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

The underlying premise that there's something strange about the correlation between the rise of sugar and the rise of health issues is stark. Obviously, we can't say that correlation = causation. But such data points should be taken seriously for more investigation, much like for example, global warming (which is a debate that I still don't completely understand either).

This is the key quote for me:

Yudkin's detractors had one trump card: his evidence often relied on observations, rather than on explanations, of rising obesity, heart disease and diabetes rates. "He could tell you these things were happening but not why, or at least not in a scientifically acceptable way," says David Gillespie, author of the bestselling Sweet Poison. "Three or four of the hormones that would explain his theories had not been discovered."

Let's apply that towards global warming. This reminds me of Al Gore's little movie where he talks about his old prof gathering climate data. The temperature kept going up, and he could not figure out why. Lots of data, no explanation. What should have been the proper response? Dismissal because there's no explanation or further study?

I worry that there are other things where the timeline required to truly observe and understand things is not possible, and that risks are completely accepted because no current viable explanation can be made as to why the thing is actually dangerous. The biggest one for me is wireless communications. Can cell phones and other wireless devices cause cancer? Generally, we say no. But we don't have enough data to truly say no, and we probably won't have that data until kids born after 2000 become geriatrics, as they'll be the first generation to truly grow up from birth in an age with ubiquitous cell phones. And besides that, it's not like anyone's been able to provide any widely acceptable explanation on the matter anyway. So we'll just trundle along blindly because our current data says there's no risk. I'm mostly sad because what other choice do we really have? You can't turn back the clock on technological progress even if you wanted to.

I have no idea what you mean by "functional difference" here. But there are significant differences in both metabolic requirements and sugar structure between fructose and sucrose (that being one whole glucose moiety). The glycosidic bond of the disaccharide requires a specific enzyme sucrase.

Who are you to say my kids can't eat Arsenic Flakes or Lead-frosted Crunchies?

I'd like for you to actually explain how it's wrong to say that replacing a fat-heavy diet with a sugar-heavy diet is bad for health. You dismiss their premises and conclusions by saying they're looking at the wrong culprit for health problems. I'd prefer if you dealt with their premises and conclusions by falsifying said premises and conclusions.

Heart disease etc, including[1]:

"This is why hemoglobin A1C is frequently used in studies that try to correlate blood sugar control to various disease processes like Alzheimer’s, mild cognitive impairment, and coronary artery disease. It’s well documented that glycated hemoglobin is a powerful risk factor for diabetes, but it’s also been correlated with risk for stroke, coronary heart disease, and death from other illnesses. These correlations have been shown to be strongest with any measurement of hemoglobin A1C above 6.0 percent. We now have evidence to show that elevated hemoglobin A1C is associated with changes in brain size. In one particularly profound study, published in the journal Neurology, researchers looking at MRIs to determine which lab test correlated best with brain atrophy found that the hemoglobin A1C demonstrated the most powerful relationship.[2]”

[1] Perlmutter, David. “Grain Brain.”

[2] “C. Enzinger, et al., “Risk Factors for Progression of Brain Atrophy in Aging: Six-year Follow-up of Normal Subjects,” Neurology 64, no. 10 (May 24, 2005): 1704–11.”