On Sunday, ABC’s Ockham’s Razor program aired a piece by a chap called Chris Forbes- Ewan. Chris is a nutritionist who works for the Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO) in Tasmania. He has spent the last few years making high melting point chocolate for DSTO. This stuff allows Aussie troops to still enjoy a choccy even when sitting in the hot Arabian sun.
DSTO says they “work closely with industry ... through a range of ... mutually beneficial arrangements.” Interestingly they have been ‘working closely’ with Nestle on Chris’s project. DSTO explain “Nestlé’s transformation from a general food company into a health, nutrition and wellness company meant that they were more closely aligned to DSTO in the area of nutrition.”
Nestle has been transformed into a health and wellness company? I must have missed the memo. I’m sure DSTO (and Chris) are not in any way influenced by ‘closely working’ with Nestle for years, but it would have been nice to disclose the relationship so we could make up our own mind.
It’s true I have no formal qualifications in nutrition. But apparently none are necessary, beyond being a human that eats. And I understand that to someone (like Chris) who has worked in this area for ‘more than two decades’ it could be a little confronting to deal with someone qualified by nothing more than a thirst for knowledge.
After reading 208 pages of summarised research in Sweet Poison, he decides the thing worthy of attack (beyond my credentials) is my claim that we now get almost 20% of our calories from fructose.
For the record the average Aussie consumes about 50 kg of sugar a year. On top of that, they gulp down approximately 10 kg of sugar in fruit juice concentrate (used to sweeten ‘healthy’ food like Nestle’s fruit fix), honey and fruit juice. The fructose half of this equates to 16.4 percent of the recommended adult male’s diet (2,000 Calories per day) or 18.2 percent of an adult female diet of 1,800 Calories. To me, that looks like ‘almost 20 percent’ and a lot more than the 6 percent Chris calculates.
But even if he were absolutely right, it wouldn’t change my argument one little bit. Unlike Chris (and coincidentally Big Sugar), I don’t believe (and there is no credible research to suggest) that there is any safe level of fructose consumption (beyond that which is contained in two pieces of fruit per day).
Even Chris concedes that “many Australians do eat excessive amounts of sugar, and would do themselves (and their waistlines) a favour by reducing sugar intake.” His real concern seems to be that people won’t voluntarily give up sugar, reducing his argument to: I know it’s bad but people won’t change, so let’s not worry about it.
His only other concern was about a human trial (of fructose feeding) I mentioned in the book. It had to be abandoned due to some of the participants suffering heart problems.
I mentioned the study to make the (I thought, rather amusing) point that humans have better lawyers than rats which is why (perhaps) there are less human studies on fructose. But Chris claims that I completely misinterpreted the study’s findings. He implies that the heart problems were no more attributable to fructose than to starch (the two diets used in the trial).
I didn’t do the study, so I have to rely on what the researchers themselves concluded. They say that even though the link between the fructose and the heart attacks could not be proven, the probability that it “was due to chance was < .0005” (less than five hundredths of a percent).
Sweet Poison is stuffed to the brim with examples from the (over 3,000) studies that show the damage being done by fructose, but Chris doesn’t have problems with any of the rest. This one (somewhat oblique) reference is the only one he questions.
He has however personally found 12 studies which show feeding people fructose has no effect or is beneficial (no less). He doesn’t cite (or describe) any of them, so we’ll just have to take his word on that. Perhaps next time Chris, you could give us some clues? Maybe even mention the name of the researchers? Ockham’s Razor is a science show after all.
Despite his newly discovered (and unnamed) studies, Chris finishes his piece by saying that “recent studies suggest that high fructose intake may increase the risk of conditions such as gout, kidney stones, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, high blood pressure and diabetes, and may also lead to blood lipid profiles associated with greater risk of heart disease.” Oh ok, so we agree then?
And that’s it. That’s all he had. The End.
I’ve put the evidence out there and the best a chocolatier-come-critic can come up with (after six months) is (incorrectly) suggesting I misinterpreted an abandoned study from 1984?
Sugar purveyors (including the DSTO’s partner, Nestle) have billions in revenue and resources coming out their ears. Sweet Poison cites endless studies and there are even more on my blog. But so far not one study has been cited which contradicts any of it.
If the science is wrong and fructose is harmless (as Chris starts to imply but then changes his mind), then surely it can’t be that hard to prove. Just cite some credible studies.
Posts
77 comments so far, and your thoughts are welcome:
I saw that podcast pop up on my itunes a few days ago and listened with interest. I also found it hard to understand the point that was being made as it seemed he was critical but ultimately conceded most of the concerns you raise in your book. Considering he elected to the play the tedious 'I am a scientist and you are not card' it would have been nice had the program revealed the nature of his work with DSTO. Happy New Year and keep up the good work.
Hear hear, David, your response is on the button. That chocolatier has all but wasted 15minutes of valuable Ockham’s Razor program listening time.
You can't be too careful it now seems when listening to the ABC's Ockham’s Razor program. Mr. ABC, please lift your game a little.
David,
see below email submitted to Ockham's Razor www site:
"Robyn,
I am a member of the public trained in experimental science and statistics in an area unrelated to nutrition, with a close interest in health issues from a scientific methodology and statistical validity viewpoint. I have no vested interest in any diet, therapy or nutritional approach.
Frankly, I found your recent edition, which was essentially a refutation by a nutritionist named Forbes-Ewan, of a previous presenter named Gillespie, to be "dodgy", for a number of reasons, viz:
1. It was in large part, an ad honimen attack on Gillespie, as opposed to the subject matter of whether fructose is dangerous. Frankly, I do not care whether Gillespie is a lawyer, Forbes-Ewan is a nutritional scientist associated with the fructose user industry (which he appears to be and did not declare), or about the views of the industry associations mentioned by Forbes-Ewan, nor should you. What matters is the strength of each of their scientific cases as to whether fructose, at commonly consumed dosage levels, is a toxin in the diet of Australians
2. In this respect, the attack of Forbes-Ewan upon Gillespie's case that fructose dosage levels are dangerous, was particularly weak and amounted to nitpicking, which Gillespie has more than adequately responded to upon his blog. In the end Gillespie is probably guilty of a little hyperbole regarding toxic dosage levels, but not much more. His overall case is solidly backed by human metabolic theory and human and animal experimental results. Fructose, at dosage levels consumed by a significant proportion of the Australian community appears to be a toxin.
3. Indeed, your presenter conceded, for most part, towards the end of the show, Gillespie's case and in a moment of truthfulness recognized that since Gillespie's book was published, the scientific case against fructose in the diet had strengthened
4. In particular, Forbes-Ewan specifically concedes that the American Heart Association last year (2009) overturned it's prior policy and tightened it's warning against fructose as a major component of human nutrition. On the Committee issuing this changed policy was one Professor Lustig.
5. Lustig is one of the premier international researchers in the field of high fructose consumption and it's metabolic impact, including upon children. In 2009 he issued the following video, which makes Gillespie look like Neville Chamberlain:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM.
Whilst Lustig tends towards passionate hyperbole in the early parts of this video, I have examined the detailed biochemistry and talked to specialists in the field and no-one appears to demur from his conclusion - fructose appears to be a toxin, when consumed at levels prevailing amongst a significant proportion of the US population.
It is fine to have people debating these issues on the ABC. However, there are a couple of issues raised by your introductory presentation.
Firstly, you appear to explicitly suggest that Gillespie is wrong and that Fructose consumption at levels prevailing in the Australian community is OK.
Secondly, you also appear to implicitly endorse ad honimen non-scientific religious like attacks upon someone who dares to suggest that the prevailing paradigm in one science, is wrong.
Shame on you. You are certainly wrong on the second count and most probably irresponsibly wrong on the first. Let us see how the sceince plays out."
p.s Why is there no place where the public can publicly comment about your shows - this is a rarity in today's media environment?
David's blog entry about my Ockham's Razor program contains several claims that deserve replies. I'll reply to each claim in a separate comment, so that each comment is a reasonable length.
His first claim is that I have "spent the last few years making high melting point chocolate for DSTO". David also suggests that I may have links with Nestle, and states (with tongue apparently firmly in cheek): "I’m sure DSTO (and Chris) are not in any way influenced by ‘closely working’ with Nestle for years, but it would have been nice to disclose the relationship so we could make up our own mind."
For 38 years I have had only the one employer, DSTO. I have never worked for (or with) Nestle. I have never been funded by Nestle. I have never even communicated with anyone at Nestle. Nor have I spent as much as one second working as a chocolatier.
The link between me and Nestle is tenuous, to say the least. For the past two or three years a food technologist at DSTO has been working with Nestle to try to develop an improved high-melting-point chocolate for use in Australian Defence Force ration packs. This food technologist comes from a non-English-speaking background. Because English is a second language for the food technologist who is working with Nestle on the chocolate project (with all her funding coming from DSTO, by the way), when the media showed interest in the project I volunteered to be the DSTO spokesman. The food technologist provided me with the technical details (at a layperson’s level of complexity) and I conveyed them to the media in a series of interviews.
In 2003 I was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council (on a short-term contract) to take part in revision of the Nutrient Reference Values for Australia and New Zealand. Other than that, I have never been funded by any organisation other than DSTO for any research or development work I have conducted.
More to come in my next comment.
Second Comment
David writes about his qualifications for providing expert advice: “It’s true I have no formal qualifications in nutrition. But apparently none are necessary, beyond being a human that eats.” Does that mean that if I have read Rumpole of the Bailey, or been to court to contest a speeding fine, I am qualified to work as lawyer?
Of course I have no objection to anyone making a worthwhile contribution in any area of science. After all, perhaps the greatest scientific breakthrough of the 20th century was made by a Patents Examiner, Class One in the Swiss Patents Office. This was the Theory of Special Relativity, published in 1905, and the patents examiner was Albert Einstein.
However, someone who purports to be offering expert advice on a health-related matter should at least be capable of interpreting the scientific literature. David has not only misinterpreted a critical study (at least critical to his argument), he has also refused to back down when I pointed out his misinterpretation.
David claimed in his book Sweet Poison, in his Ockham’s Razor program, and in his blog entry in reply to my program that this study found harmful effects (severe heart problems) that were attributable to fructose consumption. In his blog entry he claims that the researchers ‘say that even though the link between the fructose and the heart attacks could not be proven, the probability that it “was due to chance was < .0005” (less than five hundredths of a percent).’
David's continues to misinterpret the result of this study. The authors do state that the probability is less < .0005 of getting so many heart problems in the one study by chance. But they make it clear that this was NOT attributable to feeding fructose to those participants. They refer (more than once) to a ‘... lack of relationship between the onset of the abnormalities and the type of dietary carbohydrate’. In the absence of any relationship between fructose consumption and the onset of heart conditions, they discuss the possibility that low copper intake was the problem.
More to come in my next comment.
Third Comment
David's Ockham's Razor program contains a claim that no-one had been game to conduct studies involving purposefully feeding fructose to humans following the study mentioned in my last comment (the one in which four participants experienced severe heart conditions). In my Ockham's Razor program I mentioned that I found 19 such studies over the relevant time period (1985-2007) in a brief search of the scientific literature. Moreover, 12of these studies reported positive, or at worst neutral effects of fructose, and seven reported negative effects. David complains in his blog that I did not provide references to these studies.
As I'm sure David is aware, Ockham's Razor is directed to the general public, not scientists. It would be inappropriate to include references (indeed, David didn't include any in his program either).
So here are the references to 12 studies (whose existence David denied in his Ockham's Razor program) that found neutral or beneficial effects of fructose feeding:
Am J Clin Nutr l984;39:525-534
Diabetes Care May 1989 vol. 12 no. 5 337-344
Am J Clin Nutr 1994;59(suppl):753S-7S
Am J Clin Nutr 2006;84:1374–9.
Diabetes Care November 1996 vol. 19 no. 11 1249-1256
Diabet Med. 1987 Jan-Feb;4(1):62-4
J-Intern-Med. 1993 Feb; 233(2): 145-53
Am J Med. 1987 Aug;83(2):249-55
Diabetes Care 24:1882–1887, 2001
Diabet Med. 1989 Aug;6(6):506-11.
Am J Clin Nutr 1989;50:1015-1022
Clinical Nutrition (2006) 25, 617–621
Fourth and final comment
David's blog includes: 'Chris finishes his piece by saying that “recent studies suggest that high fructose intake may increase the risk of conditions such as gout, kidney stones, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, high blood pressure and diabetes, and may also lead to blood lipid profiles associated with greater risk of heart disease.” Oh ok, so we agree then?'
No David, we don't agree. As I mentioned in my Ockham's Razor program, the key word is 'high' (that is, I accept that high fructose intake is harmful); I do not accept your position that it is a poison in any dose. The American Dietetic Association and American Heart Foundation (among many respected organisations) accept that there is a safe level of intake. Similarly, the advice of the National Health and Medical Research Council, the peak health body in Australia, isn't to 'Avoid all added sugars', it is to 'Consume only moderate amounts of sugars and foods containing added sugars'.
In his autobiography, James Watson, co-discoverer of the DNA code, points out that scientists must exaggerate when writing for the general public. People don't want to hear 'It is likely that ...
or 'The evidence suggests that ...'. But Watson says that the exaggeration must be ethical. Unfortunately, David has exaggerated the case against fructose to an unethical degree.
So the question boils down to how much fructose is a potential problem. David's book clearly talks about eating fruit in moderation as being fine so he is not claiming that completely avoiding fructose is necessary - just eating it in its natural fibrous packing. The American Heart Foundations new recommendations are 37g of sugar for men and 25 g for women which represents about 19g and 13 g of fructose. Considering how much of the stuff is soft drink (often at least 20g per 600 Mls), fruit juices (similar to soft drink) and cereals (10-15g+ per 100 grams)how does Chris believe you can keep within the AHF limits without watching your intake as though fructose was a poison? I don't feel Chris has evaded the charge of nitpicking and thereby obscuring a serious health issue.
Have a look at Episode 13 of Colbert Report, available on ABC iTV, in which Cobert does a v. good sketch on fructose and obesity.
Hilarious Terry! Thanks for that ... by the way - here's a direct link: http://www.abc.net.au/iview/#/view/500475
Chris - those studies are the ones (driven by Crapo's research) that are covered on page 59 of Sweet Poison.
In his most recent comment Paul suggests that 'the question boils down to how much fructose is a potential problem.'
I don't agree that this is the only relevant question. For me, it is equally relevant that David has exaggerated his case against fructose beyond an ethical level. The evidence simply isn't strong enough to conclude that it is a 'miracle ... that we are not all dead in the face of the incessant fructose doping.'
But to answer Paul's question, a pretty good place to start would be to follow the Dietary Guidelines for Australians. My Ockham’s Razor program finished with:
'In the context of this talk, the two most relevant guidelines are:
Consume only moderate amounts of sugars and foods containing added sugars; and
Prevent weight gain: be physically active and eat according to your energy needs.'
That is, you don’t have to avoid all sweet-tasting foods (as David recommends), just moderate your intake.
And physical activity is at least as important as diet in weight control and health generally.
Although David recognises the value of exercise with respect to general health, he dismisses its importance in relation to weight control with the statement 'Don’t exercise if your dominant purpose is to lose weight: let a lack of fructose do that instead.' Even Robert Lustig—one of the few orthodox nutritionists who agree with the fructose hypothesis—stresses the importance of exercise in weight control. During an interview with Norman Swann on the Health Report in 2007, Lustig stated that for obesity '... exercise is the best treatment' (http://www.abc.net.au/rn/healthreport/stories/2007/1969924.htm). So David is apparently the only soldier in the entire army (let alone the regiment) who is in step on that issue.
The protective effect of exercise is illustrated by marathon runners. Many marathoners eat far more sugar than most people, but in the entire world there isn’t one elite marathon runner who is overweight, let alone obese. This is not consistent with David’s belief that eating high levels of added fructose will inevitably lead to weight gain. It is consistent with Robert Lustig’s statement that '(exercise) actually helps detoxify the sugar fructose' (in the Health Report program previously referenced).
Another illustration of the protective effect of exercise against the ravages of excessive fructose intake is provided by the exploits of Yiannis Kouros. In the 1980s and ‘90s, Kouros was the best ultra-marathon runner in the world, and quite likely the greatest the world has ever seen. He had an amazing ability to continue to run at a pace that would exhaust most joggers within one hour. As just two examples, he completed a 960-km race from Sydney to Melbourne in just over five days, and later ran more than 300 km in one 24-hour period. For his Sydney-Melbourne run, it was estimated that more than 95% of his energy came from carbohydrate, most of it apparently from simple sugars (Am J Clin Nutr 1989; 49:976-9). This was his standard running diet. In 2008, at the age of 53, Kouros was still running, and apparently even challenging a pretender to the crown of world’s greatest ultramarathoner (http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=2391736).
If it is true (as David claims) that 'Every day that fructose remains a part of our diet, is a death sentence ...', then the executioner is taking a long time to get around to doing his job on Yiannis Kouros!
So in response to Paul’s question about how much fructose intake is safe, my response is 'about the same as the length of a piece of string'. That is, the more you exercise, the more fructose you can safely consume.
How long is a piece of string?
Sadly Chris, for most people it is rather short - because they are not marathon runners nor in most cases very physically active at all. I suspect that you would take the view that this is their fault and if they got off the couch they could eat all the high melting point chocolate they desire.
Needless to say the major problem with weight gain and the risks presented by excess fructose occur as people get older and find marathon running a bit hard than it was in their 20's.
So have another go at estimating the length of string (candy rope will do) that the average person who engages in occasional activity can consume in addition to that which is contained in the many foods that alot of people do not suspect has sugar (fructose) added to it.
It doesn't take long to reach 37 or 25 g per day - but then the AHM may not have had Cliff Young in mind when they set those limits
Cheers
Cris
Chris,
Whilst the literature supports the view that physical activity benefits health (albeit at dosages lower than previously thought), my reading is that it does not support the view that it plays a key role in a fat loss program, independent of changes in diet composition, amongst obese persons, as implied by your good self in your post.
I would appreciate if your could cite the specific major RCTs with crossover that support your position, or if you cannot muster any clear such support, perhaps a major meta-analysis, or literature review of recent origin that supports it. I cannot find any.
It would be great if you could show a study where a group of otherwise matched obese persons consuming high levels of fructose split up and some went on a modest sustainable exercise regime and lost weight.
Thanks
p.s Use of examples from endurance athletes or say SAS soldiers does not appear relevant, as in these cases the sheer rate of energy burning is likely to outweigh any impact of changes in metabolic rate or food consumption rate etc., which result from more modest exercise programs.
I do love a good discussion ... I've covered the issue of exercise in a little more detail in this post: http://www.raisin-hell.com/2009/01/smart-state-or-fat-and-dumb-state.html
I’m going to correct a ‘blooper’ in my last comment. I suggested that Robert Lustig is ‘one of the few orthodox nutritionists who accept the fructose hypothesis’. Before David (appropriately) chides me for this wording, I’m going to point out that this is not correct. There are many orthodox nutritionists who accept that excessive (note the word ‘excessive’) fructose intake may be playing a role, even a key role in the obesity epidemic and other aspects of health.
In fact I agreed in my Ockham’s Razor program that ‘high fructose intake (may be) a major contributor to the obesity epidemic … and may increase the risk of conditions such as gout, kidney stones, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, high blood pressure and diabetes, and may also lead to blood lipid profiles associated with greater risk of heart disease.’
However, I do not know any orthodox nutritionist who agrees with David that there is no safe level of intake of added fructose (i.e. above the quantity found in a couple of serves of fruit). Moderation of sugar (and therefore fructose) intake, not avoidance, is the advice given by every nutrition authority I am aware of.
There is a long list of purported causes of, or contributing factors to the obesity epidemic. They include, but are not limited to:
High intakes of total fat, of saturated fat, of a particular kind of saturated fat known as palmitic acid, of a type of polyunsaturated fat called linoleic acid; high intakes of carbohydrate and/or alcohol; low intakes of protein; skipping breakfast; ‘grazing’ rather than eating three square meals; eating fast food rather than home-cooked meals; using artificial sweeteners; reduced physical activity; insufficient sleep; exposure to environmental chemicals such as insecticides ... even a virus has been implicated as a cause of obesity in some circumstances.
At the Annual Scientific Meeting of the Nutrition Society of Australia last December, a prominent Australian nutritionist stated that the correlation coefficient for the association between fructose intake and the obesity epidemic is something like 0.8 (i.e. there is a strong correlation). A prominent American nutritionist immediately countered with: ‘The correlation coefficient for linoleic acid and obesity is 0.85’. (Linoleic acid is a fatty acid found in large quantities in vegetable oils, e.g. soybean and canola).
I also suspect that reduced physical activity plays a major role in the obesity epidemic, which is most likely multifactorial (i.e. there are many contributing factors).
The cause (or more likely causes) of the obesity epidemic remain unresolved. It is not appropriate to claim, as David does, that fructose is indisputably the sole cause, and that it is harmful in any dose.
Paul (or perhaps Cris … I’ll assume Cris in this message) points out (correctly) that many people are not very physically active. However, instead of advocating greater activity, Cris seems to accept that the sedentary state is appropriate, and says that fructose intake should therefore be quite low.
My point is that if people were to become more physically active, they could eat more fructose before any adverse effects of high fructose (or high fat) intake would occur.
I wasn’t advocating that we all ‘do a Cliff Young’ and run from Sydney to Melbourne when we are 60 years old. (I wouldn’t recommend that to my worst enemy!) I was simply saying that the higher the level of activity, the greater the protection against dietary excess.
Cris also asks me to estimate how much fructose ‘the average person who engages in occasional activity can (safely) consume’. To quote (or at least paraphrase) Sir Humphrey Appleby, that isn’t the question. As mentioned above, Cris apparently accepts that the sedentary state is appropriate. My position is that it is wholly inappropriate to lead a sedentary lifestyle.
Of more relevance are the following questions: (i) how much activity is appropriate for general health and well-being if weight control is not an issue? and (ii) how much more activity is needed to prevent or treat overweight or obesity?
In relation to activity for general health and wellbeing, the Australian Department of Health and Ageing recommends:
‘Put together at least 30 minutes of moderate-intensity physical activity on most, preferably all, days.
‘If you can, also enjoy some regular, vigorous activity for extra health and fitness.’
This is similar to the recommendations of the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) that to ‘maintain health and avoid the risk of chronic disease’:
‘Do moderately intense cardio 30 minutes a day, five days a week
Or
Do vigorously intense cardio 20 minutes a day, 3 days a week
And
Do eight to 10 strength-training exercises, eight to 12 repetitions of each exercise twice a week.’
In relation to the second question, ACSM recommends that ‘… to lose weight or maintain weight loss, 60 to 90 minutes of physical activity may be necessary.’
Also, I don’t recommend ‘kilojoule counting’, or counting grams of sugar (or saturated fat) eaten each day. Rather, I recommend following the Dietary Guidelines for Australians (available at: http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/dietsyn.htm) and engaging in light, moderate and vigorous physical activity at the levels recommended above.
Apologies Chris, that 'Cheers Cris' was a mispelt regards to you. I have enjoyed your contributions although I disagree with aspects of them - However I feel we are reaching considerable common ground :) Paul is correct.
I am certainly in favour of active lifestyles but it easy for me as I have always enjoyed many sports and continued playing even as decreptitude (turning 40) approached.
My point is simply that many many people:
1. Do not lead particularly active lives even though you and I would agree they should.
2. Do not appreciate that the differences in the metabolism of fructose means that sugar (fructose) is quite different to the other simple carbs and complex carbs and eating it is closer to munching on fat than a carb.
Perhaps in the world of lab coats you guys are right across the differences but I can assure you that the vast majority of people have no idea that frustose is not the same as glucose and that they cannot just assume that a calorie of fructose is no different to a calorie of glucose or lactose or any of the other simple sugars or complex carbs.
It is an important public message that should be communicated in clear and direct language in order that it will cut through the nonsense peddled by the fast food industy that you can eat anything as long as it is in moderation and part of a balanced diet. I suspect that 1 cigarette per week woul dbe very unlikely to cause any significant health problems as the dose is so low but I am sure we should not be confusing the smoking issue by saying it is fine in low doses on an occasional basis.
Certainly you can quibble about whether David's approach to the issue is what a man of science would recommend but how does this snippet from your transcript convey a warning that one can compile a list of wonderful desserts ONLY if you abandon a sedentary lifestyle.
For the vast majority of sedentary Australians this is dangerous advice that is about as safe as giving them the advice that there is little proof that 1 cigarette per week (as part of a balanced diet?) will cause them much harm.
"I also wonder how many people would willingly give up, for the remainder of their lives, chocolate, ice cream, honey, sweet drinks (including fruit juice) and desserts such as apple pie, wine trifle, tiramisu ... (you can complete your own list of wonderful desserts here)and all other sweet foods? I suspect the appropriate answer is: not many. You could even revise the wording of the old joke, 'Will I live any longer if I give up all sweet foods? Possibly, but even if you don't, it will certainly seem longer'. After all, there is overwhelming evidence that humans are programmed to like sweet food. This is believed to have an evolutionary origin - poisonous plant foods are generally bitter or sour, while sweet foods are usually safe to eat."
Your enthusiam for desserts and the products of the confectionary production line should perhaps be accompanied by fine print - consumers are advised that to burn off the 1000 Kj in a 50g chocolate bar they will need to run at approx 8 K/per hour for at least 24 minutes.
Anyway time for work and have a good weekend.
Paul.
I'll respond to all comments I haven't yet addressed, but first I want to discuss a couple of David's claimed facts.
His Ockham's Razor program includes 'Our average daily calorie intake has increased by 30%in the last three decades'.
I think this is very likely yet another factual error. Rosemary Stanton commented on this claim. Her message is reproduced here (with her permission):
'I don't know where his increase in energy intake comes from. There is data for children showing a 13% increase between 1985 and 1995, but I can't find any data to support a 30% increase over 3 decades. The older data would have been derived from apparent consumption (quite different from actual consumption, but OK for comparison with similarly collected data), but then we don't have up-to-date apparent consumption data for a comparison. It was not estimated once it was apparent that it wasn't much use in relation to actual consumption. Checking apparent consumption data, the per capita (unadjusted energy values) were:
1938-39 13,048 kJ
1948-49 13,584 kJ
1958-59 13,801 kJ
1968-69 13,835 kJ
1978-79 14,635 kJ
1988-89 12,903 kJ
1989-90 12,998 kJ
1990-91 13,118 kJ
1990-91 13,068 kJ
1991-92 12,952 kJ
1992-93 12,879 kJ
1993-94 13,003 kJ
'The later bulletins didn't record the figures, being considered too inaccurate. But in any case, Gillespie (or anyone else) could probably make a good case that total food intake didn't change much over that 55-year period. If we've increased our kilojoules a lot over the last 3 decades, Gillespie would be going back to the mid to late '70s. The apparent consumption data actually show that as the peak of consumption!'
I would add that theoretical considerations that make it extremely unlikely that David's claimed 30% increase in energy intake is correct. If correct, it would imply either that, on average, we are about 30% heavier than 30 years ago (we aren't) or that we are about 30% more active (we aren't) or that the First Law of Thermodynamics doesn't apply to human metabolism (it does).
Before I am accused (again) of nitpicking, a scientific work should at least get the facts and figures right. David doesn't seem to able to consistently do this.
In my next message I'll address his continuing claim that fructose consumption accounts for something close to 20% of our total energy intake.
David complains in his blog entry that 'After reading 208 pages of summarised research in Sweet Poison, (Chris) decides the thing worthy of attack (beyond my credentials) is my claim that we now get almost 20% of our calories from fructose.'
This is clearly not correct. In the very limited time available in an Ockham's Razor program (13.5 minutes; equivalent to 4-5 pages of written material) I also addressed the following: (i) David's misinterpretation of a study on which he places a lot of reliance (the one that he claims—incorrectly—showed that fructose almost certainly led to severe heart problems); (ii) his false claim that no human studies had been conducted following that study; (iii) his inappropriate attitude to the value of exercise in weight control; (iv) the advice (which differs from David’s advice) given by orthodox nutrition and health bodies on matters such as appropriate intake of sugars; (v)the higher-than-recommended sugar intakes of many Australians; (vi) the possibility that sugar in beverages may be particularly harmful; (vii) recent evidence suggesting that high (note the word 'high') intakes of fructose may be implicated in the obesity epidemic and the onset of chronic diseases; and (viii) my disagreement with David about the existence of a safe dose of added fructose. This is in addition to praising his writing style and some of the material in Sweet Poison.
David also states in his blog entry that 'the average Aussie consumes about 50 kg of sugar a year. On top of that, they gulp down approximately 10 kg of sugar in fruit juice concentrate (used to sweeten ‘healthy’ food like Nestle’s fruit fix), honey and fruit juice.' He makes these claims without any substantiating evidence. (Remember references, David? Scientists use them to support their arguments when they are engaged in discussion with other scientists).
From his unsupported claims, David calculates that '(fructose consumption) equates to 16.4 percent of the recommended adult male’s diet (2,000 Calories per day) or 18.2 percent of an adult female diet of 1,800 Calories.'
We don't actually know how much of any food Australians are eating. The last National Nutrition Survey was conducted in 1995. Until the next survey is done, there isn't enough evidence to claim specific intakes of any type of food.
Here is the reasoning behind the estimate I came up with in my Ockham's Razor program. David suggests in Sweet Poison that we eat less fructose than Americans, about two-thirds as much, in fact. Let’s assume for the purposes of this discussion that David’s suggestion is correct. In my quick literature review I found two papers in the scientific literature that estimated current US intakes of fructose. One [Am-J-Clin-Nutr. 2000 Nov; 72(5): 1128-34] estimated it at 9% of total energy intake in 2000. The other [Medscape J Med. 2008 Jul 9;10(7):160] estimated the intake in 2008 to account for 10.2% of total energy intake. (The difference between these estimates is consistent with a likely slight increase in fructose consumption over the eight years between the two studies).
If David is correct in his estimate that we eat about two-thirds as much as Americans, our fructose intake is about 6-7% of total energy intake. I actually believe this is too low, and my suspicion is that our intake is closer to 10% than David’s assumption suggests.
But the scientific evidence shows beyond reasonable doubt (to use a term I’m sure David has heard previously) that fructose does not contribute 16-18% of Australians’ energy intake, contrary to David’s repeated claim.
David also says he doesn’t care if his estimate is wrong. Unlike David, I do care about the accuracy of facts and figures used to support supposedly science-backed claims. This applies especially when the facts and figures are used to justify a suggested drastic change to eating habits, and even to the food supply. (David's Ockham’s Razor program includes a call ‘to immediately ban added fructose as a food’.
Note that this comment has been split into two (it exceeded the 4096 maximum characters)
Part 1. Terry wrote:
‘Whilst the literature supports the view that physical activity benefits health (albeit at dosages lower than previously thought), my reading is that it does not support the view that it plays a key role in a fat loss program, independent of changes in diet composition, amongst obese persons, as implied by your good self in your post.’
My belief is that diet composition is not of much importance with respect to the effects of diet on weight control—it is total energy intake that matters. This is not universally agreed in the nutrition/physiology world, but there is a fairly solid body of evidence supporting this position (which is sometimes expressed as ‘a kilojoule is a kilojoule’; i.e. the source of the energy doesn’t matter, it’s the total energy that counts.)
In any case, from a purely thermodynamic viewpoint (and we are all subject to the laws of thermodynamics), increasing physical activity alone must lead to a reduction in body energy reserves (the vast majority of which are in the form of fat) if there is no change in dietary energy intake.
For example, if my energy intake and energy expenditure are balanced at 12 MJ per day, I will remain weight-stable. If I add one hour of moderately-vigorous exercise to my usual activity level, and thereby increase my daily energy expenditure to about 13 MJ (with dietary intake unaltered) my body energy reserves will be reduced. There will continue to be a loss of weight until my daily energy requirement has decreased (as a result of a decrease in basal metabolic rate because of my weight reduction) to the level whereby a new equilibrium is established. At that point I will need to either increase my activity level further and/or decrease my food intake to undergo more weight loss.
So increased physical activity and moderate restraint in total energy intake are the key components of a lifestyle that promotes appropriate body fat levels and body weight.
The NHMRC (2003; p. 65) states that ‘Dietary treatment is always likely to be more successful in conjunction with an increase in energy expenditure ... influencing both sides of the energy-balance equation is likely to prove more effective than influencing either side alone’.
The NHMRC (ibid) also states that ‘... the mechanism for success is ultimately the creation of negative energy balance. This can be achieved in a variety of ways—for example, reduced fat, carbohydrate, protein or alcohol intake; smaller portion size; food restrictions at various times of the day ...’. (Note that there is no mention of fructose per se, let alone a suggestion that fructose needs to be completely eliminated from the diet).
Part 2
Terry also commented:
‘I would appreciate if you could cite the specific major RCTs with crossover that support your position ...’
My position isn’t (and has never been) that physical activity alone is the solution to the obesity epidemic. My Ockham’s Razor program of 12 Aug 2001 (URL: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/stories/s343941.htm) included:
‘The orthodox view is that to lose weight—and to keep it off—you need to reduce your total food intake slightly (a reduction of about 5-10% should be enough), eat fewer fatty foods, and increase consumption of fruits, vegetables and cereal foods such as bread, pasta and rice. This is not a recipe for a short-term weight-loss diet—to be fully effective, these changes must be maintained for life.
‘But, of equal importance to dietary change is the need to increase energy expenditure. This does not mean taking up marathon running, or anything like it. You can substantially increase your energy output—tipping the balance in favour of reducing body weight—by simply doing about 30 minutes of moderately-vigorous activity each day. This activity should be in addition to any incidental activity that you do, such as walking to the train station rather than driving, taking the stairs rather than the elevator or escalator, and so on.’
So I can't help you with an RCT investigating the effect on body weight where fructose intake is kept constant and the only variable is physical activity. More to the point, I can't think of a good reason why anyone would conduct such a study—as mentioned previously, diet and physical activity are both extremely important in weight control. This is recognised by every nutrition and health authority I am aware of (but not by David).
Reference:
NHMRC (2003). Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Overweight and Obesity in Adults. National Health and Medical Research Council. Canberra, ACT.
Paul wrote:
‘... how does this snippet from your transcript convey a warning that one can compile a list of wonderful desserts ONLY if you abandon a sedentary lifestyle ...
‘"I also wonder how many people would willingly give up, for the remainder of their lives, chocolate, ice cream, honey, sweet drinks (including fruit juice) and desserts such as apple pie, wine trifle, tiramisu ... (you can complete your own list of wonderful desserts here) and all other sweet foods? I suspect the appropriate answer is: not many. You could even revise the wording of the old joke, 'Will I live any longer if I give up all sweet foods? Possibly, but even if you don't, it will certainly seem longer'. After all, there is overwhelming evidence that humans are programmed to like sweet food. This is believed to have an evolutionary origin - poisonous plant foods are generally bitter or sour, while sweet foods are usually safe to eat."
‘Your enthusiasm for desserts and the products of the confectionary production line should perhaps be accompanied by fine print - consumers are advised that to burn off the 1000 Kj in a 50g chocolate bar they will need to run at approx 8 K/per hour for at least 24 minutes.’
Paul,
You’ve missed the point of that section. I wasn’t telling people to eat more desserts and confectionery. Nor am I particularly enthusiastic about them personally. I do eat chocolate (occasionally, although I have never made the stuff :-); I have dessert three or four nights a week; I spread my home-made jam (blackcurrant, greengage, apricot, raspberry or golden plum) on wholegrain toast for breakfast; and I have a teaspoon of sugar in my daily cappuccino, but otherwise I consume little in the way of added sugars. I am also physically active, by the way, averaging a total of an hour or so each day of light, moderate and vigorous physical activity.
Rather, my point was that there is no need to eliminate highly acceptable foods from your diet; simply moderate intake of added sugars. I alluded to this more than once in my program.
I also stressed the importance of physical exercise for general health and weight control (and not in ‘fine print’ but with equal billing to moderation of intake of added sugars).
I’m at a loss to see how you managed to miss these important aspects of my program.
Paul also wrote:
‘Anyway time for work and have a good weekend.’
And the same to you, and everyone else who reads these comments.
Going back to an early comment—Terry accuses me of making an ad hominem attack (playing the man rather than the ball) on David in my Ockham’s Razor program.
Other than (correctly) describing David as a lawyer who has no qualifications or experience in nutrition, I can see nothing in my program that even vaguely resembles an ad hominem attack. I assertively disagreed with David on many of the claims he made in his book. I also pointed out some of his factual errors and his misinterpretation of one key paper in the scientific literature. But I also praised David for his very readable style of writing, for (appropriately) advocating physical activity for general health, and for recommending consumption of two serves of fruit per day.
In his response, ‘Attack of the Chocolatier’, David dismissed me as a chocolate-maker (I’m not) who appears to have ties with Nestle (I don’t).
Would you like to comment on just which aspect of my presentation you found to be ad hominem, and your opinion of David's response.
Also, you accuse me of presenting 'the views of ... industry associations'. I didn't mention the views of any industry associations in my program. Where did this come from?
Finally, you describe my Ockham's Razor program as a 'non-scientific religious like attack'.
I can only imagine you were having a 'bad hair' day when you wrote that!
In an earlier comment I provided 12references to studies conducted between 1985 and 2007 that showed beneficial or, at worst, neutral effects of feeding humans with high levels of fructose. David’s Ockham’s Razor program included the claim that no human studies had been conducted in that time period.
David then claimed that 'those studies are the ones (driven by Crapo's research) that are covered on page 59 of Sweet Poison.'
I re-read p. 59 of ‘Sweet Poison’ and found reference to one study by Crapo conducted in 1976, and others conducted ‘in the late ‘70s and early ‘80s. Based on this research, in 1984 the American Dietetic Association recommended that diabetic patients be given foods that used fructose as the sweetener rather than sugar.’
To quote David in his blog about my program: ‘And that’s it. That’s all he had. The End.’
David, the studies I referred to were all conducted AFTER 1984 (and up to 2006). Two of the 12 studies have Crapo as co-author. She was not an author in any of the other ten studies. Crapo was working in San Diego. The organisations where the remaining 10 studies were conducted include:
Tel Aviv University,
Ohio State University,
Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee
University of Säo Paulo Medical School, Brazil
University of Lausanne, Switzerland
University of Bern, Switzerland
Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, LA
University of Kuopio, Finland
Metabolic Research Group, Veterans Administration Medical Center, Lexington, Kentucky
You did not address those studies on p.59 (or any other page) of ‘Sweet Poison’. You still haven't addressed them.
You also claim in ‘Sweet Poison’ that ‘by 2002 the ADA had completely revised its recommendation on fructose, saying that added fructose should be completely avoided.’ Can you please provide a reference for this. I can’t find it anywhere on their web site. Are you sure you’re not confusing 'should be completely avoided' with 'the ADA no longer recommend the use of fructose'. These statements are not the same—an absence of a recommendation about fructose use does not constitute a recommendation to avoid its use.
However, I did find the following on the ADA site (http://www.diabetes.org/food-and-fitness/food/what-can-i-eat/sweeteners-and-desserts.html)
‘The Hype About Sugar
‘The myth that sugar causes diabetes is commonly accepted by many people. Research has shown that it isn't true. Eating sugar has nothing to do with developing type 1 diabetes. The biggest dietary risk factor for developing type 2 diabetes is simply eating too much and being overweight—your body doesn’t care if the extra food comes from cookies or beef, it is gaining weight that is the culprit.'
Which is pretty much what I've been saying for the past week or so (and what I said in my Ockham's Razor program).
The ADA continues:
'In the past, people with diabetes were told to completely avoid sugar. Experts thought that eating sugar would raise blood glucose levels very high. Research around this issue has shown that while the type of carbohydrate can affect how quickly blood glucose levels rise, the total amount of carbohydrate you eat affects blood glucose levels more than the type. Now experts agree that you can substitute small amounts of sugar for other carbohydrate-containing foods into your meal plan and still keep your blood glucose levels on track.’
As I’ve mentioned many times now, the scientific evidence simply does not support David’s extreme stance against fructose.
A small note on the discussion regarding the proportion of fructose as a proportion of total energy intake amongst Australian adults.
Whilst back when the ABS surveyed them in the 1995 Nutrition Survey, sugar was around 18% of total daily energy intake amongst adult males, it needs to be also remembered that amongst the 30-40% of adult males who drank the day before the ABS surveyed them, around 9% of their total energy intake that day came from alcohol.
Given the similarity of the fructose and alcohol metabolism pathways in the liver and documented similar impacts upon health (e.g fatty liver apparently looks the same from all causes), it may be fairly pointless to examine fructose in isolation, amongst this large segment of the population, without also considering the conjoint metabolic impact of alcohol and fructose.
In his book 'Sweet Poison', his Ockham's Razor program and on his blog, David insists that fructose is addictive for people. Because fructose constitutes 50% of sugar (i.e. sucrose) this would make sugar addictive too.
In 'Sweet Poison' David also provides evidence that rats appear to become addicted when fed large quantities of sugar. In fact, much of the evidence about fructose and health generally that David discusses in 'Sweet Poison' is based on rat studies. This is because, he claims (incorrectly), human studies with fructose were no longer conducted after 1985 due to life-threatening, fructose-related heart conditions in four participants in one study.
As I've mentioned repeatedly (and David continues to deny), the authors of that study did NOT attribute the heart conditions to fructose intake. (There was no association between the heart conditions of those participants and the type of carbohydrate they consumed; the authors speculated that low copper intake may have been the cause). Contrary to David's claim, human studies did continue.
But for the purposes of this discussion let's assume that David hasn't misinterpreted the studies, and rats really can become addicted to fructose. I'm even prepared to stick my neck out further (I like to live dangerously) and assume that David hasn't misinterpreted any of the rat studies involving fructose feeding, i.e. not just those about fructose addiction, but also those indicating harmful metabolic effects in rats.
Unfortunately for David, the results of the human-feeding studies (whose existence he denies) are nowhere near as clear-cut as those of the rat studies. As I've mentioned previously (with references) 12 of 19 human studies I could identify in the relevant period (1985-2006) showed positive or, at worst, neutral health effects resulting from feeding high levels of fructose to humans, while nine studies showed clearly negative effects.
Although a higher proportion of more recent human studies involving high (note the word 'high') intakes of fructose have reported negative effects, there is no evidence for harmful effects of added fructose at low levels of intake. This is in stark contrast to David's claim that added fructose is a poison in humans at any dose, and his call for it to be banned from the food supply.
And even if his claim that fructose is addictive in rats is correct, his further claim that humans are also subject to fructose addiction isn't supported by the most recent meta-analysis on this. This meta-analysis is in the December 26 edition of Clinical Nutrition. The CONCLUSION reads:
'There is no support from the human literature for the hypothesis that sucrose may be physically addictive or that addiction to sugar plays a role in eating disorders.'
So I am prepared to concede that David has achieved something as a result of all his hard work. He has managed to make the world a safer place for rats (provided they read his book or blog).
My goodness Chris you have been very energetic over the last few days. It must be the real fruit in those home made jams!
Moderation is indeed the key and when it comes to sugar it sounds like you practice what you preach and to the extent you wax lyrical about wonderful desserts you mean within the parameters of modest proportions unless one is inclined to marathons or extreme sports.
The core of your criticism is that David makes fructose sound like the black plague when you feel it is in fact more like a bad cold - makes you feel crook if you have it too often but not likely to kill you on the spot.
I would be more sympathetic if your episode of Ockham's Razor was not presented as a bold fructose 'myth buster' when in fact all your subsequent posts confirm that your position on how much fructose someone should eat is not that far from David anyway.
It is clear that you would share his horror at the volume and value of soft drinks and other sugar laden processed foods sold in Australia and the eating habits of most of the population. Coke is still the largest selling grocery item by $ in supermarkets.
My concern is quite simple. The casual listener of your Ockham program is likely to have gained the impression that concern about excess fructose consumption is misplaced and everyone should relax and continue to do what they are currently doing on the healthy easting front - not much and fairly unsucessfully.
As we all know Coke has a place as part of a balanced diet that includes regular exercise.
As for sugar and addiction, you say the science is in but I think it prudent to reserve judgment on that front. I feel there are a range of responses to eating sugar as there are to smoking and alcohol. Some people can use them without forming any form of habit while others are particularly prone to forming a habit. Whether that qualifies as 'addiction' is another issue.
Having once been a committed nicotine junkie and having experienced the subtle ways in which 'addiction' manifests itself I am very cautious about leaping to certain conclusions that concentrated sweetness is not at the very least habit forming.
Clearly you are a man who can stop at one Tim Tam and for that I commend you.
As an interested observer, it seems David's arguments are offensive to some scientists, but not many others.
The emotive position being concern for public health need not be mixed with scientific accuracy and rigour, unless of course that position is based firmly from the canon of science.
If it simply refers to certain scientific results in a neutral context for an emotive purpose - well surely that's completely acceptable, and in fact common in our society.
Lack of anal scientific rigour will not kill anyone, but maybe frutose will.
Please note that this comment comes in two parts (I again exceeded the limit of 4096 characters).
Part 1:
Paul wrote: ‘My goodness Chris you have been very energetic over the last few days. It must be the real fruit in those home made jams!’
Maybe it was the sugar — which provides 17 kJ of energy per gram, a lot more than is available from the fruit :-).
Paul: ‘... to the extent you wax lyrical about wonderful desserts, you mean within the parameters of modest proportions unless one is inclined to marathons or extreme sports.’
This is indeed my intended meaning.
Paul: ‘The core of your criticism is that David makes fructose sound like the black plague when you feel it is in fact more like a bad cold - makes you feel crook if you have it too often but not likely to kill you on the spot.’
My criticism of David is threefold:
(i) He claims that his book is science-based. It isn’t. David has chosen to present only the evidence that puts fructose in a bad light. And even then he has done a botched job, misinterpreting one key study in an inexcusable manner, and ignoring all the papers that involved human studies after 1985. In fact he (inexplicably) denies their existence in both his Ockham’s Razor program and on p. 59of ‘Sweet Poison’.
(ii) He continues to claim, with no evidence base, that fructose is a poison in any dose. As I’ve pointed out (several times) this runs counter to the NHMRC dietary guidelines, the position of the American Heart Association, and of the American Diabetes Association. It is also at odds with the recommendation of the World Health Organisation that up to 10% (or more accurately, <10%) of energy should be derived from free sugars. The URL for this recommendation is: http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/publications/trs916/en/gsfao_overall.pdf)
(iii) David’s solution to obesity and health problems is to avoid all sweet foods (other than a couple of serves of fruit per day). His exact advice is summed up on pages 172/3 of ‘Sweet Poison’ as follows:
‘If you simply do not eat or drink food that tastes sweet you will be in 100 per cent compliance with the no-fructose rules. You can eat anything else you like (avoiding trans fats where possible), just don’t eat sweet-tasting food.’
In ‘Sweet Poison’ (p. 46) he also summarily dismisses the importance of physical activity in weight control with:
'Don't exercise if your dominant purpose is to lose weight: let a lack of fructose do that instead.'
So if I base my daily diet around bacon and eggs, hash browns, pies, sausage rolls, pizza, fish and chips, potato crisps and beer (and, of course, two pieces of fruit), while lying on the couch watching TV, my health and weight will look after themselves, is that right?
I don’t think so! Unlike the dietary guidelines of the NHMRC, David doesn’t address the importance of eating a wide variety of nutritious foods, limiting salt intake, moderating fat consumption, limiting alcohol intake and so on.
Part 2:
In ‘Sweet Poison’ (p. 46) David also summarily dismisses the importance of physical activity in weight control with:
'Don't exercise if your dominant purpose is to lose weight: let a lack of fructose do that instead.'
So if I base my daily diet around bacon and eggs, hash browns, pies, sausage rolls, pizza, fish and chips, potato crisps and beer (and, of course, two pieces of fruit), while lying on the couch watching TV, my health and weight will look after themselves, is that right?
I don’t think so! Unlike the dietary guidelines of the NHMRC, David doesn’t address the importance of eating a wide variety of nutritious foods, limiting salt intake, moderating fat consumption, limiting alcohol intake and so on.
Paul: ‘I would be more sympathetic if your episode of Ockham's Razor was not presented as a bold fructose "myth buster" when in fact all your subsequent posts confirm that your position on how much fructose someone should eat is not that far from David anyway.’
My Ockham’s Razor program wasn’t so much a ‘myth buster’ as a rebuttal of the shoddy science (or rather non-science) presented by David in his book, his Ockham’s Razor program and in his blog entry ‘Attack of the Chocolatier’ (and boy, did he get that name wrong: I have never made chocolate in my life!).
Paul: ‘The casual listener of your Ockham program is likely to have gained the impression that concern about excess fructose consumption is misplaced and everyone should relax and continue to do what they are currently doing on the healthy eating front - not much and fairly unsuccessfully.’
That wasn’t the point I was trying to make. As you say, I share your horror (or at least concern) about excessive intakes of sugar (and therefore fructose) by many people. What I don’t share is David’s horror at low intakes of fructose. I believe they are entirely appropriate. I tried to make it clear in my program that I believe fructose in excess is potentially harmful, and I stressed the importance of the dietary guideline to ‘consume only moderate amounts of sugars and foods containing added sugars’.
Paul: ‘As for sugar and addiction, you say the science is in ...’
I didn’t say that. I simply said that the latest meta-analysis (published two months ago) could find no evidence for human addiction to sugar.
Paul: ‘Clearly you are a man who can stop at one Tim Tam and for that I commend you.’
By filling up on fresh fruit and vegies (much of which I grow in my backyard garden), wholegrain bread and other cereal foods, lean meat and fish (grilled or dry-baked), and reduced-fat dairy products, I find I just cannot eat more than one Tim Tam. One of the few things that David gets right in his book is that dietary fibre is very good for health and weight control, at least partly through its effects on hunger.
However, in case I seem to come across as some sort of paragon of nutritional virtue, I should admit to having an Achille’s heel. I have a weakness for the (fermented) fruits of the labour of Australia’s wine producers. I find it very hard (in fact nearly impossible) to stop at one glass of good Aussie red, white or sparkling wine. I try very hard (but don’t always succeed) to limit my intake to two standard drinks per day. (A standard drink contains 10 g of alcohol. Examples include: a small glass, 100 mL of wine; 250 mL of standard strength beer, i.e. ~5% alcohol by volume; 60 mL of fortified dessert wine; and 30 mL of spirit.)
Very interesting discussion. No question that us humans are simple at heart, and it satisfies us no end to be able to point to Factor X as the one true cause of something. It works often enough: not all lung cancer is caused by smoking, but there's enough evidence linking the two that you'd be well advised not to smoke if you want to minimise your risk of cancer.
There's also no doubt that in the US, the use of high-fructose corn syrup as an almost ubiquitous food additive has made a big contribution to the obesity epidemic in that country. You'd be well advised to avoid that stuff entirely. But I think Chris is right: there are many factors at work here, and if you're overweight it's unlikely there's any one magic thing you can do to change your lifestyle to keep your weight down. It surely takes a broad adjustment to both your energy input via diet and your energy output via exercise.
All,
This post divided into three because of word limitation
Part 1
Chris has made some points against David's arguments, which come down to one point - regarding David's hyperbole regarding the minimum dangerous fructose dosage level.
Nevertheless, a number of his own arguments have nearly no support in science and severely diminish his credibility. They represent his opinion, rather than science and should not be confused with science
In these exchanges, rather than pointing to the definitive science, he either makes unsupported assertions or backs his argument up with a reference to a statement by an industry association, rather than the science. I give three examples of these tendencies.
For instance, in his most recent post he states "Unlike the dietary guidelines of the NHMRC, David doesn’t address the importance of ...........moderating fat consumption, ......"
The fact is that there is no science to support this position of general vilification of fats (as opposed to specific problems with over-consumption of particular fats such as trans fats and particular forms of Omega 6).
For example, as recently as 13 January of this year in the premier periodical the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, some of the most prominent lipid researchers, including Ronald Krauss, stated, based upon a pooling of data from 370K prospective study participants:
"Conclusions: A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiological studies showed that there is no significant evidence for considering that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD."
For instance, throughout a number of his posts, Chris supports an exercise regime consisting of relatively large doses of regular and strenuous exercise, as a way of reducing weight (not just boosting health). He did not respond to my challenge to back this assertion with science. To my knowledge there is no science to support this position. Indeed there are many studies showing that obese people on a fat loss program tend to be hungrier, eat more and not lose weight, when they engage in a strenuous exercise regime.
There is also good evidence to suggest that the increases in health benefits arising from an exercise regime rapidly fall off as the dosage is increased beyond quite modest levels such as 2X30min a week of intensive resistance training
For a good review of the research and of these issues see Body by Science, McGruff and Little, McGraw Hill, 2009.
Reference to the views of groups such as the ACSM on exercise and weight loss are not credible, as they do not back their recommendations with science and they are an industry body involved in sport. They are unlikely to say exercise is bad for you in large doses, or does not lead to weight reduction. They would be out of business.
For instance, Chris argues that positive changes in weight = calories in - calories out. This is a correct statement of the First Law of Thermodynamics.
Chris, however, then goes on to assert that calories in and out are independent variables and the change in weight is the dependent variable. For instance, if I exercise, then I lose at least a little weight.
The scientific reality is, however, that calories in and out are often co-dependant and thus fat gain itself can be a hormonally regulated independent variable.
Gary Taubes in Good Calories, Bad Calories, Knopf, 2007, at Part 3, exhaustively documents the role of hormones in independently regulating weight. He sets out his case in detail in the below video lecture to the Dartmouth Medical School from 2009:
http://www.dhslides.org/mgr/mgr060509f/f.htm
I have never seen Taube's case on this point successfully challenged.
A more popular version of the same is the recent show on ABCTV called “Why are thin people not fat?”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q17NZNDjcBs
Part 2
Practically speaking, this means that there is fairly overwhelming evidence that hormonal regulation issues (e.g wrt insulin, cortisol, Vitamin D3 and leptin) related to fat metabolism can stuff up Chris's simple view of the world. For instance a person with Thyroid problems can have no change in energy in, but gain weight, because their metabolic rate, that is energy out, has been lowered, in response to an increased need for the body to produce fat in reaction to hormonal changes.
Nevertheless, in the end we all have to place our bets regarding the best regime for ourselves. Chris is to be commended for revealing his own regime. Based upon my interpretation of the current science, my regime is different from that of Chris and is, in rough order of priority:
1. Reduce fructose consumption to levels similar to that prevailing in the 1800s, mainly by eating a little fruit and dark chocolate
2. Keep alcohol consumption down to levels similar to that recommended by Chris - alcohol is just fermented fructose
3. Keep dietary Omega 6/Omega 3 ratio in range of 1-3 to 1, not 25 to 1
4. Make sure my serum Vitamin D3 levels are at the top end of the so called normal range all year around, mainly via sun exposure and by supplementation when needed and as I age and endogenous production declines
5. Do not limit saturated fats from sources such as meat and coconut oil
6. Eat veggies, more lower than high glucose
7. Exercise intensively a couple of times a week and moderately a couple of times
8. Get a good sleep each night
9. Limit eating of glucose that is part of processed foods
This will change as the evidence emerges!
Researchers at the University of Tasmania Menzies Institute have recently concluded that people living in Hobart are very deficient in Vitamin D3, largely due to lack of sun.
Other scientists have also recently concluded that in rats there is a causal relationship, whereby fructose ingestion at high levels causes serious relative D3 deficiency (e.g a 40% decline), which in turn leads to all sorts of health problems (Douard V, Asgerally A, Sabbagh Y, Sugiura S, Casirola D, Ferraris RP: Dietary Fructose Inhibits Intestinal Calcium Absorption and Induces Vitamin D Insufficiency in CKD. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2009).
I conclude that if I were a rat living in Hobart eating a high fructose diet, unable to see the sun at midday for much of the year, I would be worried. I would be taking high D3 supplements and seriously reducing my fructose intake.
Chris does not have D3 on his personal consumption list, perhaps because he is not a rat, does not overindulge in eating fructose, believes that exercise will fix everything and/or has no D3 deficiency!
This leads to my last point, as suggested by the above, I do not go along with the line advanced by Chris that obesity and the diseases of civilization have multiple causes, such as that set out in his shopping list - everything from stress, through hormones, to lack of exercise.
My layperson's take on the current science is that there are some basic processes associated with how various hormones run the metabolic system, in the body and brain, which in turn regulate fat deposition, inflammation and other bad things such as uric acid production, leading to various diseases of civilization such as cancer, CVD, diabetes, gout, MS, Alzheimer's etc. We do not yet fully understand how this system works. Everything else such as exercise, sleep, stress etc, nutrition etc. are just levers controlling inputs into parts of this hormonal regulation system.
However, I suspect that:
1. Some levers, such as excessive fructose and alcohol intake and their impact on the liver, deficiencies in exogenously produced hormone Vitamin D3, and Omega 3/6 ratios, are very important
2. Others, such as the role of increased stress as it impacts upon hormones such as cortisol, are less important.
3. Some levers such as use of sustained vigorous exercise (e.g for 90 mins) to lose weight (as opposed to the important role moderate exercise has in regulating insulin resistance in the body and brain)) are virtually irrelevant.
I cannot defend this ranking, other than by saying that when one looks at the impact that excessive fructose and ethanol ingestion have on so many metabolic pathways and eventually other systems, they seem to be much more important than actors such as losing a 100 calories by running a kilometer.
Hence the bets I have placed in my above list and my support for the relative importance of David's work in raising the issue of excessive fructose consumption, vis a vis many other levers on the shopping list.
This comment comes in two parts (to meet the limit of 4096 characters per comment).
Part 1
In a recent comment, Terry claims that I have not provided science-based support for a number of my arguments. As an example, he states that there is no science supporting the NHMRC’s dietary guideline to ‘limit saturated fat and moderate total fat intake’.
Go to: http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/file/publications/synopses/n33.pdf
and click on ‘Assessing the Evidence’ in the Contents Box. You will see that the NHMRC uses ONLY science-based evidence (with six levels of evidence recognised).
Terry also claims (yet again) that I refer to statements by ‘industry associations’. As I have mentioned previously, none of the organisations I refer to are ‘industry associations’. Terry singles out the American College of Sports Medicine for special mention as an industry body. In fact, ACSM is the world’s leading professional organisation in sports medicine and exercise science. The Annual Meeting of ACSM draws the world’s best researchers who present the latest scientific results in this area. Thousands of other scientists from around the world attend to learn from the experts. The journal published by ACSM, ‘Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise’, is arguably the world’s leading journal in this area (with the Journal of Applied Physiology as the only other genuine contender). Terry’s claim that ACSM is some sort of industry stooge is not only incorrect, it is farcical.
Terry also claims that there is no credible science to support my belief that relativity high volumes and intensities of physical activity are of value in weight control.
As previously mentioned, I agree that physical activity on its own isn’t enough. There must also be dietary restraint. This is the position taken in Chapter 3 of the book that underpins the US physical activity guidelines, ‘Adequacy of Evidence for Physical Guidelines Development’ (see URL below). The conclusion (p. 64) includes:
‘Physical activity … creates a relatively small energy gap and cannot be expected to provide the weight loss that is seen with energy restriction …’
However, the conclusion is also reached that:
‘The amount of physical activity needed to achieve the loss of 5% of one’s body weight appears to be about 45 minutes/day … For weight loss maintenance, the amount of activity required appears to be similar to, or perhaps greater than for weight loss.’
URL for Chapter 3:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11819&page=59
Terry disagrees with my ‘simple’ view, that body weight is largely determined by a balance between food intake and volitional energy expenditure. He cites a video by a journalist named Gary Taubes and a program on ABC TV as evidence that there is more to weight control than simply increasing activity. This is hardly science-based evidence. Also, I couldn’t get either video to work on my computer. I’ll come back to that part of Terry’s comment when I manage to overcome this glitch.
Part 2
Terry: ‘Chris does not have D3 on his personal consumption list …’
I didn’t put forward a personal nutrient consumption list. I mentioned the major food groups I base my diet around. So not only did I not mention vitamin D, I also didn’t mention any of the other 32 elements or compounds that are assigned values for recommended intakes in the NHMRC report ‘Nutrient Reference Values including Recommended Dietary Intakes’ (NHMRC, 2003).
Terry then lists his key dietary practices. I agree (more or less) with all but the following:
1. Reducing fructose intake drastically (‘… eating a little fruit and dark chocolate’).
As I’ve mentioned many times, I believe this is extreme and entirely unnecessary. So too do all national health bodies (not ‘industry associations’ as Terry dubs them).
2. ‘Do not limit saturated fats from sources such as meat and coconut oil’.
I hope this was a ‘typo’ and you meant ‘Limit saturated fats …’ Otherwise, your practice is diametrically opposed to that of the NHMRC (reference given above).
Terry also comments: ‘This will change as the evidence emerges!’
I’ll drink to that (although hopefully only two standard drinks at most :-). In fact, work is proceeding on new dietary guidelines for Australians. I’m not sure when they will be finalised, but I understand that it will be in the next year or two.
But another problem I have with Terry’s list is that he hasn’t mentioned limiting salt. Reducing sodium intake at the population level is regarded as one of the key dietary measures we can take to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease. The Australian division of World Action on Salt (AWASH) is a good source of information on this for the non-professional:
http://www.awash.org.au/
Section 1.7 of the NHMRC report on Dietary Guidelines for Australian Adults provides a more scientific rationale:
http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/file/publications/synopses/n33.pdf
Terry says: ‘I do not go along with the line advanced by Chris that obesity and the diseases of civilization have multiple causes, such as that set out in his shopping list - everything from stress, through hormones, to lack of exercise.’
I didn’t claim that all these factors were contributing to obesity, only that they have been advanced as possible causes or contributors to obesity. I suspect that some may have nothing to do with obesity (but I don’t know which).
Terry then puts forward an interesting hypothesis about how obesity might come about. Only time will tell if his hypothesis is correct. On the grounds that no-one knows the cause (or causes) of obesity, Terry’s guess is about as good as that of anyone else at this stage. However, as discussed above, I think we can safely discount Terry’s belief that:
‘Some levers such as use of sustained vigorous exercise (e.g. for 90 mins) to lose weight … are virtually irrelevant.’
Even Robert Lustig, one of the few nutritionists who might be regarded as a natural ally of David Gillespie, emphasises the value of physical activity in weight control (as described in my comment dated January 28, 2010 7:12 AM).
Chris,
I will respond to your latest posts in detail, when I have a respite from having to earn a dollar. For now, suffice it say that you have:
1. Once more engaged in an ad-honimen attack
So what if Gary Taubes is a journalist (albeit one of the most highly awarded science journalists in the world, who just happens to specialize in writing about bad science), David is a lawyer, you are a member of a profession called nutritionist, or I am a humble mathematician.
Please address the science, not the person's background. Given that Taubes cites over 2,000 studies, worked for 5 years on his book, has never been seriously challenged and the studies supporting him keep rolling in, my guess is that he is on the money. Just tell me where is he wrong? My personal review of his book and the supporting evidence suggests he is spot on.
2. Not addressed the science, but rather sourced all your own beliefs back to industry bodies.
The difference between us is that where my health is concerned, I (as did David) always read the primary sources and unfortunately find that in some cases they contradict the views of industry bodies (and in others are supported by industry bodies).
Let us follow the truth, not the advice of bodies which are dominated by people who make a living doing research which advances their careers and is often funded by industry or government bodies with an agenda.
In this respect, I think David is doing the community a service in drawing attention to the contradictions between the science and the commercial recommendations of some of these industry bodies, in respect of fructose consumption.
In his latest message, Terry claims that I have:
‘1. Once more engaged in an ad-honimen attack’
This is in response to my statement that citing a book written by a journalist (Gary Taubes) and a TV program hardly constitutes science-based evidence.
If Terry (or anyone else) wants to see an ad hominem (note the spelling, Terry) attack, try the second comment on this blog, the one sent by Terry on January 13, 2010 at 8:30 PM, in which he describes my Ockham’s Razor program as an ‘ad honimen non-scientific religious like attack’. See also the blog entry by David Gillespie titled ‘Attack of the Chocolatier’ in which he dismisses my Ockham’s Razor program as an attack by a chocolate-maker (I am not, and never have been) who may have undisclosed links with Nestle (I do not, and never have). I mentioned these points in my comment sent on January 30, 2010 at 2:23 PM. In that comment I also requested that Terry identify those aspects of my Ockham’s Razor program that constitute an ad hominem attack, and I asked what did Terry think of David’s false claims about me. Terry hasn’t responded to that comment.
Terry claims that Gary Taubes is a science journalist who specialises in writing about bad science. In 2002, Taubes wrote an article titled ‘Big Fat Lies’ in which he argued that carbohydrate, not fat, is the main cause of our diet-related health problems. In this, he is in agreement with Robert Atkins, the (deceased) founder of the Dr Atkins diet.
An article in the November issue of the Nutrition Action Health Newsletter of the Center for Science in the Public Interest makes interesting reading in this regard. Real experts on nutrition castigate Taubes mercilessly for his shoddy and selective reporting of the evidence. Here is the reference:
http://www.cspinet.org/nah/11_02/bigfatlies.pdf
Terry (yet again) claims I do not provide references. Terry, please read my comments; you will see that I do provide references where I make specific claims, and not to articles written by journalists who have no nutrition qualifications, or to TV programs, but to either the original scientific literature or to reputable health or nutrition authorities.
Terry even repeats his claim that organisations such as the National Health and Medical Research Council, American College of Sports Medicine, American Diabetes Association and so on are ‘industry associations’. I’ve dealt with that claim previously (see my post sent on February 4, 2010 at 12:35 PM). I have no intention of wasting everyone’s time by going over old ground yet again. Terry, we’ve been there and done that; can we please move on.
I don’t know if anyone else has noticed, but David Gillespie has been conspicuous by his absence in this discussion.
I’ve sent 20 comments so far, and the only response from David has been one in which he claims to have mentioned human studies involving fructose feeding after 1985 on page 59 of ‘Sweet Poison’. (He did no such thing, by the way, either on p. 59 or anywhere else in 'Sweet Poison').
David, are you still there? If so, can I at least ask you to respond to the six following questions. I will be away from my computer from Saturday 6 Feb until Thursday 11 Feb. I would greatly appreciate it if you could respond by then.
(i) In light of the evidence provided by Rosemary Stanton that there has either been no increase or a slight decline in food intake in the last 30 years (see my comment sent on January 29, 2010 at 8:48 PM), do you still believe that food intake has increased by 30% in Australia in the last three decades?
(ii) Taking into account your claim that average Australian intake of fructose is about two-thirds the average intake in the US, and that the US intake accounts for 9-10% of total energy intake (references provided in my comment sent on January 29, 2010 at 10:10 PM) do you still believe that almost 20% of our energy intake is now derived from fructose?
(iii) Noting that the authors of the 1985 paper by Reiser et al. [Am J Clin Nutr. 1985 Aug;42(2):242-51] refer (more than once) to a ‘... lack of relationship between the onset of the abnormalities and the type of dietary carbohydrate’, do you still claim that fructose consumption was the cause of severe heart conditions in four participants in that study?
(iv) Noting that at least 19 human fructose-feeding studies were conducted after 1985 (references provided in my comment of January 30, 2010 at 6:02 PM) do you still claim that no further human studies were conducted following that date?
(v) Noting that the World Health Organisation recommends that the maximum safe intake of added sugars is 10% of total energy (or rather just short of 10%); that the NHMRC dietary guideline is to ‘consume only moderate levels of sugars and foods containing added sugars'; that the American Heart Association sets safe upper levels of intake of 35 g of added sugar for men and 25 g for women, and that 12 of the 19 references to human studies conducted in the period 1985-2007 reported positive or, at worst, neutral effects attributable to fructose, do you still believe that added fructose is a poison in the diet at any dose?
(vi) Given that the NHMRC in Australia and ACSM in the US (and other national health authorities) recognise the value of physical activity in weight control, do you still believe that physical activity has no role to play in weight control?
I will be very interested to see if you have answered these questions when I return on Thursday of next week.
Chris,
People are dying because the nutrition establishment (which you so vociferously support) has gotten it wrong. We can argue over the details of how they have gotten it wrong till the chocolate melts in the sun, but the evidence that the advice doesn’t work is there in spades.
Those who smugly accuse the overweight of gluttony or sloth (or both) are neither helpful nor supported by evidence.
This is not a theoretical argument. Real people are following ancient nutritional guidelines (because people like you say they should) and are suffering very real and very debilitating diseases as a result.
Anyone citing those guidelines in their nutritional advice would be well advised to be very certain of their scientific ground because they are ethically, morally and legally culpable for their recommendations.
Cheers
David.
As expected (and predicted by several people I know), David did not answer any of my questions. To anyone who has been following this discussion, the reason for this should be clear—David does not have answers to those questions.
David also states that people ‘citing (the NHMRC) guidelines in their nutritional advice would be well advised to be very certain of their scientific ground because they are ethically, morally and legally culpable for their recommendations.’
The same applies to David. As I have demonstrated ‘beyond reasonable doubt’—a phrase I am sure David is familiar with—his arguments are not science-based. (If they were, he would have been able to answer the questions I posed).
In reply, I will ask David (yet again) to please answer the following six questions (with a seventh question thrown in for good measure):
(i) In light of the evidence provided by Rosemary Stanton that there has either been no increase or a slight decline in food intake in the last 30 years (see my comment sent on January 29, 2010 at 8:48 PM), do you still believe that food intake has increased by 30% in Australia in the last three decades?
(ii) Taking into account your claim that average Australian intake of fructose is about two-thirds the average intake in the US, and that the US intake accounts for 9-10% of total energy intake (references provided in my comment sent on January 29, 2010 at 10:10 PM) do you still claim that almost 20% of our energy intake is now derived from fructose?
(iii) Noting that the authors of the 1985 paper by Reiser et al. [Am J Clin Nutr. 1985 Aug;42(2):242-51] refer (more than once) to a ‘... lack of relationship between the onset of the abnormalities and the type of dietary carbohydrate’, do you still claim that fructose consumption was the cause of severe heart conditions in four participants in that study?
(iv) Noting that at least 19 human fructose-feeding studies were conducted after 1985 (references provided in my comment of January 30, 2010 at 6:02 PM) do you still claim that no further human studies were conducted following that date?
(v) Noting that the World Health Organisation recommends that the maximum safe intake of added sugars is 10% of total energy (or rather just short of 10%); that the NHMRC dietary guideline is to ‘consume only moderate levels of sugars and foods containing added sugars'; that the American Heart Association sets safe upper levels of intake of 35 g of added sugar for men and 25 g for women, and that 12 of the 19 references to human studies conducted in the period 1985-2007 reported positive or, at worst, neutral effects attributable to fructose, do you still believe that added fructose is a poison in the diet at any dose?
(vi) Given that the NHMRC in Australia and ACSM in the US (and other national health authorities) recognise the value of physical activity in weight control, do you still believe that physical activity has no role to play in weight control?
New question:
(vii) Noting that the conclusion of the most recent meta-analysis (in the December 26 edition of Clinical Nutrition) concludes that 'There is no support from the human literature for the hypothesis that sucrose may be physically addictive ...', do you still insist that fructose—the relevant component of sucrose in this context—is addictive in humans?
While we're waiting patiently for David to answer my seven questions, I want to raise a new issue. This is the question of who do you trust.
For example, if you have a blocked drain, whose advice would you seek—that of a lawyer, a nutritionist or a plumber?
What if you need high quality legal advice; would you ask a plumber, a nutritionist or a lawyer?
And if you want science-based advice on diet and lifestyle to maximise health and well-being, would you read a publication about this by plumber, a lawyer or by the nutrition experts whose Dietary Guidelines for Australians are published by Australia’s peak health body, the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC)?
I know who I would be asking: the relevant expert (or experts) in each situation.
Despite the fact that the NHMRC’s dietary guidelines are written by nutrition experts (not by a lawyer) and are still current, David refers to them as ‘... ancient nutritional guidelines’.
For the record, the Dietary Guidelines for Australians were published in 2003. They are hardly ‘ancient’. If you go to
http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/
publications/synopses/
dietsyn.htm
you will find that the guidelines '... are based on the best available scientific evidence and provide information for health professionals and the general population about healthy food choices.'
David’s advice, on the other hand, is not science-based. If it were, he would have been able to answer the questions I have twice asked him. Those questions cut to the core of his claim that he has done a good job of interpreting the science. In this regard, his silence is deafening.
Chris - There is no need to keep repeating your final submissions we heard you the first time.
While your hair splitting sugar consumption distinctions are of great interest to you and the processed food industry they are little practical significance and of even less relevance to the general population.
The fact remains that you AGREE that 25 g ( 12.5 g teaspoons of added fructose) is the safe limit for women and 37 g (18.5 g of fructose for men). You also conceded that the majority of Australians would be consuming well over that amount and probably are ignorant of the risk they are taking.
David says people should avoid ALL added sugars and if they really want something sweet stick to whole fruit, glucose or milk.
Your 'confected' outrage about David's position is of minor interest at best.
One 600 ml carton of flavoured milk
, 1 can of soft drink, some milk or white chocolate (or even your home made jam) will blow those AHF limits away like Dirty Harry.
In practice - even if you try to follow David's prescription you will be lucky to keep within the AHF 37/25g limits due to the way so many products are laced with your precious white stuff.
I for one hope David spends his time on more useful activities than picking nits with Don Quixote of Scottsdale.
Cheers.
Snippets from your show.
"... In August 2009 the American Heart Foundation released guidelines on safe intakes of added sugars. Their recommended levels are well below current average American intakes.....)
Many Australians do eat excessive amounts of sugar, and would do themselves (and their waistlines) a favour by reducing sugar intake.
It may be that sugar in beverages is especially undesirable. Consumption of large quantities of sweetened carbonated soft drinks seems to be particularly implicated in obesity, because it appears that people do not always compensate for the added kilojoules they consume in soft drinks by reducing their intake of other foods. ......
...... Although it is not conclusive, the evidence in the last couple of years - that is since the publication of Sweet Poison - does suggest that fructose may have a tendency to stimulate, rather than satisfy appetite. If this proves to be correct, it could implicate high fructose intake as a major contributor to the obesity epidemic. Recent results also suggest that high fructose intake may increase the risk of conditions such as gout, kidney stones, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, high blood pressure and diabetes, and may also lead to blood lipid profiles associated with greater risk of heart disease.
....... The evidence to date suggests that in moderate doses fructose may actually be beneficial for public health, while in large doses it is very likely harmful. This is in stark contrast to David Gillespie's conclusion that 'Every day that fructose remains a part of our diet, is a death sentence for thousands of Australians' and his call to '... immediately ban added fructose as a food'.
The cause (or causes) of the obesity epidemic remain unknown. I still believe that to reduce your risk of obesity, the best advice is to follow the Dietary Guidelines for Australians. In the context of this talk, the two most relevant guidelines are:
Consume only moderate amounts of sugars and food containing added sugars; and
Prevent weight gain: be physically active and eat according to your energy needs."
Paul,
I didn’t exactly ‘AGREE that 25 g
(12.5 g teaspoons of added fructose) is the safe limit for women and 37 g (18.5 g of fructose for men)’. Rather, I pointed out this is the recommendation of one authoritative health body (the American Heart Association). I also pointed out that WHO recommends keeping intake of added sugars to below 10%. For a man whose daily energy intake is ~12 000 kJ, this corresponds to an intake of up to ~70 g of sugar (i.e. 35 g of fructose).
The point is that EVERY authoritative health-related body acknowledges that there is a safe intake of fructose. David Gillespie does not recognise this.
For a while I wondered why you continually claim that I am engaging in hair splitting (or nit picking), when to me the issues I raise seem of critical importance.
I think I may have worked out why this is so. I am approaching David’s book and Ockham’s Razor program from the viewpoint of a scientist. I checked the validity of his so-called ‘science’ and found it to be seriously flawed. To you this doesn’t matter very much—your main interest is along the lines ‘what does it mean to my health and wellbeing?’ That is, as a non-scientist you care less about the process David has used than about the value of his advice. Am I correct on this?
If so, I believe that you also need to take into account how well David has argued his case scientifically, because the quality of his conclusions and his advice depends on the quality of his science. I have demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt (and David has confirmed this by his inability to answer my questions) that his science is so bad it is actually non-science (or perhaps pseudo-science).
Of relevance in this regard is private email correspondence I have had with Eran Segev, President of the Australian Skeptics (reproduced here with Eran’s permission). Eran states that at the 2009 convention of the Australian Skeptics:
‘... David was an invited speaker. I had the first question, which I opened by thanking David for honestly admitting to having no scientific qualifications and then spending the next 30 minutes proving that that was indeed the case ... he had shown no understanding at all of what the scientific process is ... and appeared to lack any ability to appreciate the strengths and weaknesses of trying to come to conclusions from a comprehensive literature review.'
Based on the shoddiness of David’s approach to making a science-based case, Eran invited me to submit an article for publication in the magazine of the Australian Skeptics. The article will appear in the next issue (which I believe will be published in March). I’ll send the URL in a comment when the article is available.
In conclusion, David’s extreme and alarmist position is not supported by science. Even if it does turn out that excessive fructose intake is the major cause of obesity and many of the chronic diseases that afflict mainly (but no longer exclusively) the populations of western nations, David will not have made a worthwhile contribution to this finding. Contrary to David’s claims:
(i) There is no need to avoid all sources of added fructose, simply moderate intake of added sugars;
(ii) There is no convincing evidence that fructose is addictive to humans; and
(iii) Physical activity has a vital role to play in overcoming overweight and obesity.
David Gillespie is not a reliable source of information on the effects of fructose consumption on human health.
Chris,
Hmmm, so you now believe that the basis of our 'disagreement' is that you are a scientist and I am not.
That is the point I made in my very first post on this thread but clearly you did not understand what I was alluding to.
It certainly was not that the scientific method or objective enquiry were unimportant.
I was alluding to the tedious way scientists resort to 'I am a high priest with secret knowledge' technique whenever they are engaging in a debate that cannot be answered by the scientific method.
The climate debate is another example of this sort of 'high priest' nonsense - and both sides of that debate are offenders.
My criticism was that your program lacked context and perspective and would lead the listener to conclude that David was an 'alarmist' (as you now put it) and his warnings about fructose could be safely ignored.
Yes you had a few mild caveats in there as well to 'tin plate' your position but the thrust of your program was clear.
"Keep on tucking into those wonderful desserts"
Of course in your more recent posts you have turned that 'tin plate' into 'boiler plate' such that I (nor probably David) can hardly disagree with the puritanical approach you take to the consumption of processed and concentrated sources of fructose.
But that is not the message conveyed by your Ockham Razor program.
Now we hear that the President of the Australian Skeptics association is taking time off from disproving water diviners and spoon benders to commune with you about David's supposed lack of knowledge of the scientific method and the dangers to new players (the un-annointed non priest caste) of surveying the scientific literature.
Marvellous stuff.
At least now I know why I haven't heard much recently about interesting work being done by the Skeptics.
I find it remarkable that the Skeptics are devoting their energies to scrutinising the techniques/approach of a non-scientist who is spending his own time and money drawing attention to the effects (proven or possible) on public health of an extremely pervasive food additive that was introduced into the food supply only a relatively short time ago and at a time when there was no testing or investigation of the risk of doing so.
It is particularly remarkable when those who have a motive to obscure any scrutiny of one of the key ingredients of the food processing industry hardly need the assistance of an organisation like the Skeptics to run interference.
It is worth remembering that until late in the 19th century the majority of the population would only encounter fructose if they ate whole fruit in season or ransacked a hive of bees.
Thus consumption of concentrated forms of fructose in anything other than small amounts is NOT in any way natural and represents a significant change to the human diet.
Even the recent AHF recommendation for women of 25g per day is equivalent still to 9 kgs of sugar per year. A level of consumption that would have been unimaginable during most of recorded history.
Yet - you claim that you are being scientific in demanding that there be overwhelming proof that this significant change to the human diet is a risk before serious action is taken.
What an amazing inversion.
If you really are serious about the science of sugar and the scientific method you should join David in calling for immediate action to warning people about sugar/fructose UNTIL the sugar industry or public health authorities have conducted the rigorous science reqquired to PROVE that refined sources of fructose are SAFE and the levels at which it is safe to consume them.
But then you are not serious and all this huffing and puffing is really just professional jealousy that a non scientist (an ex lawyer to boot) is leading the running on this issue in Australia.
Thus my initial post - it really is about whether or not you are a scientist.
Paul wrote:
‘Hmmm, so you now believe that the basis of our 'disagreement' is that you are a scientist and I am not.’
No Paul—you’ve misunderstood my meaning. From your dismissal of my criticisms of David’s lack of scientific rigour, I inferred that you were less interested in the process than the outcome. This would be a natural response for a non-scientist. However, you now say that you are interested in the process: ‘It certainly was not that the scientific method or objective enquiry were unimportant.’
In that case, why do you continually describe my questions to David as splitting hairs or nit picking? If David cannot answer those questions satisfactorily, it must be crystal clear to you and everyone else reading these comments that he did not use a scientific approach to his investigation of the effects of fructose on human health. Rather (as I pointed out in my Ockham’s Razor program) he adopted a legal approach and appointed himself ‘counsellor for the prosecution’. If his approach is not scientific, his conclusions and advive are not reliable.
I am certainly not claiming to be a ‘high priest with secret knowledge'. Every reference I have made has been to the scientific literature or to reports published by authoritative health bodies based on comprehensive reviews of the scientific literature by competent scientists. David, on the other hand, appears to believe he has ‘secret knowledge’ that the scientific world has missed. If anyone deserves criticism for behaving like a ‘high priest’, it is David Gillespie.
Paul wrote:
‘My criticism was that your program lacked context and perspective and would lead the listener to conclude that David was an 'alarmist' (as you now put it) and his warnings about fructose could be safely ignored.’
Paul, we’ve been down this path before. As I have already explained, in my program I made it clear to anyone who understands plain English that excessive intake of sugar may be harmful to health. I also quoted the NHMRC dietary guideline to ‘eat only moderate amounts of sugar and foods containing added sugar’. Perhaps you could stop repeating this incorrect claim.
And your criticism of the Australian Skeptics is equally unwarranted. David Gillespie evidently revealed a lack of understanding of the scientific process when he addressed the Australian Skeptics at the AS annual meeting. The article I have submitted for publication in the AS magazine simply confirms the impression David created during his presentation at that meeting.
You claim that David ‘is spending his own time and money’ on his investigation of fructose. Strange, I had to pay about $30 for my copy of his book, and I’m pretty sure I noticed that he charges for access to some of the information available on his site.
Paul then states that my ‘huffing and puffing is really just professional jealousy that a non scientist (an ex lawyer to boot) is leading the running on this issue in Australia.’
Where is the science in this claim, Paul? It is simply another ad hominem attack and isn’t worthy of a response.
Chris,
If the seven questions that you posed went to the core of the issue, namely whether significant fructose consumption poses risks to health, I would have little issue with your position but they don't.
You seem very excited that you have detected some 'gotcha's' or mistakes in David work and perhaps you have but they are at best points of criticism not killer blows.
Nothing that you have written since your program is inconsistent with David's position with one exception. You are confident that complete abstinence is unecessary. Though you don't seem very keen on endorsing its consumption at anything other than very low levels in any event.
Well that is precisely what David says in his book.
Incidently, your only started really pushing the line that David argues for complete abstinence of fructose when it was clear that your own position is that normal sedentary people should avoid anything more than very low levels of added fructose.
David acknowledged in the book the research that suggests that some fructose may be important as a catalyst. He also endorsed eating fructose in moderation in the form of whole fruit.
But seeing that you are very excited about David dodging your questions perhaps you might address the issues I raised:
1. There is nothing natural about refined/concentrated fructose in the form of cane or beet sugar or industrial fruit juice.
2. That until recently - namely the last 120 years or so - the average level of consumption of fructose was extremly low. I refer to David's book for this statement but if David is wrong please set me straight - following your approach I will assume if you don't respond to this point that you concede David is right.
3. That the level of consumption of fructose over the last 30-100 years in particular represents a significant change to the human diet.
Do you dispute this - what are your consumption figures that establish a long history of human consumption of fructose that would allow you to characterise the levels of recent decades as 'natural'.
4. That this change occurred without any scientific research or understanding of the effects of the change in diet.
Please reference all the science that was done to establish the safe use of sugar as a common additive in the last part of the 19th and 20th centuries.
5. That the burden for establishing that this change is safe falls on those promoting the change to the human diet not on those questioning it.
6. That the role of any skeptic or believer in the scientific method should be to question changes that are made without any apparent scientific investigation or reseach to justify them.
You seem to have just assumed that there is something natural about consuming quantities of industrially refined fructose and thus the 'scientific' burden should fall on anyone who questions what you consider to be natural.
What is the basis of your assumption? - Quote some papers please.
You have been extremely evasive when it comes to specifying how much additional sugar the average person can safely eat. When pressed you say you persaonlly hardly eat the stuff at all.
The essence of scientific enquiry is to test accepted beliefs and complacent thinking but you seem to have a blind spot when it comes to sugar - and I can't help but wonder why.
As you deny any professional interest in defending the industrial applications of refined sugar/fructose, you deny eating much o f the stuff yourself and your disagreements with David now seem limited to debating points rather than a substantial disagreement about the need for caution in the consumption of sugar/fructose, the only conclusion left is that you are engaging in a scientific form of grandstanding.
Well enjoy your 15 minutes because by doing so you are actually making a contribution to David's efforts to raise awareness about this issue.
Certainly, the scientific method should be applied to all research into the issue (whether for or against) and I am as interested as you are in new research that confirms or contradicts the thesis that David propounds.
But when it comes to complex areas such as the impact of individual components of the diet on human health establishing causation beyond all doubt is extremely difficult due to the number of variables that need to be controlled.
Accordingly, the default position should be to exercise caution when making significant changes to the human diet. The introduction of industrial sources of fructose into the diet over the last 100 years clearly fits the description and thus it is appropriate that considerable caution is exercised.
And the simple fact is that until recently (15-20 years is pretty recent in terms of such a significant change to human diet)there has been very little research and that which has been conducted clearly raises concerns.
Do I think that there are other aspects of diet and good health that people need to have regard to? Of course I do but that does not mean that fructose is not deserving of close examination.
Note: On reflection I was too harsh on the Australian Sceptics as I do not know the context in which those comments were made and I may well have made some unwarranted assumptions about that organisation's position on issues such as sugar and fructose.
I am confident that the Skeptics are taking a skeptical stance in relation to the original introduction of significant quantities of fructose into the diet and also in relation to those who question the introduction of sugar to the diet. I am confident that they would be applying their critical powers as much to the sugar industry and its PR hacks and demanding scientific proof that the fructose at current levels of consumption does not cause harm as they would appear to be doing to those who question the use of fructose.
In fact the Skeptics have a long history at questioning received opinion and are precisely the sort of organisation that is equipped to highlight the problematic nature of claims 'that there is no proven scientific link between consuming ABC and XYZ'
The long and tawdry experience last century with the tobacco industry and its claims about 'no proven link' illustrates how easily vested interests can misuse science, the scientific method and scientists.
I look forward to the Skeptics continued constructive engagement in this issue.
As we are now really just raking the coals of this thread I will make this my final comment.
You stated
"Even if it does turn out that excessive fructose intake is the major cause of obesity and many of the chronic diseases that afflict mainly (but no longer exclusively) the populations of western nations, David will not have made a worthwhile contribution to this finding."
Leaving aside the incredibly sour grapes in such a commment. (Though such pettiness is sadly unremarkable in the 'saintly' world of science).
Do you really think that if the science continues to support the claims made by David about the dangers of excess fructose (ie the amounts most people currently eat) he would have made no worthwhile contribution by raising awareness amongst the general population at this time?
I suppose you would have been saying the same things about anti-tobacco groups in the 1950's.
In any event history will be the judge of that not you.
Adios
Paul has raised the question of the naturalness and safety in the diet of ‘refined/ concentrated fructose in the form of cane or beet sugar …’
Paul, sugar cane and sugar beet are ‘natural’ products, but that says nothing about their safety (after all, deadly nightshade is also ‘natural’). I'll come back to the issue of safety later in this comment.
Paul also wrote: ‘… the default position should be to exercise caution when making significant changes to the human diet. The introduction of industrial sources of fructose into the diet over the last 100 years clearly fits the description and thus it is appropriate that considerable caution is exercised.’
Paul, what do you mean by ‘industrial fructose’? If you are referring to high-fructose corn syrup, then you are talking about the major sweetener used in the United States. Sucrose (which is not an industrial product) is the major sweetener used in Australia.
But if you want to eat a natural diet, you are going to have to eliminate a lot more than sucrose. The paleolithic diet — the diet that existed at the time we were evolving into modern Homo sapiens — consisted almost entirely of game meat, fish and other (easily gathered) seafood, fruits and berries, some wild vegetables (including root vegetables such as yams, but not potatoes) and perhaps nuts. Our remote ancestors’ thirst was quenched only with water. (To learn more about this, I suggest a PubMed search for ‘Cordain L’). So in addition to sugar, you are going to have to eliminate the following: all farmed meat; bread, pasta, rice and other cereal foods; milk, cheese, yogurt and all other dairy products; beans, peas, lentils and other legumes; tea, coffee, alcoholic beverages, and all other sources of fluid besides water. You must also avoid any processed food, and refrain from using salt in cooking or at the table.
None of the above foods went through the process you suggest sugar must be subjected to before you will accept that it is safe in any dose. Why single out sugar for special treatment when the same argument applies to most of the components of the modern diet?
Paul wrote: ‘You have been extremely evasive when it comes to specifying how much additional sugar the average person can safely eat.’
In what way have I been evasive, Paul? I’ve mentioned the recommendations of the AHA and WHO (~5% and ~10% of energy intake as a maximum respectively). In addition, the NHMRC advises that total intake of ‘sugars’ (including those intrinsic to fruits and milk) be kept to 15-20% of total energy intake. No reputable health authority suggests that added fructose is a poison at any dose. David Gillespie claims to be the only person in the entire army, let alone the regiment, who is in step on this issue.
Paul wrote: ‘When pressed you say you personally hardly eat the stuff at all.’
That’s not what I said. I said I have moderate intake of sugar and foods containing added sugars. These include my home-made jams, a teaspoon of sugar in my daily cappuccino and dessert 3-4 times per week. This is consistent with the dietary guideline from the NHMRC. It is not consistent with David Gillespie’s belief that ‘Every day that fructose remains a part of our diet, is a death sentence for thousands of Australians’ and his call to ‘… immediately ban added fructose as a food’.
More in my next comment.
Paul states that: ‘… when it comes to complex areas such as the impact of individual components of the diet on human health establishing causation beyond all doubt is extremely difficult due to the number of variables that need to be controlled.’
This is precisely my position. As I mentioned in my Ockham’s Razor program, we simply don’t know the cause (or causes) of the obesity epidemic. Yet you believe that David has found the cause, when the entire world of nutrition science has failed to do so. You also claim I have put myself in the role of a ‘high priest with secret knowledge’ despite my admission that I don’t know the cause of the obesity epidemic (and neither does anyone else), yet David is apparently innocent in your eyes despite claiming to possess knowledge that is unavailable to others! This can only be described as sheer sophistry.
Paul asks what evidence do I have that current average fructose consumptions are safe. I don’t have any evidence for this. In fact, as I stated very clearly in my Ockham’s Razor program: ‘Many Australians do eat excessive amounts of sugar, and would do themselves (and their waistlines) a favour by reducing sugar intake.’
Paul states that the seven questions I have asked David (six of them twice) — and which he still hasn’t attempted to answer — do not go to the core of the issue.
Paul, David claims (incorrectly) that fructose caused the heart problems in the 1985 study by Reiser et al. As a result, he claims (again incorrectly) that no further human fructose-feeding studies were conducted after 1985. So he then bases his case on the results of rat-feeding studies. Studies involving animal models cannot be used to demonstrate unequivocally that the same effects will occur in humans. To determine this, human studies must be conducted. Contrary to David’s claim, human studies WERE conducted post-1985, and the majority (12/19) of the studies I found to the time of publication of ‘Sweet Poison’ reported either neutral or positive health effects of fructose on humans.
The other questions address his ability (or inability) to come to appropriate answers to questions such as the level of fructose intake in Australia; the level of total food intake in Australia (he claims it has increased by 30% in 30 years; the evidence suggests this is not correct); and the likelihood that fructose is addictive to people (the latest meta-analysis says it isn't).
My questions go to the core of whether or not David Gillespie has conducted a scientific review or a pseudo-scientific review of the literature.
Not only has David failed to show that fructose is addictive to humans (although it may be to rats), he has also failed dismally in his attempt to implicate fructose at any dose in the obesity epidemic or the onset of chronic diseases such as heart disease, type 2 diabetes and cancer.
Please note that this does NOT exonerate fructose as a possible contributor to the obesity epidemic and to chronic diseases; it simply means that David has failed to make a solid case.
I’m pleased you have changed your mind about the Australian Skeptics. However, I’m afraid you may be disappointed in your hope that AS ‘are taking a skeptical stance in relation to the original introduction of significant quantities of fructose into the diet.’ My article in the AS magazine reflects the science-based arguments in my Ockham’s Razor program and in these comments. It concludes that David Gillespie has not made a valid contribution in the investigation of the effects of fructose on human health, and that he is not a reliable source of information on this or any other nutrition related subject.
Paul then attempts to draw a parallel between the attitude of orthodox nutritional science towards David Gillespie and the attitude of the pro-tobacco lobby of the 1950s. The difference is that the pro-tobacco lobby did not have orthodox science on its side, while the anti-Gillepsie group (i.e. virtually every competent nutritionist or dietitian) does.
Chris - There is nothing new or interesting in your responses.
The simple fact is that fructose consumption from industrial sources such as sugar cane/sugar beet and preserved fruit juice has dramatically increased over the last 100 years. You clearly do not dispute this.
This level of consumption has only in the last 20 years become the subject of close investigation.
Those investigations at the very least indicate considerable cause for concern and, if you accept David's thesis, serious cause for concern.
Yet you prefer to plant your head deep in the sand and castigate David for doing what you are clearly incapable of doing - drawing attention to a serious issue of public health.
Even while your own consumption of fructose is extremely low and well below the level consumed by the general population.
"These include my home-made jams, a teaspoon of sugar in my daily cappuccino and dessert 3-4 times per week"
Your position is perverse but it is a free country.
Fortunately, with the level of new research currently underway we will not need to wait long to find out whether David's early warnings, based on his review of the studies to date, were justified.
Sweet Dreams until then.
PS: I have now checked out the Skeptics website and sadly it appears they are still primarily directed to ghost busting, miracle cures and spoon bending. I hope your article connects with its intended audience.
Paul, I thought we’d lost you! Welcome back.
You state that my ‘position is perverse’, apparently because I castigate David for having written a book that he claims is based on science, but in which the science is so shoddy it deserves the epithet ‘non-science’, or perhaps even ‘pseudo-science’. You also appear to be concerned that I follow the advice given by the NHMRC (‘eat only moderate amounts of sugar and foods containing added sugars’) — advice that I also give in my Ockham’s Razor program. Frankly, your logic (if that is what you claim to be using) is lost on me!
You also state: 'Fortunately, with the level of new research currently underway we will not need to wait long to find out whether David's early warnings, based on his review of the studies to date, were justified.'
Unfortunately, David's 'review of the studies' didn't include a review of the human studies conducted after 1985. This is because, in both 'Sweet Poison' (p. 59) and in his Ockham's Razor program he denies that they even occurred. So his argument that fructose is harmful is based almost exclusively on rat studies. His 'early warnings' are clearly relevant to rats, but any warnings he gives to people are not justified by the evidence he has cobbled together.
Finally, you state: ‘I have now checked out the Skeptics website and sadly it appears they are still primarily directed to ghost busting, miracle cures and spoon bending.’
Strange, I just went to the Australian Skeptics home page (http://www.skeptics.com.au/) and found nothing about ‘ghost busting, miracle cures and spoon bending’. Are you sure you went to the correct site?
I did find interesting and topical articles about neurotoxicology, homeopathy, the anti-vaccination movement, water divining … oh, and an article about David Gillespie’s presentation at the Brisbane meeting of the Australian Skeptics.
Here are some extracts from the article, which can be accessed at:
http://www.skeptics.com.au/latest/
blog/comments-from-a-philosophical-skeptic/
‘David Gillespie speaks of fructose as a “poison”. He tells us the reason we’re fat is the introduction of fructose in ever increasing amounts to our food. Hmmm … As David readily admits, he is not a scientist; and as our president (Eran) pointed out, it showed. His presentation was not that of a scientist, even as one would speak to a lay audience … There were also assumptions regarding motivations and collusions that had a disturbing flavour of the conspiracy theory about them. Any presentation that says “they don’t want you to know this” is effectively going about the process in the wrong way …’
Could it be that you saw this article, decided that the Australian Skeptics were not to your taste, so you would try to discredit them by falsely claiming that they address issues such as ‘ghost busting, miracle cures and spoon bending’? Surely not!
It is now 12 days since I sent a comment containing six questions directed to David Gillespie. Those questions addressed the validity (or otherwise) of David’s scientific approach. David chose not to answer any of the six questions.
Six days ago I again asked David to please answer my questions, and I threw in a seventh question for good measure. I also pointed out that ‘If David cannot answer those questions satisfactorily, it must be crystal clear to ... everyone ... reading these comments that he did not use a scientific approach ... If his approach is not scientific, then his conclusions and advice are not reliable.’
And David’s response has been ... nothing!
To paraphrase David in his blog entry titled (inappropriately) ‘Attack of the Chocolatier’:
And that’s it. That’s all he has. The end.
PS As a nutritionist who has no qualifications and no experience in legal matters, I am thinking of writing a book on an aspect of the law ... corporate law, perhaps.
Who wants to lay odds that my book will be just as uninformed about law as David’s book is about nutrition?
Chris,
Now you are just being funny!
I was being kind about the skeptics!
I quote
"Australian Skeptics is a loose confederation of groups across Australia that investigate paranormal and pseudo-scientific claims from a responsible scientific viewpoint. Most people are familiar with the more popular subjects that we investigate such as astrology, fortune telling, UFOs and crop circles; But did you know that we also investigate topics like fundamentalism, Feng Shui, subluxations and vitamin supplements?"
Vitamins are about the only subject of interest to the non-obscurantist.
And here are some choice selections from the page of what they ARE skeptical about.
http://www.skeptics.com.au/about/us/things-we-are-sceptical-of/
Ghosts
Ghouls
Goblins
Poltergeists
Spoon Bending and Uri Geller
Icons (Weeping, Perspiring, Milk-Slurping etc)
Jim Morrison (Survival of)
Fairies
Speaking In Tongues
Perpetual Motion Machines
Milk Slurping???
BUT no mention of fructose health warnings.
You better tell them to update their list so they can squeeze it in between
Free Energy Machines
AND
Fuel Economizers
You make me smile Chris!!
Chris wrote
"It is now 12 days since I sent a comment containing six questions directed to David Gillespie. Those questions addressed the validity (or otherwise) of David’s scientific approach. David chose not to answer any of the six questions."
Clearly David has more sense than I do and decided it was pointless to engage you in debate.
Exhibit 1 - You concede that on your own review of the literature 47% (9/19) of the studies on humans showed clearly negative effects and yet you persist in claiming David is an alarmist.
Give it up Chris!
Sink your teeth into one of the weighty topics that a talented skeptic like yourself is more suited to.
Take your pick!
You won't get any argument from me on any of these.
Bone Pointing
Bridey Murphy
Bunyips
Cattle Mutilations
Chain Letters
Urine Therapy
Vampires
Virgin Births
Visions
Vitamin Supplements
Voodoo
Werewolves
Witchcraft
Yetis
Yowies
Zero Point Energy
Zombies
Tarot Cards
Tasseography
Tea-Leaf Readings
Telekinesis
Telepathy
Theosophy
Now I must go as I fear I we are becoming co-dependent and are driving every body who previously posted to this thread nuts with this exchange.
Thankyou linesmen
Thankyou Ball Boys.
The reason Paul said "At least now I know why I haven't heard much recently about interesting work being done by the Skeptics" becomes clear once you read the rest of his comments about Australian Skeptics.
David, oops, I mean Paul, clearly hasn't been paying attention, becasue he knows absolutely nothing about what we do. Perhaps it's a PR failure on our part but I can assure you we do lot more than ghost busting.
For example, we tackle pseudo scientific claims made by people who are clearly not equipped to deal with the material they try to investiate, but are too limited in their knowledge to realise the ridiculousness of their attempt.
I must admit that I thought David had an interesting idea until I heard him speak in Brisbane and noticed that he used all the usuall tactics of pseudo science (It's all a conspiracy to kill you! It's a miracle we're still alive! "They" don't want you to know it! All the scientists have been bamboozled, but I alone found the truth!!!)
I then realised that David had nothing interesting to say. Not because he was wrong - I was not in a position to judge - but because he was 'not even wrong', which is to say he himslef has no ability to judge his own idea. In skeptical circles, we call such a person a quack.
It was not until I heard Chris on the radio that I relaised that the one lie I caught David at in Brisbane was a tiny little one compared to what he has done in his book.
Refusing to answer questions (under his own name, at least), is another tactic of quacks. Well done, David. You are doing a wonderful job proving what we suspected already.
Eran Segev
President - Australian Skeptics
P.S. Since I suspect this has become a bit of a private conversation by now, I will not be making any further comments or replying to any further straw-men posted here. But note that I wrote under my own name.
Rest assured Eran, Paul is not David. (Talk about conspiracy theories!)
Paul is just someone who has found both David's passionate concerns about fructose and Chris' passionate defence interesting.
I am debating with Chris because I don't understand his position whereas I have read David's book and I know what David's view is.
I feel that Chris (and perhaps the skeptics) are missing the forest for the trees.
Or to put it another way Chris has allowed himself to be distracted by David's polemical style and is ignoring, whatever one may feel about aspects of David's position or the way he presents it, that there is a clear case that fructose warrants close and careful investigation.
If no other reason that fructose digestion is completely different to glucose digestion.
I am genuinely surprised that the Skeptics place concerns about the level of fructose consumption by the general community in the same category as spoon bending.
The good thing about fructose concerns is that they are able capable of scientific testing and thus you and I can watch with interest further research in this field.
You may think that David does a poor job os surveying the field but you should keep in mind that he is not doing the primary research and people like yourself and Chris are free to conduct your own survey.
But as I pointed out in my last post to Chris even his survey of the recent human studies showed 9 out 19 (47%) demonstrated clearly negative effects.
You can not simply dimiss such research as little more than a bent spoon.
Cheers
Paul
PS: I will take out a 12 month subscription of Skeptics when I get home as it is only fair that I give your organisation the benefit of the doubt. The world definitely needs more skeptics.
Currently I am feeling like a fool. I am a big fan of the skeptics and David Gillespie. I do not know who to believe. I feel I am a victim of very clever communicators.
Can somebody please tell me which part of the fructose metabolism David has incorrectly interpreted from the science he has looked at.
Hoping to feel less like a fool soon!!
Susan.
Paul (or perhaps David ... or perhaps both) wrote: ‘You concede that on your own review of the literature 47% (9/19) of the studies on humans showed clearly negative effects and yet you persist in claiming David is an alarmist’.
Paul (or perhaps David ... or perhaps both), I’m sure your arithmetic is good enough to calculate that 12/19 studies (a majority at 53%) did NOT show negative effects from fructose. Clearly, the evidence is not conclusive one way or the other. Yet David concludes that we can ‘be absolutely certain that fructose is a killer of epidemic proportions’. No we can’t.
In any case, those studies were not identified by David Gillespie. As I have mentioned umpteen times, he DENIED their very existence (and still hasn’t admitted that they exist). His conclusions did not take those (or any other human studies after 1985) into account. And you still accept that his (or perhaps your) approach to science is appropriate!
As I have mentioned more than once, if David cannot answer the seven questions I have asked him, then he is tacitly admitting that he cannot substantiate his claim to have conducted a scientific review of the literature. His conclusions and advice are then of no value.
Susan, I understand and sympathise with your dilemma. David Gillespie is a smooth operator and I wouldn't expect anyone who is not a nutritionist to be able to readily determine that he is a quack. Even the President of the Australian Skeptics wasn't entirely sure until he heard my Ockham's Razor program.
As I'm sure you are aware, there are many quacks just as bad as David Gillespie and some even worse. Fortunately, if you take his advice, but also follow the dietary guidelines (which he describes as 'ancient') you will probably not be harmed by his pseudoscience.
And quacks have been with us for a long time. Abraham Lincoln, who died 145 years ago, said 'you can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time; but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.' David, your time is up. You don't fool anyone now.
Chris (or is it Eran?) wrote
"His conclusions did not take those (or any other human studies after 1985) into account. And you still accept that his (or perhaps your) approach to science is appropriate!"
Now that is an excellent idea!
Sorry David I am joining Club Chris.
Chris - I am more than happy to rely on your review of the literature. (Though your approach to this issue hardly gives me confidence!)
If you are telling me that 47% of the human studies since 1984 show clearly negative effects from eating fructose then that is more than enough for me (and I suspect most normal people) to avoid eating fructose whenever possible.
Even a rat would not accept those odds.
If you are comforted that 53% of studies that show either a postive or 'Neutral' result (what exactly was the split between the positive and neutral studies anyway?)that is your choice but you should have set that out in your Ockham Razor program.
Perhaps it should have been titled.
"Fructose - Playing the Odds - 53% good/maybe v 47% bad"
or
"Sugar! - Do you feel lucky punk?"
By the way Chris - despite the great volume of your posts you have never addressed the point raised by Susan.
Is David's understanding how the body metabolises fructose incorrect?
It has been my impression that you don't seem to appreciate that there is a major difference between glucose and fructose and how they are metabolised in the body? In particular the specific role of the liver in relation to fructose.
Perhaps you should set out all the science in David's book that you DO agree with just so Susan and I are clear on where you believe the science ends and the quacking starts.
Be careful!
It would be embarassing if your only substantive disagreement is that David did not realise that the evidence in support of his position was even stronger than he realised (47% of human tests clearly negative).
Lately your position has become very precarious. It seems David is a quack because when he said fructose was bad he did not fully reaslise how bad it was. GOSH that must be the crime of the century.
Perhaps you are not splitting hairs - perhaps you are splitting quills.
Cheers
Paul
If it gives you any comfort there are some things that David says in the book that I don't agree with but they are not matters of great susbtance and do not detract from the central message of his book which is that there is NO GOOD reason for adding fructose to the diet beyond what you would get from whole fruit.
Do I follow his advice strictly - unfortunately no - but to the extent that I do I feel a whole lot better than I did before.
Dear Chris,
Thanks for trying to make me feel less like a fool, but I am still really interested in the errors in David's understanding of the biochemistry of fructose. I dont suppose you could outline the problems briefly for me.
Thanks
Susan.
Paul,
I realise that if you are not David Gillespie (and according to the President of the Australian Skeptics you clearly are) then you are at least his mouthpiece. If the latter applies, I don't know whether you are self-appointed or anointed by David.
I also understand that your main function is to try to distract the readers of these comments from David's unwillingness to answer my questions (because if he did answer them honestly he would be admitting he had botched his attempt to implicate fructose in the obesity epidemic and as a cause of most of the chronic diseases afflicting the developed world).
As it stands he has tacitly admitted this by not answering those seven questions.
But I won't play your little game. I have already addressed the issues you brought up in your latest comment.
Rather, I will wait until my article is published in the Australian Skeptics magazine and then send the URL in a comment to this blog entry. My article addresses some new issues about David's lack of understanding of scientific concepts.
BTW, you have already retired twice from this list, only to make two comebacks. If you keep this up you will start to rival Nellie Melba!
Susan,
If you read my 25 or so comments you will see that there is no need to go into David's understanding of the biochemistry of fructose; it is irrelevant to my criticism (and that of the President of Australian Skeptics) of David's treatment (or rather abuse) of the science behind his claims.
If you are genuinely interested in improving your knowledge of how food and physical activity can improve your health, I suggest you access the information available at the following sites:
(i) Nutrition Australia:
http://www.nutritionaustralia.org/
(ii) The Australian Guide to Healthy Eating:
http://www.goforyourlife.vic.gov.
au/hav/articles.nsf/pages/
Australian_Guide_to_Healthy_
Eating?open
(iii) The ACSM physical activity guidelines:
http://www.acsm.org/AM/Template.
cfmSection=Home_Page&TEMPLATE=
CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=7764
Happy eating (and exercising)!
Cheers Chris
As I am now a subscriber to Skeptics I can read your article when it arrives in the post!
I am surprised that after our long debate you would think I am a mouthpiece for David or anyone else for that matter. As for Eran being convinced that I am David well his powers of deduction need some polishing.
David's book alerted me to the difference between fructose and glucose metabolism and the significance of that difference. It also caused me to pay close attention to my sugar intake and reduce it significantly.
The net result is that after reading his book the amount of sugar I eat is a lot less than I did before, but I am no abstainer even though I am satisfied it would do me no harm to limit my fructose intake to eating moderate amounts of whole fruit.
Sure David uses some strong and colourful language and some of it was perhaps too polemical - even though I had no trouble getting the essential point he was making.
But your reaction was and has been progressively more off the planet and unreasonable as our debate has progressed. Which is unfortunate because you were not nearly so unreasonable in your radio program.
Had you limited your criticism to David's more literary flourishes you would have been on safer ground but then I suppose those quibbles would have hardly made for good radio.
Likewise if David was as sober and precise as you seem to think he should have been he would not have had a radio program nor published a book and I would still be eating far too much sugar than even you would approve.
Best wishes.
Paul.
And no I am not Nellie Melba (or her mouth piece)
Dear Chris,
Can you let me know if you agree or disagree with the following statements?
We have increased our sugar comsumption in the last 30 years.
Levels of insulin and leptin in the bloodstream allow the hypothalmus to regulate our appetite.
High levels of fatty acids in the blood block the action of leptin and insulin.
Fructose is invisible to these hormonal appetite controls.
Eating sugars increase LDLs in the blood
Eating sugar increases the uric acid levels in the blood.
Eating sugar increases cortisol production.
Increase sugar consumption does correlate to an increase in CHD.
Increae in fat consumption does not correlate to an increase in CHD.
Metabolism of fructose leads directly to the producation fatty acids in the blood.
Thanks.
Susan.
Susan,
As mentioned in my response to your earlier comment, the questions you ask aren't relevant to the issues I raised in my Ockham's Razor program and in the 25 (or thereabouts) comments I have already sent in response to 'Attack of the Chocolatier'.
Your questions raise a whole new issue. Frankly, I would rather run a marathon barefoot over broken glass than take part in another 70-message exchange about David's dodgy science.
However, I will point out that I have never denied the possibility (and it may even be a reasonably high probability) that excessive (note the word 'excessive') consumption of fructose is involved in the obesity epidemic.
My main point is that David Gillespie's argument is so weak that he hasn't contributed one iota to showing any such relationship.
Other problems I have with David's position include his claims that added fructose is a poison at any dose and that it is addictive in humans. There is no scientific evidence to support either of these beliefs.
Finally, there are many possible causes of (or contributors to) the epidemics of obesity, type 2 diabetes, heart disease and so on. The scientific evidence (as opposed to the pseudo-scientific evidence David has put forward) is equivocal about what is driving these epidemics. It is too early, and may even be wholly incorrect to conclude, as David does, that we can 'be absolutely certain that fructose is a killer of epidemic proportions'.
Anyway, I'm off to have a cappuccino (with one sugar) and a Tim-Tam.
Now let's see ... what will I have for dessert tonight? How about a small serve of tiramisu ... or apple pie (with ice cream) ... or perhaps cassata ...
Cheers and happy eating (but remember to consume only moderate amounts of sugars and foods containing added sugars)
Dear Chris, I totally understand you do not want to get into a long discussion of the biochemistry.
I would be really grateful if you could just answer one of my questions.
Is it true that after the ingestion of sugar (glucose and fructose)the brain only 'sees' half the calorific value i.e. the fructose is invisible to the particular part of the endocrine system that allows the hypothalmus to govern our appetit?
This, for me, was a big revelation in "Sweet Poison". I have a degree in biochemistry and microbiology. This was gained 25 years ago, however, I have kept an interest in the field and have friends who are nutritionists and research scientists in the field. I had not managed to pick up this info. from them or the mainstream 'health' media. I managed to get the message about 30 mins of walking each day and to just consume lean meat, fruit and vegetables. I also gained a belief that low fat food was the way to go.
Looking forward to hearing from you.
Susan.
Hi anybody reading this, I dont know if you are aware, but I have asked Chris a question about fructose in my last post. He has not answered it. He has been on the 'sweet poison' site as he has made another comment on the blog concering the article about margarine advertising. At the risk of being a pain, I thought I would let everybody know.
It would be great if you could answer Chris!!
Um ... Susan ... you asked your question yesterday afternoon and you are impatient towards me for not answering it by this afternoon!
I've sent something like 30 comments to this site over the past three weeks (at an average rate of more than one per day). Today I sent a comment to some of David's other blogs, to his blog entry on Crikey and to several other email discussion lists. In the past two weeks I've also written an article about 'Sweet Poison' for the Australian Skeptics (it will be in the March issue of the AS magazine). I'm prepared to spend an hour or two each day on this matter, but no more.
Also, many (or most) of the comments I have sent about David's inappropriately titled 'Attack of the Chocolatier' were highly critical of his approach, yet the only comment he sent in response contained yet another incorrect claim.
I have also been trying for more than two weeks to get answers from David to questions that effectively demolish his argument if he cannot satisfactorily answer them. He hasn't attempted to answer any of them (his only response did not address any of my questions).
So perhaps you could forgive me for not replying immediately to your question.
However, the main reason for not answering immediately is that I simply don't know the correct answer. It is 40 years since I studied biochemistry formally, and I haven't kept up with the literature enough to be in a position to give an expert opinion.
There are biochemists on the Nutritionists Network ('Nut-Net'). I've emailed your message to my work address and will forward your question to Nut-Net tomorrow.
I hope to be able to provide you with an informed answer this week.
Cheers and happy eating.
Dear Chris,
Thanks.
Susan.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090325091811.htm
I found this article describing research done at John Hopkins.
Its findings show that fructose increases appetite and glucose decreases it. I dont suppose you would be able to comment on the science. It is about 1 year old so I am sure your nutrition/biochemistry buddies would be across it.
Susan.
Sorry, I should have addressed that last post to Chris. I actually imagine it is just you and I here!
Susan.
Susan,
No-one on Nut-Net argued against the idea that fructose isn't 'seen' by the hypothalamus, while glucose is.
I believe it is entirely reasonable for the authors of the article you referenced to conclude that 'There is a large literature now that correlates, but does not prove that a culprit in the rise of teenage obesity may be fructose.'
I also believe that fructose is a possible culprit in adult obesity, but so too are three or four other prime candidates (which I have previously mentioned).
One Nut-Net subscriber sent the following (from Medscape, 8 Jul 08):
'Fructose is a monosaccharide found naturally, primarily in fruits. It is typically consumed as sucrose (table sugar), which consists of equal parts of fructose and glucose or as a component of HFCS. Both HFCS and sucrose are frequently added as sweeteners to many processed foods and beverages. Patterns of fructose consumption among US children and adults have not been well described previously, although a study by Bray and colleagues in the April 2004 issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition estimated that total fructose intake for US adults and children 2 years of age and older increased from 8.8% from 1977 to 1978 to 9.4% between 1989 and 1991 and 11.5% between 1994 and 1998.
'Animal studies suggest that long-term fructose consumption causes dyslipidemia, insulin resistance, obesity, and other features of the metabolic syndrome. There are no long-term, controlled trials in humans, but short-term studies have shown that fructose concentrations ranging from 7.5% to 25% of total kilocalories per day may result in hyperlipidemia and insulin resistance.'
Another sent a reference to a book chapter from 2004 that discusses the (then) understanding of hormonal influences on obesity. The URL is:
http://ep.physoc.org/content/89/5/507.full.pdf
Another sent the following:
'While it doesn't specifically mention fructose, a paper in Medscape of 4 Feb 2010 goes through the hormonal influences on appetite and body fat levels. The role of insulin is somewhat different from the David Gillespie view.
'It doesn't argue against the basic laws of thermodynamics, but has a good explanation of why appetite regulation varies with exercise and the differences in this between men and women.'
In summary, I believe that the NHMRC dietary guideline to 'consume only moderate amounts of sugars and foods containing added sugars' is wholly appropriate.
Happy eating.
Chris.
Dear Chris,
Thanks for that.
Susan.
Post a Comment