Comments on: Is sugar ‘toxic’?

By: Bill Shrapnel

Bill Shrapnel — Tue, 14 Oct 2014 19:21:24 +0000

Hello Aaron. Dr Lustig also said that fructose was bad and glucose was good. When I look at the data it seems to me that glycaemic load is the issue of concern and therefore refined starches should be a focus of our attention. Moderation of intake of nutrient-poor, refined carbohydrates is to be recommended but this was lost when sugar was declared ‘toxic’. Simple nutrition messages may work well in the media but they always fall short in practice. Regards, Bill

By: Aaron

Aaron — Mon, 13 Oct 2014 14:24:03 +0000

Lustig is saying that it is fine to eat a reasonable amount of sugar each day, but the does makes the poison. So you agree with him, or you never really understood what he was saying.

By: Alicia

Alicia — Sun, 09 Feb 2014 11:59:57 +0000

In Robert Lustig’s article ‘Fructose: The Poison Index’ in The Guardian (21st October 2013) he mentions ” The food industry is fond of referring to a 1999 study showing that liver fat generation from oral fructose occurs at a very low rate (less than 5%) “. Could anyone tell me which study he is referring to? I am analysing the article and have searched everywhere for it! Any help would be much appreciated.
Regards
Alicia

By: Alun

Alun — Sat, 11 Jan 2014 07:19:17 +0000

He calls fructose “toxic”. That’s just hysterical nonsense. Fructose is a perfectly normal nutrient. If one over-consumes any normal nutrient, it can have serious health effects. Just about anything can be described as “toxic” if given in large enough quantities.
In the end, Lustig is totally unconvincing, because the science doesn’t actually back his claims.

By: Bob

Bob — Thu, 11 Apr 2013 23:31:46 +0000

Re GI & GL.. Umm, he does.

Key point on fructose was not that it’s evil per se. Rather, it’s the quantity & the rate at which it’s hitting the liver which makes it so bad (in other words, the GI & GL).

In context of the American processed food diet, people are getting huge amounts of fructose, without other nutrients & fibre to offset it, and this is what’s causing the problem.

Another example he gives elsewhere is the experiment where one kid juices & drinks 5 oranges (getting all the fructose) and then wants breakfast; whilst the other has to eat the five, can’t make his way through all of them, and no longer wants to eat.

By: Bob

Bob — Thu, 11 Apr 2013 23:20:29 +0000

Specious logic.

Vitamin A is essential. Too much vitamin A will poison or kill you.

Lustig doesn’t say fructose is toxic – he says too much fructose, hitting your liver too quickly, without other nutrients (eg fibre) to offset it, is toxic.

Check out his video on YouTube. Bit long, first half a bit of a boring rant, but the biochemistry from there on in is fascinating.

By: Bob

Bob — Thu, 11 Apr 2013 23:07:37 +0000

You’ve missed the point. Dr Lustig deals with this specifically. He even says “Fruit is good, fruit juice is bad”. The issue is around the quantity of fructose and the rate at which the liver has to deal with it.

Go check out his lecture on YouTube – search for “sugar the bitter truth”.

By: Bill Shrapnel

Bill Shrapnel — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 00:54:00 +0000

Hello Caren
So you are sceptical about sceptics – no bad thing. I base my nutrition advice on nutrition science. Consequently I find myself taking a conservative approach on some issues and a progressive approach on others.
In relation to sugar, a big bandwagon has rolled into town and it’s always tempting to jump on board for the ride. It’s harder to stand your ground and argue that the evidence is not convincing. If the science is sound, nutritionists should support the status quo.
For the last 30 years the majority of nutritionists have argued that low fat diets improve health (the status quo). Following recent research findings I have been arguing that low fat diets do nothing and that higher-fat, Mediterranean-type diets are better. If the status quo is no longer supportable, we must change our advice. Regards, Bill

By: caren

caren — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 22:04:43 +0000

Why is it that “sceptics” always support the staus quo?

By: Greg

Greg — Thu, 10 May 2012 05:57:06 +0000

Thank you for taking the time to respond. I agree that good nutrition is a lot more complex than simply not eating sugar or fructose and that a lot of other high carb sources provide very little nutrition (eg. white rice & white flour). I will be interested to read your thoughts on carbohydrate quality and will keep a watch out for your future postings on the topic.