Thought I’d share these videos. Dr. Johnson’s are in three parts and, although he’s not a good orator, gets to the meat of the issue more quickly. Dr. Lustig’s video is longer, but more in-depth. Both address the same topic; sugar.
Sugar Dangers - Dr. Richard Johnson
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOJ3SiRj4AQ&feature=relmfu
Sugar: The Bitter Truth - Dr. Lustig
Dr. Lustig’s lecture is worth watching, but here is an abbreviated version of what Dr. Lustig has to say for those who don’t want to make the time right now:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7403942n&tag=contentBody;storyMediaBox
If this is news to anyone, I have to wonder what cave they have been living in. Excess sugar, especially how most get it (via processed zero fiber/zero nutrition routes), is bad for your health. Sugar, in moderation, while keeping total cals under control, is generally fine. This vid is overly simple, overly hysterical, and he’s not giving out an iota of original thought here. I guess he’s getting some credit for bringing attention to the negative impact of eating excess sugars, but others have been sounding that alarm for 2-3 decades.
and yet nobody is listening.
Yes, Will, that video is over-simplified. It is made for the masses and the masses are not students of the human body. As I am sure you know, clinical nutrition is a complex subject and dumbing it down to make it understandable while still getting the message across is something that requires sacrifice is detail.
As a health care professional I don’t give a damn who takes credit. I care that our society’s attitude towards sugar changes.
ex-F*cking-actly
The more this is discussed, the better. At some level people know too much sugar is not good for them. But they don’t realize exactly how the amount we consume impacts the body.
The masses are not a student of anything sad to say.
Gets a major yawn from me, and presented as “new discovery” annoying, but agreed, if it gets a few more people to “get it” and cut back of sodas, and perhaps read the ingredients some some of the things they consume, all good.
If Sucrose and High Fructose Corn Syrup was created by a pharmaceutical company it would be a schedule II drug. Because it is ‘naturally’ occurring it is sort of taken for granted. The fact is, Sucrose occurs only in very few foods naturally and High Fructose Corn Syrup does not occur in nature at all. It is the result of a laboratory process. Refined sugar and other high glycemic foods have profound physiological effects. These effects are vastly amplified if you spend most of your life sitting - sitting in car, sitting at a desk, and sitting at home in front of the TV.
Most Americans would vastly improve their health by removing refined sugar and white flour from their diet.
I posted the videos because they provide clinical information and explanations of how fructose negatively affects our bodies. Dr. Johnson references a study that refutes your argument that sugar in moderation, while keeping total calories under control, is generally fine (1st vid, 7:40 mark). It’s a little flippant to write this information off as overly hysterical when we have a nationwide epidemic of diabetes, hypertension and obesity.
Watch Dr. Johnson’s videos some morning while having coffee. You might be surprised by some of the information and learn something new.
I believe Will was referring to the 60 minutes video I posted for the lay person.
As a side note, it is believed that 30% of Americans have non-alcoholic fatty liver disease as a direct result of the over-consumption of fructose containing sugars (sucrose and HFCS). The liver is the only place in the body that has a fructose receptor. Converting fructose to fat is the body’s way of detoxifying it. In fact, the liver treats fructose much the same as alcohol. That is why fructose is sometimes referred to as “booze without the buzz”.
I think the key here is moderate use, I mean really I like a piece of chocolate cake every now and then.
Moderation, yes, but the question we haven’t been able to answer is “how much is too much?” People with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and diabetes mellitus have surpassed that threshold, but everyone’s biochemistry varies slightly -what is toxic to one may be acceptable to another.
The saying “less is best” would be more appropriate and easier to apply to every day life. The less sugar you eat, the better off you will be. We know that sugar is related to systemic inflammation which may then be leading to many of our chronic diseases such as CVD and cancer. There is literature to support this.
What are the thoughts on things like Stevia, honey, agave, etc. as alternatives?
Honey is composed of ~38% Fructose, ~31%Glucose with a small amount of Sucrose (fructose + glucose = scurose) and Maltose. Honey also has trace amounts of nutrients like B6, potassium and even a few amino acids. Compared to sucrose, which is 50% fructose, and HFCS, which is typically 55% fructose, honey is less demanding of the liver with only 38% fructose by volume.
With the exception of Aspartame, which can cause nerve damage in excessive amounts, the jury is still out on most artificial sweeteners. I have heard, though, from a brilliant physiologist, that of all the artificial sweeteners Stevia is likely the most benign and therefore likely the safest.
Had a piece homemade chocolate cake last night and it was worth the 2 days it shaved off my life span. 
Thank god the city of New York is! 
john
“Big picture” it’s generally best to just think of sugar as sugar. Yes, there are some unique effects between sugars, but end of the day, it’s still the same conclusion: moderate use of sugar (eg, limited to naturally occurring in fruit, etc) and avoiding it where added for no reason to various foods, etc, best practice.
Stevia, is not a sugar, and it’s a non caloric sweetener, and non caloric sweeteners (stevia, aspartame, etc) a different topic totally.
so can we expand the discussion to include it? Is it not relevant to the topic?
If the direction is “don’t eat sugar”, is not the discussion of alternatives a logical extension of that topic?
Yes, but it gets complicated real fast. You have to discuss each on its own merits/potential drawbacks.
But I’ll give you my big picture summary:
• People simply need to get used to eating less sweetened food vs replacing with non caloric/synthetic sweeteners as it simply keeps the brains need for sweet foods going and is self defeating in the long term.
• People will get their tin foil hats on and tell you how X synthetic sweetener is worse than eating uranium. But, yet again, moderation is key. A few cans per week of diet soda, perfectly OK, ten cans per day, maybe not…
That’s the no BS take home.
I completely agree that sugar is bad for you, but this is nonsense. First, sucrose is everywhere. Sucrose is bonded glucose and fructose. High fructose corn syrup is glucose and fructose, just unbonded. HFCS exists because when it was industrialized, it was much cheaper than liquid sugar and has the same sweetness. Now this is no longer true - they cost the same or nearly the same, which is why you’re now seeing more and more junk food companies claiming to be making their foods more healthy by going back to ‘real sugar’.