Sugar/Fructose

JLP wrote:The whole point of the piece is that "toxic" = an increase in LDL cholesterol = health problems. It’s not an opinion. Some other points were made, but this was the main one with the most minutes and the most research support. For the TV consuming public, I wouldn't say using the word "toxic" was all that sensationalistic. Do you have a better word that dumbs it down for the masses?

So anything that could potentially cause health problems should be labeled toxic?

Jeremy Kasmann wrote: I looked around for a bit and it looks like his recommendations (36M/24F) are from the American Heart Association. No idea where they got them from or how valid they are. Any ideas? It seems to be a general problem with food science/policy - there always has to be a recommendation, however weak the science, because people have to eat. We can't wait 5 or 10 years for science to come to a conclusion. Sure, the article was sensationalist (it is 60 minutes after all), but most Americans would be better off if they followed the recommendations. Half the people watching are overweight, eat tons of junk a day, and think science is some sort of evil voodoo. In that context the sensationalism doesn't bother me.

I agree with you up until this point. I'd like to believe people can be convinced of something WITHOUT relying on devices like sensationalism. I think that the only way to stop an endless cycle of exaggeration and hyperbole is to begin emphasizing logic and critical thinking in mainstream outlets (media, education, etc.). Will this actually happen? Who knows.

Jason N. wrote: I agree with you up until this point. I'd like to believe people can be convinced of something WITHOUT relying on devices like sensationalism. I think that the only way to stop an endless cycle of exaggeration and hyperbole is to begin emphasizing logic and critical thinking in mainstream outlets (media, education, etc.). Will this actually happen? Who knows.

Sums up my view eloquently. As a fellow scientist I don't like sensationilism, it leads to the issues with global warming, ethanol, oil, solar, nuclear etc. People who don't know what they are talking about take the reasonable conclusions of well respected scientists and mutilate them into some agenda serving statement.

Jason N. wrote: I agree with you up until this point. I'd like to believe people can be convinced of something WITHOUT relying on devices like sensationalism. I think that the only way to stop an endless cycle of exaggeration and hyperbole is to begin emphasizing logic and critical thinking in mainstream outlets (media, education, etc.). Will this actually happen? Who knows.

I share your frustration there. If you want nuance you can go read any number of journals, Nature, The Economist, The New Yorker, &c and come to your own conclusions; there's nothing stopping you from hooking yourself up with a Lexis Nexis or PubMed account and spending hours reading original peer-reviewed pieces in order to come to do so.

I'd love to believe that people are willing to go out and read 5 varying opinions on something and draw their own conclusions in order to live their life in a healthy and responsible manner, but the reality seems to be that people want dramatic one-sided statements of opinions veiled as facts that align with what they already believe to be true.

I cringed many times during Dr. Lustig's lecture at his hyperbole, but I also understand that it might be an effective way to get his (valid, as far as I can tell) points across.

redlude97 wrote: So anything that could potentially cause health problems should be labeled toxic?

Sounds like a reasonable definition to me, how would you define "toxic"?

Mike Anderson wrote: Sounds like a reasonable definition to me, how would you define "toxic"?

By this definition, the following items would also be labeled as toxic; fruit, meat, bread, nuts, eggs, milk, alcohol, heck even chalk. Basically anything that could potentially lead to health problems in the majority of people regardless of their physical health and level of activity.

redlude97 wrote: By this definition, the following items would also be labeled as toxic; fruit, meat, bread, nuts, eggs, milk, alcohol, heck even chalk. Basically anything that could potentially lead to health problems in the majority of people regardless of their physical health and level of activity.

Well sure. And fortunately people generally have enough common sense to avoid ingesting nothing but peanuts and vodka day-in and day-out.

The problem with sugar isn't that it is significantly more toxic than any other substance; the problem is that people don't recognize how harmful it is in the quantities that they are consuming it.

You may be interested in consensus opinions on the definition of toxicity. In particular, those from the UN, unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/tra…. See chapters 3.1 and 3.9.

Also, Wikipedia has a pretty good article on toxicity and is arguably a consensus opinion.

I'm not coming down on one side or the other. I agree that the 60 minutes piece was sensationalist, as are most popular media stories about scientific facts. Nevertheless, public awareness of the dangers of over-consumption is important and 60 minutes reaches a much broader audience than does the scientific literature.

Peter Franzen wrote: Well sure. And fortunately people generally have enough common sense to avoid ingesting nothing but peanuts and vodka day-in and day-out. The problem with sugar isn't that it is significantly more toxic than any other substance; the problem is that people don't recognize how harmful it is in the quantities that they are consuming it.

So one cup of OJ a day is toxic? If that is going to be the conclusion made from the research that has been done, then it is textbook sensationalism.

redlude97 wrote: So one cup of OJ a day is toxic? If that is going to be the conclusion made from the research that has been done, then it is textbook sensationalism.

Clearly, you're just hung up on semantics. The toxicity of a substance has to be considered in context. Certainly for most people, a cup of OJ a day will not be toxic. However, if you have a severe allergy to salicylate, a cup of OJ might kill you and, yes, it would in that case be considered toxic. Given a high enough dose under the right circumstances, lots of things, maybe most things, can be toxic, including H2O. Something that causes cell death or cell dysregulation or that otherwise has a detrimental effect on one's health can be called "toxic".

Richard Radcliffe wrote: Clearly, you're just hung up on semantics. The toxicity of a substance has to be considered in context. Certainly for most people, a cup of OJ a day will not be toxic. However, if you have a severe allergy to salicylate, a cup of OJ might kill you and, yes, it would in that case be considered toxic. Given a high enough dose under the right circumstances, lots of things, maybe most things, can be toxic, including H2O. Something that causes cell death or cell dysregulation or that otherwise has a detrimental effect on one's health can be called "toxic".

That is the whole point, it is disenguous to label sugar as toxic, when the evidence doesn't show that is the case in most situations in moderation. It is a sensationalistic statement, which I have maintained from the beginning.

redlude97 wrote: That is the whole point, it is disenguous to label sugar as toxic, when the evidence doesn't show that is the case in most situations in moderation. It is a sensationalistic statement, which I have maintained from the beginning.

There are many heavy metals that are essential parts of our diet, but in large doses are toxic (for example, selenium) and generally are described as such. Does the 60 minutes video claim that in moderation sugar/fructose is toxic? I honestly haven't had time to watch it yet.

However, it might also be a fair assessment to say that we are consuming fructose such that we are in a range that would be considered "toxic." Regardless, I'm sure people aren't paying attention to those nuances and I'm sure the articles/videos are labelled as they are to garner more attention.

redlude97 wrote: That is the whole point, it is disenguous to label sugar as toxic, when the evidence doesn't show that is the case in most situations in moderation. It is a sensationalistic statement, which I have maintained from the beginning.

What Jason N said. There are many, many, MANY things that are NOT toxic in low doses but highly toxic at higher doses. Heavy metals, many pharmaceuticals (opiates and acetaminophen to name just two), and -- wait for it -- sugar. Would it be sensationalism to claim that Tylenol is toxic?

Jason N. wrote: Does the 60 minutes video claim that in moderation sugar/fructose is toxic? I honestly haven't had time to watch it yet.

Yes it does.

Jason N. wrote: Regardless, I'm sure people aren't paying attention to those nuances and I'm sure the articles/videos are labelled as they are to garner more attention.

So we are in agreement that it is a sensationilistic statement?

Richard Radcliffe wrote: Would it be sensationalism to claim that Tylenol is toxic?

Yes. It would be like calling water toxic.

Richard Radcliffe wrote:There are many, many, MANY things that are NOT toxic in low doses but highly toxic at higher doses. Heavy metals, many pharmaceuticals (opiates and acetaminophen to name just two), and -- wait for it -- sugar.

No one is arguing against that, surely not I.

redlude97 wrote: No one is arguing against that, surely not I.

Then you agree that sugar is toxic.

redlude97 wrote: Yes. It would be like calling water toxic.

Water is toxic in high enough doses.

redlude97 wrote: Yes it does. So we are in agreement that it is a sensationilistic statement?

I'm not sure anymore, haha. I think I was at first, but after pondering it more I think it could be accurate. Bringing up selenium again as an example - I think it is generally described as toxic. But it is also an important micro-nutrient in the human diet. So what defines "moderation" is crucial here. What if our definition of moderate sugar consumption is way off?

I think the mainstream interpretation of "toxic" is too black/white (which is inaccurate, it is way more of a spectrum). Toxicity is a complicated thing, there is a whole profession dedicated to it's study after all!

Richard Radcliffe wrote: Water is toxic in high enough doses.

But to make that statement without any qualifications is being deliberately obtuse to get someone's attention.