
John Yudkin: the man who tried to warn us about sugar - tomhoward
http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/diet-and-fitness/john-yudkin-the-man-who-tried-to-warn-us-about-sugar-20140212-32h03.html
======
loganfrederick
Mentioned in the article, here is the direct link to Professor Lustig's talk
"Sugar: The Bitter Truth". I can personally attest to its high quality:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM)

~~~
chillax
You might be interested in Alan Aragons take on it too:
[http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-
ab...](http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-
fructose-alarmism/)

~~~
pvnick
This is a brilliant article and everyone should really listen to people like
Alan Aragon (and Lyle Mcdonald too fwiw). They know and communicate the
science very well and aren't about to resort to the sensationalist rhetoric
that's so prevalent in nutrition. Thanks for posting!

------
victorhooi
I'm currently reading "The Low-Carb Fraud", by Dr. T. Colin Campbell, who was
one of the original authors of the China Study.

[http://www.amazon.com/The-Low-Carb-Fraud-Colin-
Campbell/dp/1...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Low-Carb-Fraud-Colin-
Campbell/dp/1940363098)

Campbell has multiple degrees in biochemistry and nutrition, and from what I
can tell, seems to be pretty well respected in his field.

On the other hand, Gary Taube, who wrote Good Calories, Bad Calories, and who
people here seem to hold up as some kind of nutritional guru - basically is a
science writer, with no formal education in nutrition at all.

Campbell basically spends the first few chapters debunking many of Gary
Taubes's conclusions, and then talking about the current low-carb fads.

Definitely a good read, and approachable.

~~~
mistermann
Despite not being done the book yet, could you give us an idea what the
general premise is, and how it somehow disproves what to me at least is the
overwhelming real world effectiveness of a low carb diet for losing weight?

~~~
jacobolus
The author participated in
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_China_Study](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_China_Study)
which compared rural Chinese diet and health outcomes to typical western ones.

He’s been vegan for >20 years, and he studies and advocates a vegan diet,
because he claims that eating animal products is unhealthy / causes disease.
He is the darling of vegans, among whom he has a large following.

Among books written from that perspective, my understanding from reading
various reviews is that this is one of the best argued and supported ones,
with lots of solid citations of scientific literature. Because the perspective
is controversial (e.g. it’s different than the norm, it threatens
“conventional wisdom” and food businesses) the book has also drawn some flak
from other scientists who disagree with the book’s conclusions.

~~~
BSousa
While I'm not going to get into good or bad about vegan/meat eaters, you do
know that the China Study has been heavily criticised for selective data
picking right? Thus, just because he was part of it doesn't mean he is a
reliable source.

I've included the link below as a starting point for the criticism of the
China Study. There is a good bit of scientific literature on it as well (am at
work, don't have the links handy)

[http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-
fal...](http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/)

------
jimeuxx
Lustig could no doubt write some great posts here about growth hacking and
selling your product, but if there's one thing he's proven about nutrition,
it's that he's no one to be taken seriously when talking about it. One taste
of what Joe Public doesn't see in his unintended hyperbole is here:
[http://sweetenerstudies.com/sites/default/files/resources/fi...](http://sweetenerstudies.com/sites/default/files/resources/files/Scientific-
Review-of-Lustigs-Fat-Chance.pdf)

Blaming sugar for everything is no better than what the fat-bashing crowd do.
It leads to self-parodying solutions like the "keto-adapted" lifestyle. We
don't eat rice or bananas because refined sugar is to blame for all the ills
of the world. Those crazy Japanese are probably just lying about their lack of
heart disease anyway (when we remember the place exists at all).

As long as people only understand nutrition in terms of reductionist extremes,
"alternative" diets are going to continue being a bad joke that achieves
little more than inflating the ego and bank balance of people like Lustig.

~~~
mistermann
> As long as people only understand nutrition in terms of reductionist
> extremes, "alternative" diets are going to continue being a bad joke that
> __achieves little more than inflating the ego and bank balance of people
> like Lustig __.

That is demonstrably false both in the laboratory but more importantly in
massive amounts of anecdotal experience by regular folks. Go read some fitness
and diet forums, you think all those people who tried various different diets
are _imagining_ they're losing 20, 40, 100+ pounds on low carb diets?

~~~
snowwrestler
Plenty of people lost weight on low fat diets too when those were the hot shit
a decade or two ago.

The problem with fad diets is that most of those people gain their weight back
after the initial enthusiasm fades.

Without long-term (decades) follow up, it's impossible to distinguish the
effect of a particular diet from the impact of simply being on a diet of any
kind--which typically induces much closer attentiveness to calories and
nutrition, at least in the beginning.

Also, Internet forums are hardly a random sampling.

------
PakG1
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.

~~~
adwf
Gonna have to call you up on the cell phones I'm afraid. It has been pretty
conclusively proven that there is no link between cell phone radiation and
cancer [1]. Unless you call a study of 420,000 people over 20 years
insignificant...

And as for a mechanical explanation why cell phone radiation doesn't cause
cancer: It's because the radiation type used is non-ionising! As for thermal
effects, it's orders of magnitude less than standing in direct sunlight. It's
basic physics. (Well perhaps not the ionising radiation part, Einstein got a
Nobel for the photoelectric effect...)

This myth has been debunked as pure fear-mongering time and time again. The
only slight recommendations that are issued are for longer term studies -
simply because cell phones haven't really been in heavy usage for more than 20
years. Pure fear of the unknown, despite study after study showing no effect.

[1]
[http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/98/23/1707.abstract](http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/98/23/1707.abstract)

~~~
PakG1
I know about the studies, and the explanations are nice, I didn't have those
before. I get that we have no current significant reason to fear anything,
which is why I'm not exactly panicking and vowing to stop using cell phones.
But this doesn't enable me to completely discard my fear either. You're only
corroborating my point.

 _The only slight recommendations that are issued are for longer term studies
- simply because cell phones haven 't really been in heavy usage for more than
20 years. Pure fear of the unknown, despite study after study showing no
effect._

I would call 420,000 people over 20 years insignificant because there are
other cancers where even longer timelines are required for symptoms to show.
For example, abestos and mesothelioma.

[http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/i...](http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/intheworkplace/asbestos)

 _Mesothelioma

Mesothelioma is a rare form of cancer that most often affects the thin
membranes lining organs in the chest (pleura) and abdomen (peritoneum).
Mesothelioma is closely linked with asbestos; most cases of mesothelioma
result from direct exposure to asbestos at work. This cancer is also linked to
all forms of asbestos, although amphibole asbestos appears to be more potent
(causes cancer at lower levels of exposure) than chrysotile..

Studies have found an increased risk of mesothelioma among workers who are
exposed to asbestos. There is also an increased risk of mesothelioma among
family members of workers and people living in the neighborhoods surrounding
asbestos factories and mines. Although the risk of developing mesothelioma
increases with the amount of asbestos exposure, there is no clear safe level
of asbestos exposure in terms of mesothelioma risk.

Mesotheliomas typically take a long time to develop. The time between first
exposure to asbestos and diagnosis of mesothelioma is usually 30 years or
more. Unfortunately, the risk of mesothelioma does not drop with time after
exposure to asbestos. The risk appears to be lifelong.

Unlike lung cancer, mesothelioma risk is not increased among smokers._

------
wozniacki
I know that Business Insider is practically detested in these parts, but the
piece linked here neatly summarizes - with line charts - the misguided dietary
trends in the U.S., that have led to the high prevalence of chronic conditions
like obesity and diabetes and the general state of poor health and thereby,
soaring medical costs.

[http://www.businessinsider.com/whats-wrong-with-the-
modern-d...](http://www.businessinsider.com/whats-wrong-with-the-modern-diet-
charts-2014-2)

~~~
ams6110
And yet we still keep thinking the government has the answers to health care.
The FDA promoted most of these trends.

~~~
CEyzaguirre
And yet others have such faith in the market behind such regulatory capture.

------
eliben
Interesting to see this, having just finished one of Gary Taubes' books and
reading another. Especially "Good Calories, Bad Calories" is an extremely
well-researched work talking exactly about the issues discussed in this
article, presenting countless researches and scientific facts related to it.

------
Jun8
As they say: "The dose makes the poison". Stating that sugar is toxic, as
Lustig and others do, (see his talk on YouTube or
[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.htm...](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0))
to me does not make much sense in fighting against the super high levels of
consumption: When you argue a position that's too far removed from most
people's accepted positions, they tend to tune you out. Note that high-
fructose corn syrup (water+glucose+fructose) is included in this generalized
definition of "sugar", which, of course nobody would add to their coffee or
tea (that would be sucrose or table sugar), but is now used ubiquitously in
the food industry ([http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/edible-
innovatio...](http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/edible-
innovations/sugar2.htm)). A better option would be to single HFCS out and
fight against its use.

While reading this the following question came to mind: If Yudkin's results
were so groundbreaking and well backed up, why was he kind of shut off from
the academic community. Stating that the "sugar lobby" ended his career sounds
a bit too far fetched.

~~~
spindritf
_Note that high-fructose corn syrup (water+glucose+fructose) is included in
this generalized definition of "sugar"_

I cannot imagine a narrower definition of "sugar" than glucose+fructose. It's
exactly what you add to your coffee and tea, just in the form of sucrose
crystals.

There is no functional difference between HFCS and table sugar. If the
regulators/activists force the food industry to replace HFCS with some other
sugar, all they'll achieve is a minor increase in prices.

~~~
Jun8
I think when you say that there "is no functional difference between HFCS and
table sugar" you mean that sucrose is broken down to 50% glucose and 50%
fructose during digestion, which is correct (although HFCS is not 50-50 but
close).

The move to HFCS was for price reasons, so it won't be a "minor increase in
prices", this may actually be more acceptable way to curb sugar use than
taxing it.

------
shpx
This must be what it feels like when people started accepting that smoking or
drunk driving is bad for you. I mean I didn't even think to consider that
sugar is essentially a drug...

------
Pxtl
I'm just guessing, but it occurs to me that prior to the 20th century the
average European probably consumed more ethanol than refined sugar.

------
gnusouth
More info.

Anti-sugar:
[http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3821440.htm](http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3821440.htm)

Anti-anti-sugar:
[http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3888657.htm](http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3888657.htm)

The whole thing strikes me as quite sensationalist, and I suspect that digging
into the research would affirm the cholesterol <-> heart disease link. For
now, I'll trust the scientific consensus over these crackpot types.

~~~
ynniv
Week old accounts with no prior comments shouldn't be allowed to use hot
button words like "crackpot". They should probably include IP addresses in
their comments as well.

~~~
gnusouth
I had to start somewhere, didn't I?

Yours truly, a new HN user.

IP address: 115.64.60.28

~~~
72deluxe
Greetings to Balgowlah, Australia! What's the weather like? Here in the UK, it
is raining incessantly, and Worcester up the road is flooding due the Severn
bursting its banks.

~~~
gnusouth
Very dry here, some rain would be nice if you could arrange that ;)

~~~
72deluxe
Got a siphon? You are underneath the Earth and we're on top of it so I suppose
it'll naturally drain through the pipe anyway!

Sunny as well I expect? I am looking at the grey clouds and horrendous weather
out of the window here.

Wish I could visit!

------
gojomo
Another anti-sugar bestseller from the same era was William Dufty's 'Sugar
Blues' [1975]:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_Blues](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_Blues)

------
sjtrny
It's not as simple as "sugar is poison". Some form of "sugar" is in virtually
everything we eat. It is unavoidable. Just stick to the rule of "Eat food, not
too much, mostly plants" and quit screaming about sugar.

~~~
rosser
Interestingly enough, the very source of that quote goes on to make a bright-
line distinction between _food_ and _food products_ , which, not
coincidentally, are chief on the "sugar is poison" crowd's "avoid" list.

~~~
sjtrny
I don't agree with most of what Michael Pollan suggests. To me there is no
distinction between food and food products. I just think the quote is a good
general guideline.

------
pvnick
I'm getting sick of this ignorant sugar alarmism. Sugar is not the culprit
behind all the diseases listed in the article. Obesity is [5] [6]. Unless of
course you're talking about cavities. Then not brushing your teeth is the
culprit. The reason sugar gets such a bad rep is that high-sugar foods tend to
be less-filling and lead to overeating [1]. Stay at a healthy weight by
controlling caloric consumption [2].

The article mentions such scientific evidence as "nearly two-thirds of the
studies cited there to repudiate Lustig's views were funded by Coca-Cola."
Seriously?

Normally I wouldn't care - sugar alarmism = more candy for me - except that,
as the article notes, "Lustig ... calls for sugar to be treated as a toxin,
like alcohol and tobacco, and for sugar-laden foods to be taxed, labelled with
health warnings and banned for anyone under 18." That's just bullshit
extremism. Doughnuts, one of my favorite foods, can be part of a healthy diet
just like anything else. In fact, sugar is fantastic for stimulating muscle
growth [3], and can help with diet adherence during a caloric deficit [4].

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin_index](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin_index)
\- this page lists satiety indexes for common foods. Notice all the lowest
scores are bakery goods and sugary snacks.

[2]
[http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2009/10/14/ajcn.2009...](http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2009/10/14/ajcn.2009.28595)

[3]
[http://jcs.biologists.org/content/122/20/3589.full](http://jcs.biologists.org/content/122/20/3589.full)

[4]
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11126336?ordinalpos=47&it...](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11126336?ordinalpos=47&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum)

[5] [http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/health-
topics/topics/obe/ris...](http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/health-
topics/topics/obe/risks.html)

[6]
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19801534](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19801534)

Edit: People are taking my words out of context. This is my reply to another
comment below that elucidates my meaning: "I advocate moderation and balance.
Consume reasonable calorie and macronutrient (protein, fat, carbohydrate)
quantities. Eat what allows you to do that. For me, those carbs come from
doughnuts and candy but also from brown rice and pasta. Just like my meats
include both lean meats (chicken breast) and fatty, delicious meats (bacon).
Combine this with exercise and all you'll avoid all the scary things the
article talks about."

~~~
sillysaurus2
_Doughnuts, one of my favorite foods, can be part of a healthy diet_

Can they?

~~~
wavesounds
There's not a dietitian on this planet that when asked to define a "healthy
diet" would include donuts. This guy is living in denial if he honestly think
this.

~~~
vinceguidry
You're assuming the healthy diet concept is entirely prescriptive, in that
there's a List of Healthy Things to Eat which thou must not deviate from.
That's not how dietitians approach it. It mostly revolves around ensuring your
macro and micro nutrient intake keeps to certain levels determined largely by
your activity level.

------
b1ueocean
Parents really need to stop giving this poison to their children. All birthday
parties & events geared towards kids has this poison as the main attraction.
And don't get me started on breakfast cereals....

~~~
miralabs
Whats needed is the reduction of added sugars on everyday food..mostly
processed food. I dont think we should go to the extent of not having cakes or
ice cream on special occasions, that is not the problem.

~~~
ScottBurson
Agreed. Sugar is being added to almost everything... even _chicken broth_ , to
take one example that surprised me.

~~~
mcb3k
Yeah, one of the things that people don't realize is that sugar's hygroscopic
nature is a great way to make things shelf stable. This is one of the reasons
why so many processed foods end up having a lot more sugar than would
typically be in the home-made variant.

------
sandGorgon
Here's a very interesting, _recent_ research paper that seems to corroborate
AND defy the "sugar is evil" statement:

 _Dietary composition and its associations with insulin sensitivity and
insulin secretion in youth. - While long-term excess of energy intake has been
shown to lead to overweight and obesity, dietary macronutrient composition is
not independently correlated with insulin sensitivity (IS) and insulin
secretion (ISct). HOWEVER, For every 1 % increase in daily protein intake (%),
Area-Under-Curve(AUC) Insulin /Glucose t= 30 min decreased by 1·1 % (P=
0·033). _

FYI - increase of AUC is correlated with glycemic response to foods. [2]

[1]
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24047611](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24047611)
[2]
[http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/13/2/172.abstract](http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/13/2/172.abstract)

------
fredgrott
a former molecular bio major,

Be careful folks.. the sugar they are referring to is corn syrup which was
used as fat taste replacement..sucrose

fructose in small doses is still fine..although do not use it a diet plan as
its a hunger enhancer as it blocks a body released chemical that tells are
body to stop eating.

~~~
voltagex_
>blocks a body released chemical that tells are body to stop eating

Got any more info on this?

------
jjindev
I am not a nutritionist or a biochemist, but as a guy with an old BS Chem and
a general knowledge, it does not surprise me to hear (again) that we are not
all bomb calorimeters. We have long known that our metabolic pathways are
neither uniform nor universal. There is no surprise there. When you eat fat,
carbohydrate, or cellulose, different things happen.

Thus, I think the extreme "calories is calories" argument is anti-scientific.

Given the real complexity, I personally favor a varied and omnivorous diet,
avoiding things both unnatural in their manufacture but also unnatural in
their availability. A diet high in sugar is not natural. It would be very
surprising if evolution and the evolution of our accompanying microbiome
prepared us for it.

------
res0nat0r
Currently reading Salt, Sugar, Fat by Michael Moss, check it out if this
interests you.

[https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/15797397-salt-sugar-
fat](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/15797397-salt-sugar-fat)

------
yetanotherphd
I don't know if this man's views on sugar are accurate, but things like:

>''Reviews of the body of scientific evidence by expert committees have
concluded that consuming sugar as part of a balanced diet does not induce
lifestyle diseases such as diabetes and heart disease,'' he says.If you look
up Robert Lustig on Wikipedia, nearly two-thirds of the studies cited there to
repudiate Lustig's views were funded by Coca-Cola.

really disturb me. I think there is something wrong with are intellectual
culture when we give completely undeserved credulity to studies with obvious
biases.

------
cjf4
Calories in v calories out is absolute in terms of weight loss/gain, but
that's just a quantitative measure, not a qualitative one. For instance, the
famed "Twinkies at a Caloric Deficit" diet will cause you to lose weight, but
not in any sort of good way, and will do all sorts of terrible things to your
health, not the least of which is deprivation of important micro and macro
nutrients.

Sugar isn't inherently "bad", but the way most people consume it is. High
sugar foods, in essence, have very poor bang for your caloric buck.

------
Buonaparte
I'm sure everyone would leave this earth much happier if they spent more time
enjoying the life they have rather than arguing with others about nutrition. I
guess that applies to everything...

------
joyofdata
XYLITOL :) We use it for coffee, baking, cocktails, Sushi rice and more.

Xylitol has less intensive impact on the insulin system and does not cause a
glycaemic peak as strong as you experience it with sugar.

Xylitol is also proven to directly prevent Caries.

There are numerous studies on Xylitol and its benefits - Google is your
friend.

How is it possible that in a thread on sugar even after 146 comments nobody
mentions Xylitol?

BTW ... Xylitol is for me not a sugar-subtitute because it tastes better than
sugar.

In case you live in Germany or EU and you need a realiably source -
www.xucker.de. No I am not affiliated with them.

~~~
logfromblammo
Erythritol and glycerol are also decent sugar-alcohol sweeteners.

Other types of sugar alcohols are not suitable as sugar replacements.

Methanol and ethylene glycol are poisonous. Mannitol, sorbitol, isomalt,
maltitol, and lactitol will all give you horrible gas and diarrhea. To a
certain extent, xylitol and glycerol will also have a laxative effect, but as
erythritol is absorbed by the gut, it is the only sugar alcohol that can be
consumed in excess without dire colonic consequences.

------
yeureka
On a recent BBC Horizon, two identical twins went for a month on two separate
diets. One of the twins ate a high carb low fat diet, the other did the
reverse.

By the end of the experiment the one with the worse metabolical and biological
outcomes was the twin on the high fat low carb diet. In fact the doctors told
him to stop as he was becoming pre-diabetic.

link to bbc programme:
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03t8r4h](http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03t8r4h)

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Sounds like it was bad, for those two. Hard to draw any further conclusions
from that.

~~~
yeureka
It was definitely bad for both of them, however the twin on the high fat low
carb diet fared much worse even though he was consuming less calories than the
carb binging twin.

------
rapala
Sometimes it seams that people are interested in these technical and highly
specific debates on how to eat right to avoid responsibility. They want to
"know" that eating right is so difficult and badly understood that it can't be
done without a special diet. When they then select a diet and it works, they
attribute it to the diet and not the utmost care that they followed the diet
with.

------
asucks
In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the
women.

------
Anevenua
Sixto Rodriguez singing "Sugar Man" in Background of this site.

------
bharatFNS
Had I not cut down on my sugar intake, I would be bloating and down with
diabetes by now. Gosh! I did it without John Yudkin's book, I am going to read
it.

------
source99
Poll: Obesity is caused by?

~~~
logfromblammo
A subatomic particle: the adipon. These are sometimes produced in bogon-bogon
collisions, and are the primary reason why people overeat when stressed.

------
mistakoala
They can prise my sugar... from my cold, dead hands.

