Is sugar toxic segment on 60 minutes tonight

Hi- Dr. Gupta. the medical expert on CNN, has started doing segments on 60 minutes recently. He did one a few weeks ago. He is doing one tonight 4/1, on whether sugar is toxic. Apparently he interviews a pediatric endocrinologist who has come to the conclusion that sugar is bad for you. I think he is mostly concerned about the fact that sugar can contribute to the obesity rate among children in this country. This should be a very controversial topic. These are his opinions, and not mine. I think that a little sugar is OK. When somebody consumes a six pack of HFCS pop every day, then that is not okay.

I put two teaspoons of sugar in my coffee everyday, and I ate some Greek style frozen yogurt yesterday. Io don't drink a lot of pop though, and I never buy donuts, although I will eat them if they are around, which is not very often.

Edit: I just found the link to the story on CBS.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-5 ... gar-toxic/

Hope this helps, Nancy

NFriday wrote:Apparently he interviews a pediatric endocrinologist who has come to the conclusion that sugar is bad for you. I think he is mostly concerned about the fact that sugar can contribute to the obesity rate among children in this country. This should be a very controversial topic.

I must be missing something. Why is it controversial that sugar is bad for you and contributes to obesity?

Hi- I saw the segment on 60 minutes tonight, and one of the persons that was interview was a spokesman from the sugar association, and he claims that if you eat it in moderation, and work it off, that sugar is not bad for you. One of the experts they interviewed recommends that women only consume 100 calories of sugar or another sweetener a day, and that men should consume no more than 150 calories of sugar a day.

Michael Jacobson of CSPI fame, thinks that sugary drinks should be taxed, like cigarettes and alcohol are. Then there are other people that feel that they should be able to eat whatever they want, and government should not interfere.

Man, I want to punch sugar in its stupid face.

NFriday wrote:Michael Jacobson of CSPI fame, thinks that sugary drinks should be taxed, like cigarettes and alcohol are. Then there are other people that feel that they should be able to eat whatever they want, and government should not interfere.

You live in Chicago. Sugary drinks are already taxed.

Hi- Sugary drinks are not taxed in the suburbs though as far as I know. I do not live in Chicago, and I had no idea that they were taxed in the city. I can's see where the tax is lowering the amount of sugury drinks sold in Chicago, but I could be wrong.

I thought I would get some posts here from people who would say as long as you do it in moderation, sugar is ok, kind of like the sugar association guy did last night. Thanks, Nancy

NFriday wrote:Hi- Sugary drinks are not taxed in the suburbs though as far as I know. I do not live in Chicago, and I had no idea that they were taxed in the city. I can's see where the tax is lowering the amount of sugury drinks sold in Chicago, but I could be wrong.

I thought I would get some posts here from people who would say as long as you do it in moderation, sugar is ok, kind of like the sugar association guy did last night. Thanks, Nancy

The distinction you are drawing that sugar is either ok in moderation or bad for you is nonsensical. Of course it is ok in moderation. Nearly everything is ok in moderation. The question is what is "in moderation" and whether most people consume "in moderation".

The problem with soft drink taxes is that, to the extent people reduce their consumption of soft drinks, they increase their consumption of other, non-taxed, high-calorie drinks.

NFriday wrote:Hi- Sugary drinks are not taxed in the suburbs though as far as I know. I do not live in Chicago, and I had no idea that they were taxed in the city. I can's see where the tax is lowering the amount of sugury drinks sold in Chicago, but I could be wrong.

I thought I would get some posts here from people who would say as long as you do it in moderation, sugar is ok, kind of like the sugar association guy did last night. Thanks, Nancy

The distinction you are drawing that sugar is either ok in moderation or bad for you is nonsensical. Of course it is ok in moderation. Nearly everything is ok in moderation. The question is what is "in moderation" and whether most people consume "in moderation".

The problem with soft drink taxes is that, to the extent people reduce their consumption of soft drinks, they increase their consumption of other, non-taxed, high-calorie drinks.

NFriday wrote:I thought I would get some posts here from people who would say as long as you do it in moderation, sugar is ok, kind of like the sugar association guy did last night. Thanks, Nancy

I would say that this is true of almost anything, including sugar.

As I discovered recently, the Chicago soda tax also applies to sugar-free soda (anecdotal, based on reading a receipt, not researched). If this is the case, then, by gum, I am going to march on City Hall.

HI,

When Chicago began taxing water bottles, purchases dropped. I remember reading where a commissioner complained they did not get the revenues hoped. People either purchased water in the suburbs or used reusable containers.

People go where there is the least resistance or tax.

Regards,

I watched the segment on 60 Minutes last night. The two biggest take aways for me have not been mentioned yet:

1) Results from a 5 year study by UC-Davis show that sugar increases LDL.
2) Sugar serves as a catalyst to fuel certain cancers

Lewis Cantley wrote:Nearly a third of some common cancers -- including breast and colon cancers -- have something called insulin receptors on their surface. Insulin binds to these receptors and signals the tumor to start consuming glucose. Every cell in our body needs glucose to survive. But the trouble is, these cancer cells also use it to grow. So if you happen to have the tumor that has insulin receptors on it then it will get stimulated to take up the glucose that's in the bloodstream rather than go into fat or muscle, the glucose goes into the tumor. And the tumor uses it to grow.

Link to the segment.

I first heard Lustig interviewed on a People's Pharmacy broadcast last November. I was stuck in traffic and flipping channels. I stopped when I heard the topic. I have a personal interest in that I have always been a little heavy, was in the biomedical field decades ago and recognized that as I age I might be on the track toward metabolic disease or diabetes, and I want to avoid diabetes if at all possible. About a decade ago I learned that fructose was not metabolized in the same tissues or by the same pathways as glucose, and I suspected HFCS might be involved in the US trend toward obesity and diabetes and may have implications for my own health.

It is for that reason I listened to the People's Pharmacy show last November, and later sat thru a 90 minute seminar Lustig presented to his colleagues at the UC San Francisco Medical School in July, 2009.

I nearly posted something on this topic then, but hesitated, not knowing whether it would be accepted/appreciated. I'm glad the OP got this started.

Rather than risk a poor presentation of Lustig's findings, I direct you to the resources I found so you may listen or view and decide for yourselves. I think it is more helpful to listen to Lustig yourselves than to listen to an interpretation compiled by the media.

The November 2011 People's Pharmacy radio show is still up on their site. It is available to listen to or download free. I suggest downloading the 'Extended' or 'Bonus' interview. I have compared it to the original show and find that it is 'Extended' by virtue of having been edited less. I found the 'Extended' interview more informative, and because it flowed better, easier to follow.

http://www.peoplespharmacy.com/2011/11/ ... r-hazards/

Further down the page is a link to Lustig's UCSF seminar in 2009 on YouTube. I found the entire presentation exceptionally well done. While Lustig's talk covered history, politics, clinical findings, etc., I found myself focused on about 20 minutes of biochemistry in the middle of the presentation where he made the comparison of the metabolism of fructose to that of ethanol. Lustig demonstrates that the pathways are similar, as are the diseases which are the consequence of over use of each (by example, he states that high consumption of fructose can result in sclerosis of the liver, as does high consumption of ethanol).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

I think Lustig and others on this trail may be on to something. Lustig's work, and the work of others who's findings are similar, will not be vetted by this board. Rather, I think that people on this board may find themselves interested as Lustig's findings may impact choices individuals make and may be central to future national discussions of public health.

Enjoy (as I did)

Pucca wrote:I watched the segment on 60 Minutes last night. The two biggest take aways for me have not been mentioned yet:

1) Results from a 5 year study by UC-Davis show that sugar increases LDL.
2) Sugar serves as a catalyst to fuel certain cancers

Lewis Cantley wrote:Nearly a third of some common cancers -- including breast and colon cancers -- have something called insulin receptors on their surface. Insulin binds to these receptors and signals the tumor to start consuming glucose. Every cell in our body needs glucose to survive. But the trouble is, these cancer cells also use it to grow. So if you happen to have the tumor that has insulin receptors on it then it will get stimulated to take up the glucose that's in the bloodstream rather than go into fat or muscle, the glucose goes into the tumor. And the tumor uses it to grow.

Link to the segment.

"High levels" of sugar can increase LDL. The results were for persons whose fructose/HFCS intake accounted for 25% of their daily caloric intake. But not glucose.