Toxicity as a concept is entirely defined by dose. Bleach is not toxic if you take a small enough dose. Conversely, water is toxic if you drink too much of it. Unfortunately toxic, like so many other of our perfectly good scientific words, has been hijacked by quacks trying to deprive the credulous of their money.
Isn't sodium hypochlorite not particularly toxic to humans anyway?
I think cyanide would have been a better example. Eat one microgram, you're fine. Eat one gram, bye bye.
Toxicity as a concept is entirely defined by dose. Bleach is not toxic if you take a small enough dose. Conversely, water is toxic if you drink too much of it. Unfortunately toxic, like so many other of our perfectly good scientific words, has been hijacked by quacks trying to deprive the credulous of their money.
Who wants to extort money from whom?..
...beside the food industry, which thrives by having people overeat?
The thesis of the article is pretty obvious: Sugar is toxic in the amounts found in a typical western diet.
Hmmmm. You're right. That is pretty obvious. I feel kinda silly now. I tend to be on a bit of a hair trigger over the use of words like toxic by nutritionists, because so often they turn out to be graduates of degree mills, pedalling patent medicines via press release reprinting churnalists. This guy seems to check out however, even if he is a bit absolutist.
Technically, you don't even need a degree in anything relevant to nutrition to call yourself a nutritionist. Dietitian on the other hand comes with more accreditation. For that reason, dietitians often refer to themselves as dietitians rather than nutritionists because it's more distinguished. I err towards suspicion when someone refers to himself/herself as simply a "nutritionist".
How can one buy bulk glucose to use as a sweetener instead of fructose or sucrose?
My amateur understanding is that excess glucose still leads to high blood sugar and so the resulting insulin spikes and fat storage. So it may be a lesser evil than fructose, but is not a panacea by any means. FWIW, I'm basing my current understanding on the book Body by Science. It has an explanation of metabolism similar to the Lustig video linked to in the NYT article. However, Body by Science wasn't as specifical…
Sure, but I'm still going to want to sweeten food in moderation, and it appears that tilting towards glucose in doing so is better. (Though glucose is less sweet, possibly meaning I'll use more, and that's worth watching out for.)
Anyone who has questions has the option of posing them directly to Gary himself. The NYT has a Q&A that's open for a few days. Looks like he has already started responding.
Toxicity as a concept is entirely defined by dose. Bleach is not toxic if you take a small enough dose. Conversely, water is toxic if you drink too much of it. Unfortunately toxic, like so many other of our perfectly good scientific words, has been hijacked by quacks trying to deprive the credulous of their money.
The dose is discussed in the article. The hypothesis is that 90 pounds of added sugars per person per year is toxic (current levels of consumption). 40 pounds per person per year is supposed to be ok.
Journalist who hasn't done any research on sugar agrees with doctor who hasn't done any research on sugar. And this happens to be great linkbait. Tell me why I should pay for the New York Times, again?
I’ve spent much of the last decade doing journalistic research on diet and chronic disease — some of the more contrarian findings, on dietary fat, appeared in this magazine
---------------
I think thats compelling enough to make it worth the read.
Journalist who hasn't done any research on sugar agrees with doctor who hasn't done any research on sugar. And this happens to be great linkbait. Tell me why I should pay for the New York Times, again?
Dr. Lustig is a nationally-recognized authority in the field of neuroendocrinology, with a specific emphasis on the regulation of energy balance by the central nervous system. He is currently investigating the contribution of biochemical, neural, hormonal, and genetic influences in the expression of the current obesity epidemic both in children and adults. He has defined a syndrome of vagally-mediated beta-cell hyperactivity which leads to insulin hypersecretion and obesity, and which is treatable by insulin suppression. This phenomenon may occur in up to 20% of the obese population. He is interested in the hypothalamic signal transduction of insulin and leptin, and how these two systems interact. He is studying the cardiovascular morbidity associated with hyperinsulinemia, and developing methods to evaluate and prevent this phenomenon in children. He is also analyzing the contribution of the autonomic nervous system to insulin secretion and insulin resistance in obese children, and the utility of assessing insulin dynamics in targeting obesity therapy.
There is conclusive evidence of a problem. The rise in diabetes, heart disease, and obesity are all out there and free to anyone with a web browser. One might say that given a health crisis, sitting back not saying anything would be irresponsible. Ben Goldacre chronicles bad science journalism, and this is not an example of it. (edited)
A rise in diabetes and other ailments is not conclusive evidence that sugar is toxic, and that you think it might be does a pretty good job of demonstrating my point (that this stuff should be kept in journals, to be read by people who understand how science works, and only thrown into newspapers when we have proof).
I spent half my undergrad in labs, writing up formal scientific results. I wrote and was graded on plenty of scientific papers. I have a fine understanding of scientific publishing, data analysis, and experimental methods.
The fact that you misread me is your problem. I did not write there was conclusive evidence that sucrose is toxic. I said _conclusive evidence of a problem_ - which is different thing and is clearly true.