so people have the receptors for this it's just overridden by easy to prepare, tasty junk they have ready which is mfamiliar and satieting.
My zone now is intermittent fasting coupled with one meal a day of big delicious salad (no sugar allowed) then I fudge a little with a bit of chocolate or a snack and good quality dinners. And sometimes I just eat what's in front of me because rejecting a gift of food means you can lose out on sharing a meal with your social group whether at work or where-ever.
posted by diode at 8:37 AM on January 7, 2017 [4 favorites]
My uneducated take is that EMPTY carbs are the problem. There's tons of manufactured foods assembled cheaply from sugar, starches and nutritionally-deficient ingredients which are engineered to appeal (the Dorito effect). You crave them, they satiate you (or at least fill a hole), you get a kick of energy, but overall it hasn't done much good for you.
I'm no paragon of dietary virtue, but in the Codger domicile most meals are made of ingredients you can recognize. We don't eat much processed/manufactured food, relatively speaking, for North America. I think it makes a difference.
My uncle, in his 80s, is now with a lady who has taken the whole "wheat belly" thing to heart and he lost 30 lb and has experienced several other health improvements.
So, yeah, there's arguably too much sugars/starches in the average North American diet. I don't think demonizing one ingredient and the industry behind is as important as just raising awareness of what a good diet is.
I think that we still suck at that. I once took a coaching program where they taught the Canadian food guidelines. It was a convoluted mess than most of us couldn't realistically apply.
posted by Artful Codger at 8:40 AM on January 7, 2017 [2 favorites]
I'm no paragon of dietary virtue, but in the Codger domicile most meals are made of ingredients you can recognize. We don't eat much processed/manufactured food, relatively speaking, for North America. I think it makes a difference.
My uncle, in his 80s, is now with a lady who has taken the whole "wheat belly" thing to heart and he lost 30 lb and has experienced several other health improvements.
So, yeah, there's arguably too much sugars/starches in the average North American diet. I don't think demonizing one ingredient and the industry behind is as important as just raising awareness of what a good diet is.
I think that we still suck at that. I once took a coaching program where they taught the Canadian food guidelines. It was a convoluted mess than most of us couldn't realistically apply.
posted by Artful Codger at 8:40 AM on January 7, 2017 [2 favorites]
Which is not the same thing as addictive, which is generally used to mean actual physical dependence. Misusing words confuses people
But it's like "gambling addiction" or "internet addiction" I assume? I think this is one of those times where the word has a legitimate (and original) lay use and scientists have a narrow one; it can be confusing but it's not like one set of people are misusing and the others aren't.
Drawing wrong conclusions, maybe, but as I said for me consciously treating it like a drug was actually a valuable change and the right conclusion. The narrow definitional view of "this is not addictive" would have been a bad conclusion for me.
posted by mark k at 8:48 AM on January 7, 2017 [5 favorites]
But it's like "gambling addiction" or "internet addiction" I assume? I think this is one of those times where the word has a legitimate (and original) lay use and scientists have a narrow one; it can be confusing but it's not like one set of people are misusing and the others aren't.
Drawing wrong conclusions, maybe, but as I said for me consciously treating it like a drug was actually a valuable change and the right conclusion. The narrow definitional view of "this is not addictive" would have been a bad conclusion for me.
posted by mark k at 8:48 AM on January 7, 2017 [5 favorites]
The World Health Organization recommends that adults and children limit their intake of added sugars to less than 10% of their total energy intake, and a further reduction below 5% would provide additional health benefits.
5% of an adult's energy intake is about 100 calories, or less sugar than in a single can of pop. 100 calories' worth of sugar is 25 grams, or 6 level teaspoons, or 2 level tablespoons.
posted by heatherlogan at 8:52 AM on January 7, 2017 [4 favorites]
5% of an adult's energy intake is about 100 calories, or less sugar than in a single can of pop. 100 calories' worth of sugar is 25 grams, or 6 level teaspoons, or 2 level tablespoons.
posted by heatherlogan at 8:52 AM on January 7, 2017 [4 favorites]
"tl/dr: I have little doubt it is a drug."
But isn't that because your body uses sugar as fuel? Aren't most foods converted into sugar by the body? Or am I misremembering my biology class?
posted by I-baLL at 8:53 AM on January 7, 2017
But isn't that because your body uses sugar as fuel? Aren't most foods converted into sugar by the body? Or am I misremembering my biology class?
posted by I-baLL at 8:53 AM on January 7, 2017
I end up thinking that analogizing food to drugs on a grand scale is a bad idea. (I often think that analogizing drugs to drugs is a bad idea too, so to speak.) I'm not really interested in a life that contains zero sugar ever, any more than I'm interested in a life that contains zero sleeping late, zero alcohol, zero cholesterol-rich foods, etc, even if from a public health perspective I'd be a better worker bee if I never had alcohol, salt, excess sleep or egg yolks ever again.
The puritanical streak in American culture that turns every slightly bad thing into MORTAL COMBAT FOR THE SOUL OF THE NATION might be the most addictive drug of all.
If we lived in a just society instead of a capitalist shitshow, the obvious thing to do would be to create policies which supported home cooking and set some standards for store bought breads, sauces, etc in terms of sugar, salt and other additives.
Yes, exactly. It's obvious that what's actually called for in response to his problem is stronger regulation of sugar as a food additive. Unlike salt, for instance, it has no preservative value that can justify its inclusion in damned near everything, at least not at current levels. Couple that with guidelines about sugar per volume of sweet treats like soft drinks and candy bars and additional taxes on the companies that produce them (earmarked for public health expenditures). Oh, and also make sure that everyone actually has drinkable tap water.
I'm well aware that the above might be an even bigger fantasy than Universal Basic Income, but it seems like something that would help the problem without going full-bore WAR ON SUGAR.
posted by tobascodagama at 9:10 AM on January 7, 2017 [12 favorites]
The puritanical streak in American culture that turns every slightly bad thing into MORTAL COMBAT FOR THE SOUL OF THE NATION might be the most addictive drug of all.
If we lived in a just society instead of a capitalist shitshow, the obvious thing to do would be to create policies which supported home cooking and set some standards for store bought breads, sauces, etc in terms of sugar, salt and other additives.
Yes, exactly. It's obvious that what's actually called for in response to his problem is stronger regulation of sugar as a food additive. Unlike salt, for instance, it has no preservative value that can justify its inclusion in damned near everything, at least not at current levels. Couple that with guidelines about sugar per volume of sweet treats like soft drinks and candy bars and additional taxes on the companies that produce them (earmarked for public health expenditures). Oh, and also make sure that everyone actually has drinkable tap water.
I'm well aware that the above might be an even bigger fantasy than Universal Basic Income, but it seems like something that would help the problem without going full-bore WAR ON SUGAR.
posted by tobascodagama at 9:10 AM on January 7, 2017 [12 favorites]
But isn't that because your body uses sugar as fuel? Aren't most foods converted into sugar by the body? Or am I misremembering my biology class?
Here's a now famous primer by Robert Lustig on the kinds of sugar in the body (Youtube) Shorter and newer videos are found in the sidebar.
posted by Brian B. at 9:10 AM on January 7, 2017
Here's a now famous primer by Robert Lustig on the kinds of sugar in the body (Youtube) Shorter and newer videos are found in the sidebar.
posted by Brian B. at 9:10 AM on January 7, 2017
The biggest problem with sugar is its economics and geopolitical ramifications. A little is ok, it's ubiquity by virtue of a trillion dollar industry normalizing it as an alternative to water, putting it in schools, hospitals, and sporting events, near constant advertising, and now we have a problem. About a decade ago, The American Academy of Family Physicians announced a "proud partnership" with Coca-cola to create educational initiatives on healthy eating and I canceled my membership and haven't looked back (thanks for throwing zero support to the ACA, assholes!)
I think it is true what docpops says that Americans' high sugar intake has habituated them and created a lot of obesity, but that's a very different thing than addiction. I don't think it's our chemical attraction to sweetness that created the problem. It was the fact that we found a way to make lots of it cheaply (often exploiting indigenous people and slave labor) and figured out how to sell lots of it to people who became less and less sensitive to the potency of its calorie content.
This idea that it's all dangerous and that here, at last, we've found the thing that's making us fat is infuriating. I have people coming to see me all the time about this "Yeah, I'm up 10 pounds because of the holidays, but I just read about eliminating [X] or eating massive amounts of [Y] in my diet, so I'm gonna be good." Yeah, good luck with that.
Here's a tip. Find the thing that you are getting too much of, connect it to a negative consequence in your life, and adjust. We call it "balance" and Americans have too much anxiety and over stimulation to seek it out. We chase the fleeting quick answer and then give up. And people are constantly trying to exploit us and sell us shit while we chase our anxieties, whether it's sugar, alcohol, bacon, porn, Christianity or books blaming sugar, alcohol, bacon, porn, and Christianity. But "relax and maintain balance" doesn't drive web clicks.
Eat foot, mostly plants, not too much.
posted by Slarty Bartfast at 9:14 AM on January 7, 2017 [14 favorites]
I think it is true what docpops says that Americans' high sugar intake has habituated them and created a lot of obesity, but that's a very different thing than addiction. I don't think it's our chemical attraction to sweetness that created the problem. It was the fact that we found a way to make lots of it cheaply (often exploiting indigenous people and slave labor) and figured out how to sell lots of it to people who became less and less sensitive to the potency of its calorie content.
This idea that it's all dangerous and that here, at last, we've found the thing that's making us fat is infuriating. I have people coming to see me all the time about this "Yeah, I'm up 10 pounds because of the holidays, but I just read about eliminating [X] or eating massive amounts of [Y] in my diet, so I'm gonna be good." Yeah, good luck with that.
Here's a tip. Find the thing that you are getting too much of, connect it to a negative consequence in your life, and adjust. We call it "balance" and Americans have too much anxiety and over stimulation to seek it out. We chase the fleeting quick answer and then give up. And people are constantly trying to exploit us and sell us shit while we chase our anxieties, whether it's sugar, alcohol, bacon, porn, Christianity or books blaming sugar, alcohol, bacon, porn, and Christianity. But "relax and maintain balance" doesn't drive web clicks.
Eat foot, mostly plants, not too much.
posted by Slarty Bartfast at 9:14 AM on January 7, 2017 [14 favorites]
This discussion is not complete without a mention of HFCS, which plays a contribution in the wide availability of sugar in the western diet.
After the enzymatic conversion of cornstarch-> sugar was figured out, sugar went from 'a relatively expensive, refined commercial product' to 'might as well be dirt.'
This key industrial activity happened in 1957. Note obesity trends afterwards.
This assumes no malice on the part of anyone. It was just cheap, easy-to-do, and corn was an abundant US foodstuff.
posted by mrdaneri at 9:15 AM on January 7, 2017 [6 favorites]
After the enzymatic conversion of cornstarch-> sugar was figured out, sugar went from 'a relatively expensive, refined commercial product' to 'might as well be dirt.'
This key industrial activity happened in 1957. Note obesity trends afterwards.
This assumes no malice on the part of anyone. It was just cheap, easy-to-do, and corn was an abundant US foodstuff.
posted by mrdaneri at 9:15 AM on January 7, 2017 [6 favorites]
“The pissing evil”, he called it, and became the first European physician to diagnose the sweet taste of diabetic urine – “wonderfully sweet like sugar or hon[e]y”.
The what now?
You don't want to know about the guy who discovered Diabetes Insipidus.
posted by Slarty Bartfast at 9:21 AM on January 7, 2017 [2 favorites]
The what now?
You don't want to know about the guy who discovered Diabetes Insipidus.
posted by Slarty Bartfast at 9:21 AM on January 7, 2017 [2 favorites]
Stop struggling against sugar. Quit. Ask anyone who's stopped smoking. Once you've broken the habit -- bing! -- it's out of your life. You will be so surprised when you see how happy and simple your life is without sugar.
posted by Modest House at 10:09 AM on January 7, 2017 [6 favorites]
posted by Modest House at 10:09 AM on January 7, 2017 [6 favorites]
I have tested more than once with absurdly high (over 10x what is considered high) levels of triglyceride in blood tests. I didn't care until my Dad got a heart attack and I read about an possible link between triglycerides and heart attacks. In a panic, I asked my doctor what medicine I can take. He said the most effective way to reduce triglycerides is to cut back on sugar and to exercise more.
I have always had a sweet tooth and drank lots of sodas and had a few candy bars a day, so I cut it all way down, along with anything with refined flour. It is actually hard to do this. The company I work for provides free snacks and almost all of them have lots of sugar--the most of all in some of the 'health' bars and 'health' drinks.
Fiber can moderate the sugar spike in breads, and I read somewhere in a government health research site that you can do a simple test reading the nutrition label: carbohydrates should be less than 10x the amount of fiber.
It actually worked--my triglycerides are now normal for the first time ever.
Sugar and fats are not a poison--our body uses them both. It is just the excess, which is all too easy since they load unnatural amounts of sugar and corn syrup in just about everything.
(And excess saturated fats are still bad for you too.)
posted by eye of newt at 10:21 AM on January 7, 2017 [9 favorites]
I have always had a sweet tooth and drank lots of sodas and had a few candy bars a day, so I cut it all way down, along with anything with refined flour. It is actually hard to do this. The company I work for provides free snacks and almost all of them have lots of sugar--the most of all in some of the 'health' bars and 'health' drinks.
Fiber can moderate the sugar spike in breads, and I read somewhere in a government health research site that you can do a simple test reading the nutrition label: carbohydrates should be less than 10x the amount of fiber.
It actually worked--my triglycerides are now normal for the first time ever.
Sugar and fats are not a poison--our body uses them both. It is just the excess, which is all too easy since they load unnatural amounts of sugar and corn syrup in just about everything.
(And excess saturated fats are still bad for you too.)
posted by eye of newt at 10:21 AM on January 7, 2017 [9 favorites]
My experience as a previous really high sugar eater. HAD to have it every day. After trying to cut down I cut it out altogether. Super hard but after a few months felt better and functions better daily then I had in years. I tried a bit again. Though some trial and error found out what works for me based on if I eat, in general more then X amount regularly I start feeling more crappy so I don't. It's also now normal to go days without anything sugary, or sweet or wanting anything sweet.
This does not preclude high sugar eating times, like over the Christmas holidays. SO. MUCH. SUGAR. Yummy and I sure do enjoy holiday treats but now I feel like crap. Thinking about eating a lot of sugar right now makes me feel ill. I now treat eating a lot of sugar like I do alcohol. I still will chose to do it but I know the consequences.
posted by Jalliah at 10:36 AM on January 7, 2017 [2 favorites]
Stop struggling against sugar. Quit. Ask anyone who's stopped smoking. Once you've broken the habit -- bing! -- it's out of your life. You will be so surprised when you see how happy and simple your life is without sugar.I seriously wish that people could get it through their skulls that just because something works for you, that doesn't mean that it will work for everyone. I first started eliminating "bad" foods from my diet when I was 11. This is not some new concept for me. It doesn't make my life happy and simple. It makes me obsessive and crazy. What works for me is practicing moderation and thinking about food in positive terms, focusing on the kinds of food that I do want to eat rather than things that I should eliminate.
I also wish that men, in particular, would be a little careful when pontificating to women about how everyone should eat. I'm sure there are plenty of women who didn't start dieting when they were 11, but part of the reason that I started eliminating entire food categories at that point was that I got a subscription to a mainstream magazine aimed at pre-teen girls which contained crash diet plans and other pretty extreme dieting advice. That was a pretty standard part of feminine youth culture when I was a kid. For a lot of guys, this is a fascinating new way to hack your life. For a lot of women, this is the water we've been swimming in since we were little girls. You're not telling us anything new. You're not exposing us to some awesome secret that we've never heard about before.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:45 AM on January 7, 2017 [66 favorites]
I also go f-ing nuts on any diets that eliminate things for complex reasons to do with my childhood. Except sweet drinks which is my one major triumph.
I do find that my whole family does better on food that is as close to what it would be like in nature, more or less, but we also celebrate the pasta-makers of the world from time to time. We try to keep cheese tasting like cheese, strawberry tasting like the actual berries, etc.
I make cookies. My One True Trick is, make them small.
I personally think that a tube (shudder) of sugared-up yogurt doesn't tell the body it's a fruit or a milk fat and the body is a bit like holy hell. But this is faith, not science. I'm not convinced sugar is unnatural; my kids loved sugary breast milk. I just think making tomatoes taste like sugar in sauce by adding sugar so people will buy Ragu over Primo is suspect.
posted by warriorqueen at 11:11 AM on January 7, 2017
I do find that my whole family does better on food that is as close to what it would be like in nature, more or less, but we also celebrate the pasta-makers of the world from time to time. We try to keep cheese tasting like cheese, strawberry tasting like the actual berries, etc.
I make cookies. My One True Trick is, make them small.
I personally think that a tube (shudder) of sugared-up yogurt doesn't tell the body it's a fruit or a milk fat and the body is a bit like holy hell. But this is faith, not science. I'm not convinced sugar is unnatural; my kids loved sugary breast milk. I just think making tomatoes taste like sugar in sauce by adding sugar so people will buy Ragu over Primo is suspect.
posted by warriorqueen at 11:11 AM on January 7, 2017
I'm a much healthier human being when I eat and drink in moderation. Wine, sugar, pasta, meat, etc. I'd rather have a teaspoon of sugar in my tea than a pink/blue/yellow packet created in a lab. Go look at the hungry-girl.com recipe archives and see if those recipes look better for human consumption than using real-food ingredients. A blanket edict on what everyone should/should not eat is never the right answer. (See also: eggs - they've gone in and out of favor at least twice in my 45 year lifetime.) But hey, anything to sell a book, right?
Stop struggling against sugar. Quit. Ask anyone who's stopped smoking. Once you've broken the habit -- bing! -- it's out of your life. You will be so surprised when you see how happy and simple your life is without sugar.
Everyone I know who stopped smoking relapsed at least twice and 90% of them speak very fondly about missing smoking despite feeling better overall. Maybe I'm just surrounded by weaker-willed people though.
posted by kimberussell at 11:18 AM on January 7, 2017 [5 favorites]
Stop struggling against sugar. Quit. Ask anyone who's stopped smoking. Once you've broken the habit -- bing! -- it's out of your life. You will be so surprised when you see how happy and simple your life is without sugar.
Everyone I know who stopped smoking relapsed at least twice and 90% of them speak very fondly about missing smoking despite feeling better overall. Maybe I'm just surrounded by weaker-willed people though.
posted by kimberussell at 11:18 AM on January 7, 2017 [5 favorites]
The sugar problem reminds me of the opiate problem. I'm not saying I think sugar is really as addictive as heroin; I don't buy that much into the hype. What I think, though, is that while both of those things may be in some fashion harmful and habit-forming in the quantities people consume them (when they consume them), we don't have problems with those things in society because they're harmful and habit-forming in those quantities.
We have problems with these things because a lot of people are very deeply unhappy, lack access to adequate mental health care, the currently-available slate of medications for mental health care have side effects nearly as bad as anything you could possibly be using to self-medicate, and a lot of the modern Western social structures set up to help people cope are incredibly exclusionary--sometimes in the manner of churches, but also a lot of social activities turn out to be quite expensive, for example.
I have a problem with disordered eating; I can't just cut out sugar, it will make me crazy. But I also have a problem with consuming way more sugar than I need. I am at this point fully aware that I do this because when I leave work at the end of the day, I have access to nothing that is going to make me feel as good as stopping at Wendy's is going to make me feel. I don't think it's because Coke and french fries are traditionally addictive, I think it's because the world feels completely terrible right now, most TV and even video games just make me feel more stressed about how the world is terrible, and I don't even know where to start finding something that'd help.
Great, I'll give up soda. But what is going to take its place that isn't substantially more expensive and less accessible?
Until we bring a lot of the world around to the idea that joy and pleasure and just plain absence of pain are not rewards for the virtuous but non-optional parts of being functional human beings, and start finding alternate routes to these things that're more widely available, I don't see how you make these problems go away.
posted by Sequence at 11:40 AM on January 7, 2017 [16 favorites]
We have problems with these things because a lot of people are very deeply unhappy, lack access to adequate mental health care, the currently-available slate of medications for mental health care have side effects nearly as bad as anything you could possibly be using to self-medicate, and a lot of the modern Western social structures set up to help people cope are incredibly exclusionary--sometimes in the manner of churches, but also a lot of social activities turn out to be quite expensive, for example.
I have a problem with disordered eating; I can't just cut out sugar, it will make me crazy. But I also have a problem with consuming way more sugar than I need. I am at this point fully aware that I do this because when I leave work at the end of the day, I have access to nothing that is going to make me feel as good as stopping at Wendy's is going to make me feel. I don't think it's because Coke and french fries are traditionally addictive, I think it's because the world feels completely terrible right now, most TV and even video games just make me feel more stressed about how the world is terrible, and I don't even know where to start finding something that'd help.
Great, I'll give up soda. But what is going to take its place that isn't substantially more expensive and less accessible?
Until we bring a lot of the world around to the idea that joy and pleasure and just plain absence of pain are not rewards for the virtuous but non-optional parts of being functional human beings, and start finding alternate routes to these things that're more widely available, I don't see how you make these problems go away.
posted by Sequence at 11:40 AM on January 7, 2017 [16 favorites]
So this is not going to work for everyone, but I am weaning myself off of sugar cravings via the magic of Hershey's Kisses. I eat dinner and get so used to having dessert that I'm desperate for sugar, but it turns out that just a little hit will do the trick. The genius of Hershey's Kisses? It's hard to binge on them because there's more work involved in opening the damn things and they generate a lot of trash.
posted by zeusianfog at 11:49 AM on January 7, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by zeusianfog at 11:49 AM on January 7, 2017 [1 favorite]
I am NOT telling anyone "Gimme some calorie-free sweetener, baby!"
Not going to happen.
posted by Samizdata at 11:52 AM on January 7, 2017
Not going to happen.
posted by Samizdata at 11:52 AM on January 7, 2017
It seems illogical when you look at it that way that it's the hidden sugar in our ketchup that's resetting our taste buds, and not the blatant sugar in our cans of coke or pint of ice cream that's the main culprit.
In 2015 I cut out sugar and almost all carbs for a couple of months. Then one day I was super tired, fighting off a cold, didn't have any food in the house and didn't have the energy to walk up the steep hill to the real grocery store, so I just went across the street to the corner store and got a shitty DiGiorno's frozen pizza. It was incredibly sweet -- the crust was as sweet as a breakfast pastry to my mouth, the sauce was sugary, even the cheese seemed sweetened. It was fucking terrible, but it was a familiar comfort food in a moment when I just wanted to be lazy and not think about what I was eating, and I wolfed down half of the entire pizza that night. Cut to a few weeks later, when I was eating that shitty pizza for dinner a couple of times a week and other sugar and carbs were slowly finding their way back into my grocery basket.
Other, less sweet frozen pizzas don't trigger a collapse back into a diet of heavy sugar and carbs. Having ice cream in the house doesn't do it, either -- there's half a quart of some very serious ice cream in my freezer right now that's lived there for a couple of months, because I only ever want a few spoonfuls of it at a time and not that often. But give me food that is starchy and sweetened to high hell and it suddenly becomes almost impossible to resist the urge to shove more sweet and starchy things into my maw. Can't be all sweet, or all starchy. I can't binge on mashed potatoes or ice cream. But combine them, and especially make them savory (a Quarter Pounder and fries with ketchup is also a massive, terrifying trigger), and it's the key that unlocks the cage and lets out the never sated binge eating beast inside me.
posted by palomar at 12:00 PM on January 7, 2017 [9 favorites]
In 2015 I cut out sugar and almost all carbs for a couple of months. Then one day I was super tired, fighting off a cold, didn't have any food in the house and didn't have the energy to walk up the steep hill to the real grocery store, so I just went across the street to the corner store and got a shitty DiGiorno's frozen pizza. It was incredibly sweet -- the crust was as sweet as a breakfast pastry to my mouth, the sauce was sugary, even the cheese seemed sweetened. It was fucking terrible, but it was a familiar comfort food in a moment when I just wanted to be lazy and not think about what I was eating, and I wolfed down half of the entire pizza that night. Cut to a few weeks later, when I was eating that shitty pizza for dinner a couple of times a week and other sugar and carbs were slowly finding their way back into my grocery basket.
Other, less sweet frozen pizzas don't trigger a collapse back into a diet of heavy sugar and carbs. Having ice cream in the house doesn't do it, either -- there's half a quart of some very serious ice cream in my freezer right now that's lived there for a couple of months, because I only ever want a few spoonfuls of it at a time and not that often. But give me food that is starchy and sweetened to high hell and it suddenly becomes almost impossible to resist the urge to shove more sweet and starchy things into my maw. Can't be all sweet, or all starchy. I can't binge on mashed potatoes or ice cream. But combine them, and especially make them savory (a Quarter Pounder and fries with ketchup is also a massive, terrifying trigger), and it's the key that unlocks the cage and lets out the never sated binge eating beast inside me.
posted by palomar at 12:00 PM on January 7, 2017 [9 favorites]
It's quite clear that a high sugar (starches and sweets) diet is viable for many people. Whole cultures have thrived for millennia on diets where sugar is most of their calories.
It's also quite clear that contemporary obesity is almost entirely attributable to excess sweets and starches -- not just having them around to eat in large and inexpensive quantity, but the way that eating them simply doesn't trigger satiety the way equivalent calories in fat or protein do.
Check out, for example, r/keto. People who have spent their whole lives alternating between fat and being miserable deprived dieting losing 50 or 100 pounds in a year with the only pain being having to eat cheese instead of chips or drink whiskey instead of beer.
posted by MattD at 12:02 PM on January 7, 2017 [1 favorite]
It's also quite clear that contemporary obesity is almost entirely attributable to excess sweets and starches -- not just having them around to eat in large and inexpensive quantity, but the way that eating them simply doesn't trigger satiety the way equivalent calories in fat or protein do.
Check out, for example, r/keto. People who have spent their whole lives alternating between fat and being miserable deprived dieting losing 50 or 100 pounds in a year with the only pain being having to eat cheese instead of chips or drink whiskey instead of beer.
posted by MattD at 12:02 PM on January 7, 2017 [1 favorite]
You will be so surprised when you see how happy and simple your life is without sugar.
Uh, yeah. NOT.
I don't smoke--never had any desire.
I hardly drink. Sure, I can get tipsy, and it's fun, but not that fun, and I have no real taste for alcohol. I can go for several months without alcohol, especially in winter. In the summer, it's nice to have a cold beer if it's really hot, or with barbecue or Mexican food.
And then there's sugar. Especially in winter, especially over the holidays. Avoiding it in the summer is easier. People don't use the oven and produce cookies and cakes as much. In the summer they offer cold drinks and fruit. In the winter, they bring presents of cookies and candy, and we joke about how unhealthy it all is, and how wouldn't we be better off not eating them, and I've gained five pounds, and why can't people gift you with a veggie plate? A fruit basket would be more 'upscale' and also more expensive than home-baked cookies or sweet breads.
I fuckin' hate the lack of light. I can't spend late evenings until 9-10 o'clock being active outside. I walk around the house CRAVING, practically growling, for sugar, sugar, sugar, and if sugar isn't available, I'll simply substitute carbohydrates and salt. I don't enjoy the feeling of craving, nor do I find satisfaction when I eat.
Just writing about it was enough to send me into the kitchen for homemade soup... and saltines. The soup because it's lunchtime. The crackers because I crave...something. I'd prefer to go riding, but it's 15 degrees, the wind's started blowing, expected to reach 30 mph, and there's an 85% chance of snow. Not appealing.
Obviously a lack of willpower on my part.
posted by BlueHorse at 12:07 PM on January 7, 2017 [7 favorites]
Uh, yeah. NOT.
I don't smoke--never had any desire.
I hardly drink. Sure, I can get tipsy, and it's fun, but not that fun, and I have no real taste for alcohol. I can go for several months without alcohol, especially in winter. In the summer, it's nice to have a cold beer if it's really hot, or with barbecue or Mexican food.
And then there's sugar. Especially in winter, especially over the holidays. Avoiding it in the summer is easier. People don't use the oven and produce cookies and cakes as much. In the summer they offer cold drinks and fruit. In the winter, they bring presents of cookies and candy, and we joke about how unhealthy it all is, and how wouldn't we be better off not eating them, and I've gained five pounds, and why can't people gift you with a veggie plate? A fruit basket would be more 'upscale' and also more expensive than home-baked cookies or sweet breads.
I fuckin' hate the lack of light. I can't spend late evenings until 9-10 o'clock being active outside. I walk around the house CRAVING, practically growling, for sugar, sugar, sugar, and if sugar isn't available, I'll simply substitute carbohydrates and salt. I don't enjoy the feeling of craving, nor do I find satisfaction when I eat.
Just writing about it was enough to send me into the kitchen for homemade soup... and saltines. The soup because it's lunchtime. The crackers because I crave...something. I'd prefer to go riding, but it's 15 degrees, the wind's started blowing, expected to reach 30 mph, and there's an 85% chance of snow. Not appealing.
Obviously a lack of willpower on my part.
posted by BlueHorse at 12:07 PM on January 7, 2017 [7 favorites]
Great, I'll give up soda. But what is going to take its place that isn't substantially more expensive and less accessible?
The most honest answer I give to that question, and it's one that comes up in practice a lot, is simply, water, or nothing. The tricky thing from a health perspective, and why perhaps doctors get a little more involved in these topics at the risk of sounding like a scold, is that we spend our days not so much managing defined illness as more nebulous symptoms that are almost never traced to a measurable physiologic anomaly. And it is brutally time-consuming and draining in many cases to try to coax people to be open to the possibility that their diets are the source of many of their general complaints, so strong is the belief that it must be something more serious and defineable by a blood test. It is a most-but-not-all argument. Most people, but not all, feel better and age better with more sleep, more exercise, more social contact, and healthier diets. But not all need that. Some people do fine on a lifetime of bourbon, cigarettes, and a life of solitary nihilism. But not many.
Your dilemma about fast food and soda and its connection to burnishing the misery of the current day is a very tangible and serious topic and cannot be easily dismissed. The challenge for many of us is to take that leap of faith and try, just long enough for the experiment to be noticeable, a different approach not as immediately gratifying. For most of us, well-being will never come from medical services but rather from choosing to take the long-game approach over the short term impulse. But it is not a character flaw not to be able to have that sort of wiring. It's just that for every person that feels lectured, another will come in years later and tell us that it actually helped them change.
posted by docpops at 12:26 PM on January 7, 2017 [6 favorites]
The most honest answer I give to that question, and it's one that comes up in practice a lot, is simply, water, or nothing. The tricky thing from a health perspective, and why perhaps doctors get a little more involved in these topics at the risk of sounding like a scold, is that we spend our days not so much managing defined illness as more nebulous symptoms that are almost never traced to a measurable physiologic anomaly. And it is brutally time-consuming and draining in many cases to try to coax people to be open to the possibility that their diets are the source of many of their general complaints, so strong is the belief that it must be something more serious and defineable by a blood test. It is a most-but-not-all argument. Most people, but not all, feel better and age better with more sleep, more exercise, more social contact, and healthier diets. But not all need that. Some people do fine on a lifetime of bourbon, cigarettes, and a life of solitary nihilism. But not many.
Your dilemma about fast food and soda and its connection to burnishing the misery of the current day is a very tangible and serious topic and cannot be easily dismissed. The challenge for many of us is to take that leap of faith and try, just long enough for the experiment to be noticeable, a different approach not as immediately gratifying. For most of us, well-being will never come from medical services but rather from choosing to take the long-game approach over the short term impulse. But it is not a character flaw not to be able to have that sort of wiring. It's just that for every person that feels lectured, another will come in years later and tell us that it actually helped them change.
posted by docpops at 12:26 PM on January 7, 2017 [6 favorites]
Some good comments in this thread. I have been doing low-ish carb diets for three years now and plan to stay on them for the rest of my life. Low carb meaning for me anywhere between 20g a day, the max amount recommended for ketogenic diets, and about 80g a day. As an example I had a donut with my coffee this morning, but now the rest of the day will be meat and vegetables.
(I Am Not A Doctor Or Dietician) I think framing it as addiction is an awful category error, and we can in part separate the physiological from the emotional. The "withdrawl" phase is the time it takes for your body to adjust to processing and using new energy sources. If you've been getting most of your calories from carbs and instantly switch over to getting them mostly from fat, for example, it takes 1-2 weeks for your intestinal bacterial to turn over to a new profile to process them efficiently. If you go all the way to ketosis, your liver has to start producing ketones as well. In the meantime you're not getting the energy you need, so you feel weak because you are. Your brain rightly asks for sugar/carbs, and you experience this as a craving.
After that we can consider the complex psycho-social factors involved in food.
For me the appetite control of high-fat diets has been pretty stunning - it's been great for weight loss but when I've gone back to overconsuming a bit for (hopefully, heh) muscle building, I've had to up my carb consumption because my appetite was pretty well calibrated to exactly what I needed for the day, so overeating felt disgusting. Who would have thunk it...
posted by MillMan at 12:41 PM on January 7, 2017 [2 favorites]
(I Am Not A Doctor Or Dietician) I think framing it as addiction is an awful category error, and we can in part separate the physiological from the emotional. The "withdrawl" phase is the time it takes for your body to adjust to processing and using new energy sources. If you've been getting most of your calories from carbs and instantly switch over to getting them mostly from fat, for example, it takes 1-2 weeks for your intestinal bacterial to turn over to a new profile to process them efficiently. If you go all the way to ketosis, your liver has to start producing ketones as well. In the meantime you're not getting the energy you need, so you feel weak because you are. Your brain rightly asks for sugar/carbs, and you experience this as a craving.
After that we can consider the complex psycho-social factors involved in food.
For me the appetite control of high-fat diets has been pretty stunning - it's been great for weight loss but when I've gone back to overconsuming a bit for (hopefully, heh) muscle building, I've had to up my carb consumption because my appetite was pretty well calibrated to exactly what I needed for the day, so overeating felt disgusting. Who would have thunk it...
posted by MillMan at 12:41 PM on January 7, 2017 [2 favorites]
The most honest answer I give to that question, and it's one that comes up in practice a lot, is simply, water, or nothing.
The point isn't what I'm going to replace it with in terms of beverages. It's what to replace it with in terms of feeling, in the moment, good, or even just okay. I don't mind drinking water at all. All day at work, most of what I drink is water, aside from one unsweetened latte; when I'm working, I'm sufficiently engaged in that to really not care about needing more. But I get home at night and that's not enough to keep me functional anymore. People who suggest giving up "immediate gratification", as far as I can tell, are usually people who are getting gratification from other sources and therefore don't understand what it's like to do without.
It's like telling someone it's better to save money. It is better to save money than to spend it on things you don't need. But if you've got someone who's currently spending all their money plus going into debt just to cover their needs, that advice is worthless. You have to have extra left over to put into savings, or else you're just going into more debt today to have savings next year, and the interest will bankrupt you. To someone who is currently using all their energy just surviving a life that has plenty of physical or emotional pain, it is flatly not feasible to tell them that they need to just do without anything in the way of pleasure or pain relief in the moment in order to be better off later. If life can't be made bearable today, then tomorrow is completely irrelevant to the discussion.
I've been working on stuff to make life more bearable without the soda, I'm not saying that part is impossible, but it's slow going and almost none of them work anywhere near as well or as consistently.
posted by Sequence at 12:51 PM on January 7, 2017 [12 favorites]
The point isn't what I'm going to replace it with in terms of beverages. It's what to replace it with in terms of feeling, in the moment, good, or even just okay. I don't mind drinking water at all. All day at work, most of what I drink is water, aside from one unsweetened latte; when I'm working, I'm sufficiently engaged in that to really not care about needing more. But I get home at night and that's not enough to keep me functional anymore. People who suggest giving up "immediate gratification", as far as I can tell, are usually people who are getting gratification from other sources and therefore don't understand what it's like to do without.
It's like telling someone it's better to save money. It is better to save money than to spend it on things you don't need. But if you've got someone who's currently spending all their money plus going into debt just to cover their needs, that advice is worthless. You have to have extra left over to put into savings, or else you're just going into more debt today to have savings next year, and the interest will bankrupt you. To someone who is currently using all their energy just surviving a life that has plenty of physical or emotional pain, it is flatly not feasible to tell them that they need to just do without anything in the way of pleasure or pain relief in the moment in order to be better off later. If life can't be made bearable today, then tomorrow is completely irrelevant to the discussion.
I've been working on stuff to make life more bearable without the soda, I'm not saying that part is impossible, but it's slow going and almost none of them work anywhere near as well or as consistently.
posted by Sequence at 12:51 PM on January 7, 2017 [12 favorites]
I gave up salt and died.
I gave up suger and died.
I had too much water and died.
I gave up even bothering with these articles and my blood pressure went back down to healthy levels.
posted by Burn_IT at 1:21 PM on January 7, 2017 [1 favorite]
I gave up suger and died.
I had too much water and died.
I gave up even bothering with these articles and my blood pressure went back down to healthy levels.
posted by Burn_IT at 1:21 PM on January 7, 2017 [1 favorite]
just speaking for me-self, blue. whitecishetguydadclosetoonepercent type.
I try to apply the Larry Wall programmer's Laziness As A Virtue idea where I can. Far from bragging or finger wagging, I go for whatever path is easiest to remain on consistently.
Believe it or not, sometimes total abstinence is the easiest for me. I cut out all booze because it was easier than doing the calculations every occasion. Laziness FTW.
Doing that gave me a temporary sweet tooth though. High processed foods and high sugar foods were giving me insulin spikes that made life miserable. Reading that only 2 weeks of hardcore abstinence from those resets the bod, I could endure that short term and go back to lazy awareness, and eat whatever keeps me from running aground on an insulin dip. I love being aware and lazy about it with periods of resetting. When I treat those resets as built in adjustments to normalize things rather than "good" behavior and all else is FAIL, I can keep it going. Oh yeah, and the books say that a person might need a small sweet at the end of a carb free meal to signal to the body that the eating is done, so hey there's that.
(don't touch my gallon of black coffee though, no lazy breakthroughs there but I am trying to use hot water after noontime)
posted by drowsy at 1:39 PM on January 7, 2017
I try to apply the Larry Wall programmer's Laziness As A Virtue idea where I can. Far from bragging or finger wagging, I go for whatever path is easiest to remain on consistently.
Believe it or not, sometimes total abstinence is the easiest for me. I cut out all booze because it was easier than doing the calculations every occasion. Laziness FTW.
Doing that gave me a temporary sweet tooth though. High processed foods and high sugar foods were giving me insulin spikes that made life miserable. Reading that only 2 weeks of hardcore abstinence from those resets the bod, I could endure that short term and go back to lazy awareness, and eat whatever keeps me from running aground on an insulin dip. I love being aware and lazy about it with periods of resetting. When I treat those resets as built in adjustments to normalize things rather than "good" behavior and all else is FAIL, I can keep it going. Oh yeah, and the books say that a person might need a small sweet at the end of a carb free meal to signal to the body that the eating is done, so hey there's that.
(don't touch my gallon of black coffee though, no lazy breakthroughs there but I am trying to use hot water after noontime)
posted by drowsy at 1:39 PM on January 7, 2017
It seems valid that sugar is the main driver of obesity — and I can believe that the main culprit is the "hidden" sugar. But, people who use aspartame and whatever other sweeteners are fat too.
And I'm fat. I have never enjoyed sugar. When I was very young I realized it gave me headaches and nausea and I quit. I'm old, so back then there wasn't much sugar in processed food, but when it arrived, I stopped eating processed food. There were other reasons too, but lets keep it at this level of simplicity. I've also never eaten artificial sweeteners, and until I was 38-39, I was very thin. Stuff happened, and I have put on 30 kgs. The thing is, I eat fatty foods. I just today ate too many gyozas. Luckily, I skipped breakfast today, so it might be OK. But the current paradigm is that fat and protein is fine, so when I tell someone that is my problem, they start screaming at me — literally! I can't ruin their *simple solution to all issues*TM. Don't come in to remind me there is starch in gyoza - I know. I also know that my favorite binge foods are sausage and cheese, and gyoza was an unusual but delicious departure from that.
I digress.
What I want to add to the discussion is both that yes, sugar is certainly bad, and yes, there are other issues driving the obesity epidemic. For me, I think stress is an important factor, and I can recognize that in other people I know.
posted by mumimor at 1:57 PM on January 7, 2017
And I'm fat. I have never enjoyed sugar. When I was very young I realized it gave me headaches and nausea and I quit. I'm old, so back then there wasn't much sugar in processed food, but when it arrived, I stopped eating processed food. There were other reasons too, but lets keep it at this level of simplicity. I've also never eaten artificial sweeteners, and until I was 38-39, I was very thin. Stuff happened, and I have put on 30 kgs. The thing is, I eat fatty foods. I just today ate too many gyozas. Luckily, I skipped breakfast today, so it might be OK. But the current paradigm is that fat and protein is fine, so when I tell someone that is my problem, they start screaming at me — literally! I can't ruin their *simple solution to all issues*TM. Don't come in to remind me there is starch in gyoza - I know. I also know that my favorite binge foods are sausage and cheese, and gyoza was an unusual but delicious departure from that.
I digress.
What I want to add to the discussion is both that yes, sugar is certainly bad, and yes, there are other issues driving the obesity epidemic. For me, I think stress is an important factor, and I can recognize that in other people I know.
posted by mumimor at 1:57 PM on January 7, 2017
Yeah, the "water or nothing" thing doesn't work so well, when your water is liquid rock and tastes like crap to boot. I swear I am as thirsty if not more so after a big glass as I was before I had it. And I really don't have the money to switch to bottled delivery.
posted by Samizdata at 5:48 PM on January 7, 2017
posted by Samizdata at 5:48 PM on January 7, 2017
Sugar is empty calories. As I get older, every decade and lately every passing year means I can't eat as much or as thoughtlessly as I used to. I never had stomach problem; now I get heartburn. I never had blood sugar problems; now my a1c is a little high. I drank milk with impunity; now I'm intolerant.
I recently went on Weight Watchers because of a stress gain (torn meniscus, demanding job, unable to exercise because of both and didn't have time to eat properly because of the latter); their current iteration really punishes sugar and saturated fat, and I'm less hungry than I've been in previous Weight Watchers eras while still losing weight. How much of that is age-related I have no idea. (Oh, yeah, and I'm mainly losing weight because carrying extra weight with bad knees is brutal, not for appearance)
So I have a little sugar in my diet (I sprinkle it on my one cup of low-sugar high-fiber cereal at night, for instance, and have the occasional chocolate) but if I want to eat, and I do, sugar just isn't satisfying for the amount I could have.
posted by Peach at 6:13 PM on January 7, 2017 [1 favorite]
I recently went on Weight Watchers because of a stress gain (torn meniscus, demanding job, unable to exercise because of both and didn't have time to eat properly because of the latter); their current iteration really punishes sugar and saturated fat, and I'm less hungry than I've been in previous Weight Watchers eras while still losing weight. How much of that is age-related I have no idea. (Oh, yeah, and I'm mainly losing weight because carrying extra weight with bad knees is brutal, not for appearance)
So I have a little sugar in my diet (I sprinkle it on my one cup of low-sugar high-fiber cereal at night, for instance, and have the occasional chocolate) but if I want to eat, and I do, sugar just isn't satisfying for the amount I could have.
posted by Peach at 6:13 PM on January 7, 2017 [1 favorite]
This is a good site for getting up-to-date nutrition-science info: nutritionfacts.org
Here's a selection of the site's videos on sugar:
How Much Added Sugar Is Too Much?
Big Sugar Takes On the World Health Organization
If Fructose Is Bad, What About Fruit?
Flesh and Fructose
Are Sugary Foods Addictive?
Effect Of Sucralose Splenda On the Microbiome
posted by grumblebee at 6:14 PM on January 7, 2017 [5 favorites]
Here's a selection of the site's videos on sugar:
How Much Added Sugar Is Too Much?
Big Sugar Takes On the World Health Organization
If Fructose Is Bad, What About Fruit?
Flesh and Fructose
Are Sugary Foods Addictive?
Effect Of Sucralose Splenda On the Microbiome
posted by grumblebee at 6:14 PM on January 7, 2017 [5 favorites]
Stop struggling against sugar. Quit. Ask anyone who's stopped smoking. Once you've broken the habit -- bing! -- it's out of your life. You will be so surprised when you see how happy and simple your life is without sugar.
As someone who quit drinking (probably would have killed me) and smoking (2 packs/day), I am very happy I did, but I would not say it made my life simple or happy. That's another matter which was self-medicated before I quit.
posted by krinklyfig at 7:16 PM on January 7, 2017 [1 favorite]
As someone who quit drinking (probably would have killed me) and smoking (2 packs/day), I am very happy I did, but I would not say it made my life simple or happy. That's another matter which was self-medicated before I quit.
posted by krinklyfig at 7:16 PM on January 7, 2017 [1 favorite]
This story I'm sharing is of no great consequence. Last January, I found out I was diabetic. I quit processed sugar cold turkey and that was awful for about five weeks - headaches, cravings etc.
After five weeks though, all those things that sound like bullshit happened. Food tasted better, I had more energy during the day, I slept better at night. Not to mention the impact on my weight.
I miss some things like crazy, but overall quitting sugar was one of the most positive choices I ever made. Damn do I miss m&ms. Damn do I love sleeping like a rock.
posted by Joey Michaels at 7:22 PM on January 7, 2017 [5 favorites]
After five weeks though, all those things that sound like bullshit happened. Food tasted better, I had more energy during the day, I slept better at night. Not to mention the impact on my weight.
I miss some things like crazy, but overall quitting sugar was one of the most positive choices I ever made. Damn do I miss m&ms. Damn do I love sleeping like a rock.
posted by Joey Michaels at 7:22 PM on January 7, 2017 [5 favorites]
lily's chocolate is great if your body can handle stevia and erythritol, and if it doesn't result in "relapse"
posted by MillMan at 8:34 PM on January 7, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by MillMan at 8:34 PM on January 7, 2017 [1 favorite]
Nevercalm - Are you also avoiding sugar in natural places like carrots and bananas? I almost think I can get off sugar addiction of candy and desserts, etc. But then I think about the sugar content in my (actually pretty darn healthy) vegetarian diet, and I start to doubt I'll ever rid myself of the cravings without cutting out half my staples.
posted by greermahoney at 10:11 PM on January 7, 2017
posted by greermahoney at 10:11 PM on January 7, 2017
Samizdata - Does filtering not improve the taste? That's a lower cost alternative than bottled, if it helps. That, plus making sure it's cold, and adding a tiny splash of lemon or lime juice usually makes the most undrinkable water palatable to me.
posted by greermahoney at 10:16 PM on January 7, 2017
posted by greermahoney at 10:16 PM on January 7, 2017
Mostly, greermahoney...I'm on a pretty restrictive diet w/r/r carbs of all kinds, so onions are mostly out too for that reason. The rule of thumb is that vegetables that grow above ground are better than those that grow below. After about 6 mos I'll slowly start working some of that stuff back in.
posted by nevercalm at 3:29 AM on January 8, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by nevercalm at 3:29 AM on January 8, 2017 [1 favorite]
If we define appetites like sex and nutrient-craving as "addiction" do we not risk robbing the term of meaning? I mean, if things that our reward systems have been honed to have us chase are addictive than what ISN'T addictive? Severe burns?
It sounds like if we want to define sugar as addictive consistency may demand we also define water as addictive. We crave it and answering the craving rewards us; we require a specific amount, where too little or too much is dramatically deleterious; constant availability habituates certain people into profound anxiety when the possibility of quenching-at-will is eroded or threatened. Scarcity or the perception of scarcity may lead to overconsumption, or even violence.
Feel like the metaphor breaks down in that paragraph? Maybe it does. Because addiction as metaphor is an imperfect fit. Sex addiction is largely a metaphor. Food addiction is a tautology.
I think the real focus in labelling sugar as addictive is that it abstracts responsibility away from the individual in favour of an external factor beyond one's control. Are the purveyors of sugar dishonestly warping arguments and findings to spin them in favour of their product? Yes, just like most industries with marketing wings. Are their product selling aspirations dangerous to society? It sure seems like it. But choice is still in the hands of the consumer. Avoiding excessive sugar consumption is indeed hard, but many things worth doing are hard. Is it the external world's fault for making it harder? Probably, but what good does it do for you to bleat that? None at all.
P.S. I'm a veteran of substantive weight loss. I am not speaking from a lean and mean holier than thou POV. I've been in the trenches of caloric imbalance, and it sucks. Everyone fighting that fight has my sympathy and support. But focus on youself, not demon of the week substances or trade organizations. Only you control you.
posted by Construction Concern at 6:05 AM on January 8, 2017
It sounds like if we want to define sugar as addictive consistency may demand we also define water as addictive. We crave it and answering the craving rewards us; we require a specific amount, where too little or too much is dramatically deleterious; constant availability habituates certain people into profound anxiety when the possibility of quenching-at-will is eroded or threatened. Scarcity or the perception of scarcity may lead to overconsumption, or even violence.
Feel like the metaphor breaks down in that paragraph? Maybe it does. Because addiction as metaphor is an imperfect fit. Sex addiction is largely a metaphor. Food addiction is a tautology.
I think the real focus in labelling sugar as addictive is that it abstracts responsibility away from the individual in favour of an external factor beyond one's control. Are the purveyors of sugar dishonestly warping arguments and findings to spin them in favour of their product? Yes, just like most industries with marketing wings. Are their product selling aspirations dangerous to society? It sure seems like it. But choice is still in the hands of the consumer. Avoiding excessive sugar consumption is indeed hard, but many things worth doing are hard. Is it the external world's fault for making it harder? Probably, but what good does it do for you to bleat that? None at all.
P.S. I'm a veteran of substantive weight loss. I am not speaking from a lean and mean holier than thou POV. I've been in the trenches of caloric imbalance, and it sucks. Everyone fighting that fight has my sympathy and support. But focus on youself, not demon of the week substances or trade organizations. Only you control you.
posted by Construction Concern at 6:05 AM on January 8, 2017
It's worth remembering that sugar is the world's largest crop by weight.
posted by sneebler at 6:38 AM on January 8, 2017
posted by sneebler at 6:38 AM on January 8, 2017
Is there any evidence sugar is even that bad for you, if you're within healthy weight bounds (apart from being not great for teeth)?
That is exactly what big sugar wants you to think.
The sugar industry paid scientists in the 1960s to play down the link between sugar and heart disease and promote saturated fat as the culprit instead
. . .
Dr. Hegsted used his research to influence the government’s dietary recommendations, which emphasized saturated fat as a driver of heart disease while largely characterizing sugar as empty calories linked to tooth decay.
posted by ultraviolet catastrophe at 7:04 AM on January 8, 2017 [1 favorite]
That is exactly what big sugar wants you to think.
The sugar industry paid scientists in the 1960s to play down the link between sugar and heart disease and promote saturated fat as the culprit instead
. . .
Dr. Hegsted used his research to influence the government’s dietary recommendations, which emphasized saturated fat as a driver of heart disease while largely characterizing sugar as empty calories linked to tooth decay.
posted by ultraviolet catastrophe at 7:04 AM on January 8, 2017 [1 favorite]
From the article:
Thomas Willis, medical adviser to the duke of York and King Charles II, noted an increase in the prevalence of diabetes in the affluent patients of his practice. “The pissing evil”, he called it, and became the first European physician to diagnose the sweet taste of diabetic urine – “wonderfully sweet like sugar or hon[e]y”.
The what now?
Doctoring has really come up in the world, in terms of not having to drink pee
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 11:27 AM on January 8, 2017 [3 favorites]
Sugar has become the current "purity" marker in pop culture, this time bolstered by "science" instead of religion. Even the language is the same - feeling cleaner, clearer, better. So is the cycling - one break in abstinence and suddenly the devil cravings are knocking down your door. There's a similar amount of proselytization, as well, with frequent references to "science" and experience which should overcome the objections of anyone else, unless they're weak.
Our science on nutrition sucks. It's bad. Very, very, very, very bad. It's almost impossible for it not to be bad; the confounds are a mess, and because of reporter bias the chances of actually getting accurate data is impossible (have you seen the USDA data on food consumption? Apparently, a lot of ice cream consumption is in single spoonfuls; a single person who admitted to a gallon at a time got us up to the 1/2 cup serving that is now the FDA standard). And lets not even get into the fact that our body converts more complex sugars to to glucose anyway to power the cells and that "sugar" isn't synonymous with "cookies" the way lay people use it - none of this is about actually using science to form conclusions, it's about using science to reinforce pre-existing beliefs (which is bad science).
It's great that the anti-sugar people feel their life has improved immeasurably since giving up sugar. I'm happy for you - REALLY I AM. I am less than happy that you've decided that your individual choice, which matches with your life and psychology, is now the go-to advice for everyone around you and it's oh so simple. No, it's not that simple, and dismissing other peoples' complexities because they're different complexities from yours is an asshole move.
When I do elimination diets, I am about two weeks from being physically repulsed by all food. Physically repulsed as in "I put it in my mouth and spat it out because I couldn't swallow it" and "I started nearly passing out a lot because I hadn't eaten in a few days but the thought of eating made me nauseous and I actually vomited up bile" physically repulsed. I'm glad they work for you, keep up the good work and gold star and all that, but people are actually different, often in very profound ways.
posted by Deoridhe at 2:00 PM on January 8, 2017 [11 favorites]
Our science on nutrition sucks. It's bad. Very, very, very, very bad. It's almost impossible for it not to be bad; the confounds are a mess, and because of reporter bias the chances of actually getting accurate data is impossible (have you seen the USDA data on food consumption? Apparently, a lot of ice cream consumption is in single spoonfuls; a single person who admitted to a gallon at a time got us up to the 1/2 cup serving that is now the FDA standard). And lets not even get into the fact that our body converts more complex sugars to to glucose anyway to power the cells and that "sugar" isn't synonymous with "cookies" the way lay people use it - none of this is about actually using science to form conclusions, it's about using science to reinforce pre-existing beliefs (which is bad science).
It's great that the anti-sugar people feel their life has improved immeasurably since giving up sugar. I'm happy for you - REALLY I AM. I am less than happy that you've decided that your individual choice, which matches with your life and psychology, is now the go-to advice for everyone around you and it's oh so simple. No, it's not that simple, and dismissing other peoples' complexities because they're different complexities from yours is an asshole move.
When I do elimination diets, I am about two weeks from being physically repulsed by all food. Physically repulsed as in "I put it in my mouth and spat it out because I couldn't swallow it" and "I started nearly passing out a lot because I hadn't eaten in a few days but the thought of eating made me nauseous and I actually vomited up bile" physically repulsed. I'm glad they work for you, keep up the good work and gold star and all that, but people are actually different, often in very profound ways.
posted by Deoridhe at 2:00 PM on January 8, 2017 [11 favorites]
Personally, what worked for me was switching from sugar to cocaine. It's not for everyone though, and I'll be the first to admit it. I also switched from beer/wine to straight whiskey/rum. I also dramatically increased my water intake.
As a result, I've been able to maintain a healthy body weight for going on six years straight now.
Of course, you know, this smacks of privilege. Not everyone can afford to make the same choices I've made. I hear some people in fact feel compelled to mix sugar with their recreational stimulants, which, thank goodness, hasn't been so in my case. I guess the trick is to find out what works for YOU.
posted by some loser at 10:16 PM on January 8, 2017
As a result, I've been able to maintain a healthy body weight for going on six years straight now.
Of course, you know, this smacks of privilege. Not everyone can afford to make the same choices I've made. I hear some people in fact feel compelled to mix sugar with their recreational stimulants, which, thank goodness, hasn't been so in my case. I guess the trick is to find out what works for YOU.
posted by some loser at 10:16 PM on January 8, 2017
There is no reason anybody else would still be reading this thread, but I've just finished the book, and here are my thoughts.
I. My biases before reading were as follows: I find Taubes a trustworthy and persuasive researcher. I find the thesis that sugar is uniquely dangerous a very plausible hypothesis. I have an athletic body weight, and I fucking love eating sugar. Everyday and in large quantities. I can eat a dozen donuts and feel fantastic. Preferably as a chaser to a 1lb porterhouse.
II. Taubes' book, despite explicitly framing itself as an underdog against mainstream scientific opinion, is being universally praised and/or promoted by the press, with nary a contrarian review. This includes the New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Economist, The Guardian, as well as political venues like Reason and Vox. None of them even offer counter-balancing opinions on the book's weaknesses. So regardless of the alleged health authority bias, the media bias is wholly in Taubes' favor.
III. Taubes' book is engaging and contains a lot of worthwhile history and facts about sugar and health. There is original reporting about the sugar industry's role in influencing the science over many decades (see Taubes' Mother Jones cover story from 2012). There is also a compelling chapter about sugar's key role in the viability and popularity of tobacco products.
IV. Taubes’ central thesis is surprisingly poorly defended. The very first question in this thread was this:
“The main issue is obesity, right? Is there any evidence sugar is even that bad for you, if you're within healthy weight bounds (apart from being not great for teeth)?”.
And that is, in fact, the stated central premise of the book: health authorities say that sugar is bad for you only to the extent that it’s a vehicle for eating too many empty calories, which makes you fat, which is bad for your general health. But health authorities are wrong: sugar is inherently and uniquely dangerous, not just an attractive source of excess calories.
I read the whole book waiting to be convinced of this, even as it was repeatedly asserted chapter after chapter. Maybe I just have bad reading comprehension, but the argument was never even cogently presented. The meat of the book was chapter 11, where Taubes argues that insulin resistance is the central factor behind most modern diseases: obesity, diabetes, gout, cancer, hypertension, and alzheimers. For all I know he is correct on this point, but this is equally consistent with the mainstream viewpoint that being fat is bad for you and sugar makes you fat because you eat too much of it. Taubes consistently makes an analogy between sugar consumption and tobacco use, where health symptoms might not manifest until two or three decades of usage. But this comes across as superstitious, since all the diseases mentioned by Taubes are proposed as consequences of obesity and high blood glucose, which are measurable health states. Sugar is presented as a “silent killer,” even though its harmful effects on the body are diagnostically observable.
V. As someone who has low body fat, healthy bloodwork, and likes to eat sugar, Taubes’ book did not present evidence to convince me that sugar is a unique danger to my health outside of energy balance considerations. When I Googled Taubes' thesis before reading his book, I saw many articles making the same assertions, but few presenting much evidence. I also found a weight lifting article that uses evidence to make the opposite thesis: sugar is merely empty calories and not inherently dangerous. I found this article persuasive and find it even more persuasive after reading Taubes' book.
I have now also used Google Scholar to look up research articles on sugar and these too make the same case: the evidence does not show sugar has negative effects outside of energy balance.
VI. Conclusion: Taubes’ book is a worthwhile read and contains useful information, but I do not believe his central thesis is convincingly supported. The mainstream scientific opinion is that sugar is dangerous to health only in so far as it is eaten in excess of your daily calories requirements. I find this opinion to be better supported.
And finally, major media publications have the responsibility to use more qualified experts for reviewing non-fiction.
posted by dgaicun at 9:35 AM on January 20, 2017 [5 favorites]
I. My biases before reading were as follows: I find Taubes a trustworthy and persuasive researcher. I find the thesis that sugar is uniquely dangerous a very plausible hypothesis. I have an athletic body weight, and I fucking love eating sugar. Everyday and in large quantities. I can eat a dozen donuts and feel fantastic. Preferably as a chaser to a 1lb porterhouse.
II. Taubes' book, despite explicitly framing itself as an underdog against mainstream scientific opinion, is being universally praised and/or promoted by the press, with nary a contrarian review. This includes the New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Economist, The Guardian, as well as political venues like Reason and Vox. None of them even offer counter-balancing opinions on the book's weaknesses. So regardless of the alleged health authority bias, the media bias is wholly in Taubes' favor.
III. Taubes' book is engaging and contains a lot of worthwhile history and facts about sugar and health. There is original reporting about the sugar industry's role in influencing the science over many decades (see Taubes' Mother Jones cover story from 2012). There is also a compelling chapter about sugar's key role in the viability and popularity of tobacco products.
IV. Taubes’ central thesis is surprisingly poorly defended. The very first question in this thread was this:
“The main issue is obesity, right? Is there any evidence sugar is even that bad for you, if you're within healthy weight bounds (apart from being not great for teeth)?”.
And that is, in fact, the stated central premise of the book: health authorities say that sugar is bad for you only to the extent that it’s a vehicle for eating too many empty calories, which makes you fat, which is bad for your general health. But health authorities are wrong: sugar is inherently and uniquely dangerous, not just an attractive source of excess calories.
I read the whole book waiting to be convinced of this, even as it was repeatedly asserted chapter after chapter. Maybe I just have bad reading comprehension, but the argument was never even cogently presented. The meat of the book was chapter 11, where Taubes argues that insulin resistance is the central factor behind most modern diseases: obesity, diabetes, gout, cancer, hypertension, and alzheimers. For all I know he is correct on this point, but this is equally consistent with the mainstream viewpoint that being fat is bad for you and sugar makes you fat because you eat too much of it. Taubes consistently makes an analogy between sugar consumption and tobacco use, where health symptoms might not manifest until two or three decades of usage. But this comes across as superstitious, since all the diseases mentioned by Taubes are proposed as consequences of obesity and high blood glucose, which are measurable health states. Sugar is presented as a “silent killer,” even though its harmful effects on the body are diagnostically observable.
V. As someone who has low body fat, healthy bloodwork, and likes to eat sugar, Taubes’ book did not present evidence to convince me that sugar is a unique danger to my health outside of energy balance considerations. When I Googled Taubes' thesis before reading his book, I saw many articles making the same assertions, but few presenting much evidence. I also found a weight lifting article that uses evidence to make the opposite thesis: sugar is merely empty calories and not inherently dangerous. I found this article persuasive and find it even more persuasive after reading Taubes' book.
I have now also used Google Scholar to look up research articles on sugar and these too make the same case: the evidence does not show sugar has negative effects outside of energy balance.
VI. Conclusion: Taubes’ book is a worthwhile read and contains useful information, but I do not believe his central thesis is convincingly supported. The mainstream scientific opinion is that sugar is dangerous to health only in so far as it is eaten in excess of your daily calories requirements. I find this opinion to be better supported.
And finally, major media publications have the responsibility to use more qualified experts for reviewing non-fiction.
posted by dgaicun at 9:35 AM on January 20, 2017 [5 favorites]
Thanks for the detailed review, dgaicun.
posted by tobascodagama at 10:24 AM on January 20, 2017
posted by tobascodagama at 10:24 AM on January 20, 2017
Here is yet another New York Times article by Taubes from last week:
Big Sugar’s Secret Ally? Nutritionists
This article is a short and fairly accurate microcosm of his book: Taubes acknowledges and snipes at the scientific consensus, while insinuating that it is ignoring some important facts, without ever quite articulating what those important facts are or how exactly they should be weighted. We are simply told sugar's unique unknown health toll must be long term and "very subtle" and that we might find it if scientists would just free themselves from the yoke of corporate intrigue and look harder.
Equally remarkable is that this is the third or fourth article promoting Taubes' viewpoint by the NYT alone, allowing him to insult and insinuate corruption among health authorities, but without giving any column space to these experts for presenting the contrary and (admittedly) scientifically accepted arguments. Why? Why is the media so unilaterally hostile to experts on this issue? I'm all for space for the underdog, but all underdog? Please put up a conversation, and allot your column space approximately according to merit.
posted by dgaicun at 12:51 PM on January 20, 2017 [1 favorite]
Big Sugar’s Secret Ally? Nutritionists
This article is a short and fairly accurate microcosm of his book: Taubes acknowledges and snipes at the scientific consensus, while insinuating that it is ignoring some important facts, without ever quite articulating what those important facts are or how exactly they should be weighted. We are simply told sugar's unique unknown health toll must be long term and "very subtle" and that we might find it if scientists would just free themselves from the yoke of corporate intrigue and look harder.
Equally remarkable is that this is the third or fourth article promoting Taubes' viewpoint by the NYT alone, allowing him to insult and insinuate corruption among health authorities, but without giving any column space to these experts for presenting the contrary and (admittedly) scientifically accepted arguments. Why? Why is the media so unilaterally hostile to experts on this issue? I'm all for space for the underdog, but all underdog? Please put up a conversation, and allot your column space approximately according to merit.
posted by dgaicun at 12:51 PM on January 20, 2017 [1 favorite]
Thanks from me too for the review, dgaicun.
I still think a jihad against sugar alone misses the greater truth that 'empty' calories is the problem; that we are persuaded and enticed to buy and eat too much of "manufactured" things that are delicious and satisfying in the mouth, but have missing or incomplete nutrition. These things are often concocted just of sugars, starches and/or wierd fats, and they supply little nutrition besides energy and whatever nutrients they deliberately add back (as with breakfast cereals).
We do try to eat stuff we cook ourselves, and to eat 'treats' in moderation, though I am guiltily enjoying a honey-nut cereal and coffee buzz right now.
posted by Artful Codger at 7:59 AM on January 21, 2017
I still think a jihad against sugar alone misses the greater truth that 'empty' calories is the problem; that we are persuaded and enticed to buy and eat too much of "manufactured" things that are delicious and satisfying in the mouth, but have missing or incomplete nutrition. These things are often concocted just of sugars, starches and/or wierd fats, and they supply little nutrition besides energy and whatever nutrients they deliberately add back (as with breakfast cereals).
We do try to eat stuff we cook ourselves, and to eat 'treats' in moderation, though I am guiltily enjoying a honey-nut cereal and coffee buzz right now.
posted by Artful Codger at 7:59 AM on January 21, 2017
Here's a new review of 'Case Against Sugar' by an actual obesity researcher, Stephan Guyenet. He gives the book a big thumbs down, so its on a personal website instead of in a major newspaper or magazine.
Guyenet and a few others also have a sparring match with Taubes over USDA dietary guidelines at Cato Unbound.
posted by dgaicun at 6:06 PM on January 26, 2017 [1 favorite]
Guyenet and a few others also have a sparring match with Taubes over USDA dietary guidelines at Cato Unbound.
posted by dgaicun at 6:06 PM on January 26, 2017 [1 favorite]
« Older People who are so important that they don’t have... | Malaysian Ninja Hijabi Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
It feels like the health drive against sugar is driven by at attempt to manage increasing obesity in developed societies. But there are other lifestyle issues that are implicated in the increase in obesity. And "diet" foods containing e.g. aspartame come with their own issues for health and nutrition.
posted by iotic at 2:25 AM on January 7, 2017 [8 favorites]