How the Sugar Industry Shifted the Blame to Fat

A place to discuss health and fitness, including healthy diets, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Cianan
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun May 21, 2017 2:31 pm

How the Sugar Industry Shifted the Blame to Fat

Post by Cianan » Mon Jun 12, 2017 3:53 pm

This is old news now, but certainly worth sharing for those who may have missed it:
https://nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat ... o-fat.html
The sugar industry paid scientists in the 1960s to play down the link between sugar and heart disease and promote saturated fat as the culprit instead, newly released historical documents show.

The internal sugar industry documents, recently discovered by a researcher at the University of California, San Francisco, and published Monday in JAMA Internal Medicine, suggest that five decades of research into the role of nutrition and heart disease, including many of today’s dietary recommendations, may have been largely shaped by the sugar industry.
A year and a half ago, some time before this came to light, I personally switched to a (high-fat, medium-protein, very low-carb) ketogenic diet, a diet used clinically for almost a century. Breaking my fast every day with a "Bulletproof coffee" with two tablespoons of grass-fed butter and a tablespoon of MCT oil or coconut oil, I've been eating fat as my primary source of energy, including a lot of butter and saturated fat. Nuts are also a staple in my diet. According to our government's dietary guidelines I should be in the worst condition of my life, but the exact opposite has happened. I've never been leaner or more vital, and my blood is better than ever.

Studies and anecdotal evidence are certainly out there to back the ketogenic diet and foods such as grass-fed butter. I looked past the ordinary notion of healthy eating shaped in many ways by the likes of the sugar industry only to be completely disillusioned.

Anyone else around here with experience with ketogenic and high-fat diets? :smile:

Soma999
Posts: 242
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted the Blame to Fat

Post by Soma999 » Mon Jun 19, 2017 10:03 am

Refined food are not so good. I will give two exemples with sugar and oil.

- Take sugar. First you have sugar cane, and you extract unrefined sugar. You remove molasses and you have brown sugar. You refined it more and you have white sugar.

Unrefined sugar is good for teeth. Studies have shown (dr Begin for exemple - nothing to do with beghin say...) that this sugar is good for the teeth.

But refined, white sugar is the cause number one of tooth decay. And it has many more problems on human health. It's in fact a poison. If you like going to the dentist, by all means, take a lot of white sugar. Even brushing your teeth won't protect them sufficiently

If you have problems with tooth decay, you can switch to unrefined sugar. Also, Xylitol (birch sugar) is very good for teeth. The bacterium that provoques tooth decay feeds on Xylitol, and can't digest it so it is removed. Really, taking Xylitol is very good for oral health.

- Considering oil, it's the same. A little google research bring this site :

http://www.happilyunprocessed.com/the-b ... -eat-them/

Coconut oil (unrefined) is one of the best oil one can take.

If someone like butter, he/she may really benefits from using ghee or even making it using butter. It's really beneficial.

It's a buddhist forum so i won't add much, but if your health is something that interests you, those 2 things can really brings positive change and a great improvement in one's life.

User avatar
Cianan
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun May 21, 2017 2:31 pm

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted the Blame to Fat

Post by Cianan » Thu Jun 22, 2017 6:58 pm

I can agree to the virtue of unprocessed food! Raw honey, for example, is without a doubt a far superior food to table sugar. However, to see what is different about a fat-based diet, you must understand that sugar is sugar in the body whether it's from bread, an onion or candy. It will raise insulin and cortisol levels, decrease testosterone and human growth hormone, and in the case of fructose, put strain on the liver.

The idea with a fat-based, and therefore ketone-based diet, is that you avert all the negative effects of carb-loading. Insulin sensitivity remains entirely stable, you no longer have your cortisol levels going up and down and you're not at the mercy of your blood sugar. Ketones are 40% more oxygen efficient to burn than glucose, too. That much less stress on the body will surely add up! Also, on a diet that induces ketosis, neurons will fire differently from when you burn sugar, believe it or not, and so this diet has proven effective in treating various neurological conditions over the past century.

User avatar
Grigoris
Global Moderator
Posts: 15168
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted the Blame to Fat

Post by Grigoris » Thu Jun 22, 2017 8:20 pm

Cianan wrote:I can agree to the virtue of unprocessed food! Raw honey, for example, is without a doubt a far superior food to table sugar. However, to see what is different about a fat-based diet, you must understand that sugar is sugar in the body whether it's from bread, an onion or candy. It will raise insulin and cortisol levels, decrease testosterone and human growth hormone, and in the case of fructose, put strain on the liver.

The idea with a fat-based, and therefore ketone-based diet, is that you avert all the negative effects of carb-loading. Insulin sensitivity remains entirely stable, you no longer have your cortisol levels going up and down and you're not at the mercy of your blood sugar. Ketones are 40% more oxygen efficient to burn than glucose, too. That much less stress on the body will surely add up! Also, on a diet that induces ketosis, neurons will fire differently from when you burn sugar, believe it or not, and so this diet has proven effective in treating various neurological conditions over the past century.
A ketogenic diet is used for medical purposes in specific maladies (particularly child epilepsy) , it is not recommended as a normal/daily diet as it can have all sorts of adverse side effects. And, just in case you didn't know: many sugars are ketones too.
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

User avatar
Cianan
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun May 21, 2017 2:31 pm

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted the Blame to Fat

Post by Cianan » Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:58 pm

Grigoris wrote:
Cianan wrote:I can agree to the virtue of unprocessed food! Raw honey, for example, is without a doubt a far superior food to table sugar. However, to see what is different about a fat-based diet, you must understand that sugar is sugar in the body whether it's from bread, an onion or candy. It will raise insulin and cortisol levels, decrease testosterone and human growth hormone, and in the case of fructose, put strain on the liver.

The idea with a fat-based, and therefore ketone-based diet, is that you avert all the negative effects of carb-loading. Insulin sensitivity remains entirely stable, you no longer have your cortisol levels going up and down and you're not at the mercy of your blood sugar. Ketones are 40% more oxygen efficient to burn than glucose, too. That much less stress on the body will surely add up! Also, on a diet that induces ketosis, neurons will fire differently from when you burn sugar, believe it or not, and so this diet has proven effective in treating various neurological conditions over the past century.
A ketogenic diet is used for medical purposes in specific maladies (particularly child epilepsy) , it is not recommended as a normal/daily diet as it can have all sorts of adverse side effects. And, just in case you didn't know: many sugars are ketones too.
It seems to be increasingly evident such a diet is beneficial for a wide range of things, including autism, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, brain injury, stroke and obesity—and this study on obesity was long-term:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28623167
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2367001/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2367001/
Contrary to what you suggest, there are actually quite a number of potential applications yielding some impressive results.

As to its viability as an everyday diet, our liver is handily capable of generating the glucose necessary for the brain from dietary protein in gluconeogenesis, and it's very good at it:
Emily Deans, M.D wrote:When I was taught about biochemical fuel-burning, I was taught that glucose was “clean” and ketones were “smokey.” That glucose was clearly the preferred fuel for our muscles for exercise and definitely the key fuel for the brain. Except here’s the dirty little secret about glucose – when you look at the amount of garbage leftover in the mitochondria, it is actually less efficient to make ATP from glucose than it is to make ATP from ketone bodies! A more efficient energy supply makes it easier to restore membranes in the brain to their normal states after a depolarizing electrical energy spike occurs, and means that energy is produced with fewer destructive free radicals leftover.
It also seems clear that, historically, humans have absolutely relied on ketosis: it was a common state critical to survival, and our bodies were good at it. They still are. Constant carb-loading is a relatively recent innovation for humanity as is agriculture. Admittedly, long-term studies are few, but the studies that do exist do not seem to be able to show any major negative side effects but demonstrate some clear benefits. For those who experience some negative effects on a deep ketogenic diet do extremely well with an occasional carb refeed.

I'm not here to advocate for deep ketosis for every day here on out, but based on the myriad health problems that people are increasingly experiencing in the modern day—obesity, heart disease and Alzheimer's, for example—and the mounting scientific and anecdotal evidence for dietary ketosis' therapeutic effects on these health problems, I think it's worth looking into. Many people have given it a shot, including me, and had it work well. Our bodies are clearly well-adapted to it, equipped with efficient ketone factories.

However, I'm not sure that I follow when you say that there are sugars that supply ketones. Ketones are a product of breaking down fat. Do you have any examples?

User avatar
Grigoris
Global Moderator
Posts: 15168
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted the Blame to Fat

Post by Grigoris » Fri Jun 23, 2017 7:52 am

Look, ketogenic metabolism has some positive qualities, that is undeniable... BUT it's essential function is for the human body to be able to survive prolonged fasts (ie when food is not available at all) and periods where carbohydrates are not available.

A normal diet includes fats AND carbohydrates, in proper proportions, for energy.

Anything else is just pointlessly tormenting yourself. Yet another food fad.

But, of course, it's your body, feel free to mistreat it any way you like.
However, I'm not sure that I follow when you say that there are sugars that supply ketones. Ketones are a product of breaking down fat. Do you have any examples?
I did not say sugars supply ketones, I said that there are sugars that ARE ketones. Basically this means that some fat metabolism results in sugars (that are also ketones) for energy AND there are naturally occurring (ie not the product of metabolism) ketose sugars too.
http://www.livestrong.com/article/36121 ... se-sugars/
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

User avatar
Cianan
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun May 21, 2017 2:31 pm

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted the Blame to Fat

Post by Cianan » Fri Jun 23, 2017 4:21 pm

To-the-point. I like it.

I won't try to convince you of anything, but it is admittedly difficult to reconcile your conservative position with the experiences of a rather vast ketogenic diet community, including some doctors and professional athletes. It's no longer terra incognita at this point. People who have used it even more long-term than I regularly verify its safety with their doctor and can vouch for it. I certainly have enjoyed its benefits. You say torment, but the only noticeable negative side-effect is that I need more water. :tongue:

I respect your wariness. To say it's a fad, though—to me, it seems this is just opening up to a bright future with how much promising research for a litany of diseases and health conditions has come out and is yet to come. Fads tend not to have so many favorable peer-reviewed scientific papers, don't you think?
:namaste:

User avatar
Grigoris
Global Moderator
Posts: 15168
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted the Blame to Fat

Post by Grigoris » Sat Jun 24, 2017 7:19 pm

I am neither wary nor a conservative. I recognise the utility of ketose driven energy production, when needed, but to force one's body to utilise this type of metabolism for anything other than medical needs, is completely pointless and unnecessary.

Like all food fads people (except for some fringe loons) will bore of it and forget it and/or replace it with the next food fad. The same happened/will happen with alkaline diets, paleo diets, Atkins, Gluten free, Macrobiotics, Fruitarianism, ad nauseum...

Unless you have a specific medical condition, then that only thing you need to do is eat a balanced diet (ie avoid processed foods), avoid foods you KNOW you are allergic to and exercise regularly.
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

User avatar
CedarTree
Posts: 489
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 10:13 pm

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted the Blame to Fat

Post by CedarTree » Wed Jun 28, 2017 12:00 am

Lot of bad stuff out there for ones health these days.

I try and stick to the rainbow diet. Lots of natural food (vegetables, fruits, etc.) and with lots of different colors ;)

Dharma Flower
Posts: 868
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2016 9:03 am
Contact:

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted the Blame to Fat

Post by Dharma Flower » Sun Jul 02, 2017 3:14 am

While people might lose weight in the short-term from a ketogenic diet, I already have high blood pressure, and I am worried about someday dying of heart disease:
It is known Robert Atkins did indeed weather a heart attack during his lifetime. In April 2002, the diet guru issued a statement saying he was recovering from cardiac arrest related to a heart infection he had suffered from “for a few years.” He said it was “in no way related to diet.”

However, revelations in February 2004 from the city medical examiner’s report let slip the information that Atkins had suffered a heart attack, congestive heart failure, and hypertension, before his death. The report was given to the Journal by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, a group that advocates vegetarianism. Because the medical examiner’s office is claiming this information was circulated in error, it may not be possible at this time to determine if what was in that report referred to events that immediately preceded (and therefore might have caused) the doctor’s death, or if they were in reference to damage done over the course of a lifetime. (The report had been sent to a doctor in Nebraska who requested it. It was later discovered the person it was sent to was not “the treating physician” and so should not have had access to the report.) At present, the medical examiner’s office will only say Atkins died of a head injury from the fall. “I can’t comment on people’s previous conditions. It’s against the law,” said spokeswoman Ellen Borakove.

It needs be kept in mind that even if the medical examiner’s office does become more forthcoming, it still may not be able to answer the question of whether a heart attack brought about the demise of Dr. Atkins. An autopsy was not performed on him because of family objections to the procedure. Consequently, the medical examiner conducted only an external exam and a review of Atkins’ hospital records.
http://www.snopes.com/medical/doctor/atkins.asp

Dharma Flower
Posts: 868
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2016 9:03 am
Contact:

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted the Blame to Fat

Post by Dharma Flower » Sun Jul 09, 2017 10:54 am

I am more concerned about how Dr. Atkins' message message influenced the general public than how he may have died.

This is from neurologist and debunker Dr. Steven Novella:
Low-carb, high-fat diets are likely not heart healthy, although this data is mixed. It seems that there are negative effects of a high-fat diet, but these are offset in the short term by weight loss. So if one loses weight on a low-carb, high-fat diet the net effect is positive for heart risk factors. But since weight loss on such diets is almost always short term, the long term health effects may be negative. But evidence is mixed...

For heart health, the amount of total fat may be a factor, but this is unclear. What is clear is that they type of fat is a significant factor. Vegetable sources of fat have a protective effect, while animal fat increases cardiovascular risk.

In other words – how much carbs vs fat one eats should not be a major concern, and may be largely irrelevant. While the types of carbs and especially fats is important for cardiovascular health.

To summarize, in my opinion here are the best diet recommendations that can be made from existing evidence:
– Eat a varied diet, mostly plant-based
– Limit carbohydrates with a high glycemic index (simple sugars and starches)
– Do not diet for weight loss. Rather, employ reasonable portion control and exercise regularly.
http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/12/14/s ... carb-diet/
This is from Quack Watch:
Atkins advocated his diet for more than 30 years and stated that more than 60,000 patients treated at his center had used his diet as their primary protocol. However, he never published any study in which people who used his program were monitored over a period of several years.
It would not have been difficult for him to compile simple data, but I have seen no evidence that did so.

Recent studies of up to two years have found that low-carbohydrate diets can produce modest weight loss and reduction in cardiac risk factors, which means that they are safer than previously thought. However, it has not yet been determined whether such diets are safe for long-term use or can reduce the incidence of coronary heart disease.

The popularity of low-carbohydrate diets has encouraged food companies to market low-carbohydrate foods for people who want to "watch their carbs." Most of these foods are much higher in fat than the foods they are designed to replace. I believe that "low-carb" advertising is encouraging both dieters and nondieters to eat high-fat foods, which is exactly the opposite of what medical and nutrition authorities have been urging for decades. Following a low-carbohydrate diet under medical supervision may make sense for some people, but a population-wide increase in fat consumption would not. My advice to people who are considering a low-carbohydrate diet is not to try it on their own by reading a book, but to seek supervision from a physician who can monitor what they do.
https://www.quackwatch.org/06ResearchProjects/lcd.html
We should be mindful that, in the United States, sugar mostly comes in the form of high fructose corn syrup, due to government subsidies for the production of corn, and tariffs placed on the importation of cane sugar from foreign countries. This is why high fructose corn syrup is in so many processed food items.

While we definitely should be concerned about "big sugar" influencing the general public in regard to diet, such as Coca-Cola's recent advertising claiming that it's perfectly okay to drink sugary soda as long as you exercise, the meat and dairy industries have a very strong influence on government policies and mainstream news reporting as well.

The findings of Senator McGovern's Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs have, throughout the decades, largely been ignored or buried, due to the threat it posed to the sugar, dairy, and meat industries:
McGovern's Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs expanded its scope to include national nutrition policy. In 1977 it issued a new set of nutritional guidelines for Americans that sought to combat leading killer health conditions.[238][239][240] Titled Dietary Goals for the United States, but also known as the "McGovern Report",[238] it suggested that Americans eat less fat, less cholesterol, less refined and processed sugars, and more complex carbohydrates and fiber.[240] While many public health officials had said all of this for some time, the committee's issuance of the guidelines gave it higher public profile.[240] The recommendations proved controversial with the cattle, dairy, egg, and sugar industries, including from McGovern's home state.[239]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_McGovern

Dharma Flower
Posts: 868
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2016 9:03 am
Contact:

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted the Blame to Fat

Post by Dharma Flower » Thu Jul 13, 2017 11:46 am

This is from The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, the largest organization of food and nutrition professionals:
The results of an evidence-based review showed that a vegetarian diet is associated with a lower risk of death from ischemic heart disease. Vegetarians also appear to have lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, lower blood pressure, and lower rates of hypertension and type 2 diabetes than nonvegetarians. Furthermore, vegetarians tend to have a lower body mass index and lower overall cancer rates. Features of a vegetarian diet that may reduce risk of chronic disease include lower intakes of saturated fat and cholesterol and higher intakes of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, nuts, soy products, fiber, and phytochemicals.
https://www.andeal.org/vault/2440/web/JADA_VEG.pdf
Are there similar results on a keto low-carb, high-fat diet?

User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 7456
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted the Blame to Fat

Post by Johnny Dangerous » Fri Jul 14, 2017 12:13 am

Features of a vegetarian diet that may reduce risk of chronic disease include lower intakes of saturated fat and cholesterol and higher intakes of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, nuts, soy products, fiber, and phytochemicals.
Wow, truly earth-shattering news.
:roll: :roll:
Are there similar results on a keto low-carb, high-fat diet?
The blurb talks about non-exclusive healthy features of vegetarian diets..and not ones that are very controversial, minus the idea that eating cholesterol makes for high cholesterol, which is debated by some.
"it must be coming from the mouthy mastermind of raunchy rapper, Johnny Dangerous”

-Jeff H.

Dharma Flower
Posts: 868
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2016 9:03 am
Contact:

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted the Blame to Fat

Post by Dharma Flower » Fri Jul 14, 2017 1:34 am

Johnny Dangerous wrote: Wow, truly earth-shattering news.
I wonder if any study has done a fair apples to apples comparison between low-carb, high-fat diets and high-carb, low-fat diets in terms of the prevention or reversal of common diet-related health problems. It wouldn't be a fair study if the supposedly low-fat dieters were really eating the same amount of fat as the typical American diet during the study, as has been the case in some studies. Studies on diet are invalid if the groups don't even follow the diet's recommendations.

User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 7456
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted the Blame to Fat

Post by Johnny Dangerous » Fri Jul 14, 2017 1:43 am

Dharma Flower wrote:
Johnny Dangerous wrote: Wow, truly earth-shattering news.
I wonder if any study has done a fair apples to apples comparison between low-carb, high-fat diets and high-carb, low-fat diets in terms of the prevention or reversal of common diet-related health problems. It wouldn't be a fair study if the supposedly low-fat dieters were really eating the same amount of fat as the typical American diet during the study, as has been the case in some studies. Studies on diet are invalid if the groups don't even follow the diet's recommendations.

If you talk to a knowledgeable MD or ND, they will likely tell you what is common sense:

There is no perfect diet, and certainly not one that fits all people. That said, a diet high in fruits and veggies, with whole grains and limited meat, limited sugar intake is probably a safe bet to be healthy.
"it must be coming from the mouthy mastermind of raunchy rapper, Johnny Dangerous”

-Jeff H.

DGA
Former staff member
Posts: 8787
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted the Blame to Fat

Post by DGA » Fri Jul 14, 2017 1:59 am

Sugar is pretty great.

I also like alcohol.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests