Comments on Raisin Hell: Attack of the Chocolatier

Let me qualify that: It may do you good. Gordon ...

2011-08-24T17:17:29.374+10:00

Let me qualify that:

It may do you good.

Gordon :-)

Blood test results are in: Total Cholesterol: redu...

2011-08-24T17:16:27.111+10:00

Blood test results are in:
Total Cholesterol: reduced
HDL: remained stable
LDL: reduced
Triglycerides: reduced

The only change that I made in my diet to achieve this was to eliminate sugar. I already was following a diet that was quite low in saturated fat.

So much cardiovascular risk is now as low as it could be based on my lipid studies. So I'm happy about that and I see no reason that I will go back to my former diet that contained high levels of sugar.

This is by no means a scientific study and I hope that researchers do do some really well designed prospective cohort studies to examine this phenomenon in the future.

For anyone, like me who has found this blog trying to research if David's theory holds any weight...be encouraged. Talk to your Dr. Try quitting fructose. It can only do you good.

For those interested parties who have followed thi...

2011-07-15T15:27:16.495+10:00

For those interested parties who have followed this thread:

On a personal note, I have continued to eat very little fructose. (I don't say none because I won't refuse offers of hospitality from others - but I've cut almost all sugar-containing foods from my diet). I've continued to eat starchy foods and even sweet foods (sweetened with glucose or dextrose).

My weight has stabilised at about 62.7kg (BMi of about 21). At that weight my appetite increased again but not as high as it was when I was eating fructose. So that equates to a weight loss of 5kg in about 7 weeks without changing anything but fructose "elimination" - and it's stayed stable at that level over about six weeks now. I am now thinner than I've ever been in my life.

This is my simplistic summary: Robert Lustig presented the hypothesis that we have a biochemical drive to eat the calories that our body thinks we are going to expend (hunger). Fructose interferes with this biochemical process meaning that, if we eat what we want, in the presence of excess levels of fructose we will eat too much.
As mentioned above, when I was eating fructose, I had to eat less than would satiate me in order to maintain a stable weight (at about 67 – which I thought was ideal for me). And I didn’t eat massively high amounts considering I don’t drink soda or juice.
Upon eliminating fructose, it was as if my body was telling me to eat less by lowering my appetite. Over 7 weeks my body gradually consumed its excess fat. At 62.7kg my body then seems to have decided that that's it and gave me back some appetite, which has maintained that weight. So my personal experience would support Lustig's hypothesis.

Obviously, it can’t be this simple! There would be more complex things going on inside, which would explain why it doesn’t work for everyone. But if you need to lose weight, why not try it. It's not a starvation diet and there's no doubt in the literature that too much sugar is bad for you - there's just doubt about how much is too much.

Chris, you wrote earlier that my experience is typical of various elimination diets in that it is simply a calorie-restricted diet of another type. I have no doubt that I ate fewer calories as a result of decreased appetite but I don't feel that it was a diet of deprivation of any description. For example, above and beyond my normal diet (see prev post) I've personally eaten about 40 60g packets of crisps in the last two months as treats as well as plenty of nuts (those low in saturated fat). I wouldn't advocate this food choice but it is fact that the weight loss occurred in spite of it.

As mentioned previously, my main motivation for fructose elimination was to improve my blood lipid profile. I will be testing that in the next weeks so I'll get back to you about whether there's been any change on that regard. (I’ll be disappointed if not.) I wasn’t expecting to lose weight from the fructose thing. In fact, when I had been stable at 67.5kg for several months early this year I had some trousers that I had bought when I was 75kg resized to fit me as a reward. Annoyingly, those are now too large for me.

Gordon.

Dear Chris, Thank you for recommending Planet Obes...

2011-07-15T15:22:44.823+10:00

Dear Chris,
Thank you for recommending Planet Obesity. Egger and Swinburn's thesis drawing associations between various forms of growth is certainly interesting.
I hope that your holiday in USA was good.
Gordon.

Paul wrote: "I hate to be nit picking but the...

2011-05-07T19:17:06.545+10:00

Paul wrote: "I hate to be nit picking but the point you were making was not that the enjoyment of sweetness is apparently 'natural' but that the intense sweetness of sugar (read concentrated fructose) is 'natural'."

No, that wasn't my point Paul. My apologies if I didn't make my meaning clear, but I actually wrote (and my intended meaning was): '... a liking for sweetness is natural in humans.' That is, it is the sweetness per se that is naturally pleasing, not the source of the sweetness. The evidence I gave for this is that a drop of sugar-sweetened water on the tongue of a new-born baby invariably elicits a facial expression and behaviour indicative of pleasure. The reason I mentioned 'sugar-sweetened water' rather than any other source of sweetness is that this was the experiment that was conducted, as far as I can remember. (It was about 25 years ago I heard about this from a keynote speaker at a nutrition science symposium). I mentioned in a later message that similar results are likely for any kind of sweet taste, regardless of its source (sugar, glucose, lactose, aspartame, etc).

Paul also wrote (about the dangers involved in high intakes of added fructose): 'Certainly good reason for caution and public awareness. But in that respect I think you and I are pretty much on the same page these days.'

We certainly are (and have been from the start of this debate, which seems like a couple of decades ago :-)

But unfortunately, all good things must come to an end. I'm heading off tomorrow with my wife for nearly three weeks of travel to New York, Florida (Orlando and Fort Lauderdale) and the Bahamas, so this is my last message for at least three weeks. Not sure if I'll resume my role in this debate (even though it has been a lot of fun). Of course that will also depend on whether I survive the mountain of HFCS that will be forced down my oesophagus over the next few weeks :-)

Adios and all the best.

Chris.

That paper by Barclay and Brand-Miller is interest...

2011-05-06T23:25:18.961+10:00

That paper by Barclay and Brand-Miller is interesting and I have read their various books re the GI index.

I note your careful choice of words as the article was hardly a ringing endorsement for the inclusion of fructose (sugar) in beverages. They appeared to approve the reduction that they believe they found in the consumption of sugary drinks by Australians.

They described as a paradox that consumption appeared to have fallen whilst the incidence of obesity had increased. That is quite different to finding that fructose/sweetness has no role in the obesity epidemic.

I am in no position to challenge their claims/evidence that the consumption of sugar/fructose has fallen but I think it would be interesting to investigate whether the intake of calories of food sweetened with fructose and/or artificial sweetners have reduced or increased over that period.

The reference to the common occurrence of young people eating fast foods (Fatty/Hi GI foods) while drinking diet soft drinks was interesting but it is important to keep in mind that often many of the fatty / High GI foods are laced fructose/sugar - the sugar content of many sauces particularly BBQ can reach 30%.

Thus the eating habits of the Coke Zero generation may still be strongly influenced by the use of sugar/fructose even if their drinks are free of the stuff.

Chris, I hate to be nit picking but the point you...

2011-05-06T22:30:26.390+10:00

Chris,

I hate to be nit picking but the point you were making was not that the enjoyment of sweetness is apparently 'natural' but that the intense sweetness of sugar (read concentrated fructose) is 'natural'.

Leaving to one side my point that a positive response to a substance is hardly a useful guide (a babe would probably smile at a drop of morphine or THC for that matter) the important issue is whether the sweetness of fructose is an issue.

Few people schooled in the intense sweetness of fructose (1.7) compared to glucose (1) would consider glucose sweet at all. Buy some glucose syrup and some fructose crystals and try the taste test.

What most people call sweet is nothing more than fructose sweet.

I think there is a legitimate argument that the addition of fructose to many foods has desensitised our palettes and perhaps created an addiction/craving for intense sweetness.

Perhaps like those lab rats the human response to sweetness is not that dissimilar to the responses to other drugs. That may explain why many people who give up nicotine find themselves with a persistent sweet tooth. Pushing the sweet button may be related to pushing the nicotine button.

Not everyone gets 'hooked' on nicotine (social smokers) or even finds it stimulating and perhaps the same applies to sweetness. Some people can handle it in moderation while others are 'trapped' by its sweet embrace.

Certainly good reason for caution and public awareness. But in that respect I think you and I are pretty much on the same page these days.

Paul.

Some time ago I wrote in a comment: 'The pap...

2011-05-06T21:08:15.117+10:00

Some time ago I wrote in a comment:

'The paper by Alicia Sim and Alan Barclay that was presented at DAA last year has been submitted for publication (I’m not sure where). If it passes the peer-review process and is published, then I would regard that as the best evidence available. Until better evidence comes along, I would then accept that consumption of added fructose has probably declined in Australia (while it has increased in the US) at the same time as obesity has reached epidemic proportions in both countries.'

The paper has been accepted for publication in the journal Nutrients. It was e-published late last month:

http://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/3/4/491/

Alan Barclay and Jenni Brand Miller are cited as the co-authors.

The conclusion includes:

'The findings confirm an “Australian Paradox” — a substantial decline in refined sugars intake over the same timeframe that obesity has increased. The implication is that efforts to reduce sugar intake may reduce consumption but may not reduce the prevalence of obesity.'

Until better evidence comes along, I will accept that sugar (and therefore fructose) intake has decreased in Australia and the UK while the obesity epidemic has been surging ahead. This directly contradicts David's claims that fructose intake has increased in parallel with the obesity epidemic.

Gordon wrote: ‘… I would still be interested to ha...

2011-05-06T19:51:39.534+10:00

Gordon wrote: ‘… I would still be interested to have your opinion on the cohort study I mentioned a few posts ago. Jakobsen et al. Am J Clin Nutr. 2010;91(6):1764–1768.’

I read the paper tonight.

I can't agree with your comment that 'The study found that reducing your saturated fat in your diet and increasing your high or moderate GI carbs actually increased your risk of heart attack.'

The authors actually report that 'There was no association for carbohydrates with medium-GI values'.

I do agree that the results of this study tell us nothing about the effects of fructose on the risk of MI.

Was there some other aspect of the study that caught your attention? I'm struggling to see what relevance it had to the debate taking place in these comments.

Cheers,

Chris.

Gordon wrote about how he has lost weight with no ...

2011-05-06T18:41:29.201+10:00

Gordon wrote about how he has lost weight with no hunger pangs, and feels much better after following David's advice to cut added fructose from his diet.

This is the usual effect of any restrictive diet. Thousands of people have sung the praises of the Atkins Diet, the Scarsdale Diet, the Pritikin Diet, the Total Wellbeing Diet (and every other restrictive diet that has ever been widely promoted).

Although they are all effective -at least in the short term - some have firmer scientific backing as to their safety than others. For example, although it is somewhat controversial in the world of nutritional science, the Total Wellbeing diet is supported by research conducted by CSIRO and others on the effects of protein on satiety, and also on the likely health effects of following the diet.

On the other hand, David's claim that by simply deleting added fructose from your diet you will eliminate the risk of metabolic syndrome has no basis in science.

Let me draw an analogy. I have a car that isn't handling properly. I can choose to consult a qualified mechanic or read a book on the subject by a lawyer. I decide to trust the lawyer. His book advises me to make sure the petrol I'm using doesn't contain a certain additive - one that is in all brands of petrol bar one. I go to a lot of trouble to locate the service station that sells this unique brand of petrol, and what do I find - my car is running a lot better when I follow his advice!

However, I don't know that my car's brakes are in danger of failing and the steering is decidedly dodgy. A mechanic would have identified these problems, but I chose the cheap and easy option - buy a book written by someone with no relevant qualifications or experience.

So now my car is running well, but there are underlying problems I don't know about, but which have the potential to put me in life-threatening situations.

Perhaps I should have taken my car to a qualified mechanic after all.

Similarly, David states categorically that there is one simple way of virtually eliminating the risk of metabolic syndrome - eliminate one 'additive' (added fructose) from the diet. He neglects to mention that excessive dietary salt and alcohol are also harmful. He also forgets to advise (or perhaps doesn't know) that the current very high ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acids in the typical western diet may also be playing a role in promoting metabolic syndrome. He (inappropriately) recommends: "Don't exercise if your dominant purpose is to lose weight; let a lack of fructose do that instead."

Perhaps we should be listening to the qualified nutritionists who devised the Dietary Guidelines for Australians, rather than to a lawyer.

Cheers,

Chris.

In relation to a baby's face registering pleas...

2011-05-06T18:32:53.125+10:00

In relation to a baby's face registering pleasure when a drop of water with dissolved sugar is placed on its tongue, Paul wrote: '… sweetness itself may be an important issue, whether or not is accompanied by fructose'.

I think that is almost certainly correct. You could probably elicit a similar response with glucose, lactose, aspartame or any other sweet-tasting substance. The point I was making is that enjoyment of sweetness is apparently 'natural' for humans. Of course this doesn't mean we should all eat buckets of sugar, but it does mean that we are probably programmed to enjoy sweet foods, so it may be difficult for many people to eliminate them from their diet.

The other point I would make is that there is no need to eliminate sweet foods, just eat them occasionally as 'extras'. That is, follow the dietary guidelines and get plenty of physical activity.

Cheers,

Chris.

Hi Chris An interesting experiment the next time ...

2011-05-03T22:45:24.935+10:00

Hi Chris

An interesting experiment the next time you are in the baby ward with an eye dropper might be to try a drop of water sweetened with a non fructose sweetener - preferable non calorific.

I suspect that the babies will smile in a similar fashion as when you administer a drop of sugar.

That might suggest that sweetness itself may be an important issue - whether or not it is accompanied by fructose.

As we know people can smile after consuming a number of substances of doubtful merit so smiling itself is of limited assistance.

Needless to say there are likely to be individuals who smile more than others following a sweet drop and thus may be more vulnerable to over consumption of foods that have been sweetened - whether of not that sweetening involves sugar.

Natural yoghurt: I must have gotten confused. Most...

2011-05-02T22:53:35.464+10:00

Natural yoghurt: I must have gotten confused. Most natural yoghurts do have between about 5 and 10% listed in the "sugars" section on the nutrition panel. Perhaps this is all lactose? It is interesting that there is such a large range of "sugars" counts between the different brands. In any case, presuming it's all lactose, I stand corrected. Sorry.

Gordon.

Gordon wrote: 'Actually Chris some canned vegi...

2011-05-02T21:29:10.938+10:00

Gordon wrote: 'Actually Chris some canned vegies and also natural yoghurt and even Weetbix do actually have added sugar.'

You're right about Weetbix containing sugar … Hmm, another mistake! :-(

However, according to Dairy Foods (http://www.dairyfoods.com.au/yoghurt/):

'Natural yoghurt … has no extra sugar.'

I also googled 'Is sugar added to canned vegetables?'

At http://www.healthyactive.gov.au/internet/healthyactive/publishing.nsf/Content/fact2
the warning is given to 'Select your frozen or canned fruit and vegetables carefully - some products have added sugar, fat or salt.'

Depending on what proportion of canned vegetables contain added sugar, this could still be consistent with my wording ('… generally do not contain added sugar').

But we're starting to split hairs here. I'm happy to take canned vegetables and Weetbix out of my list. That still leaves a long list of processed foods that do not contain added sugar.

It is David's willingness to exaggerate that bothers me. If he had said that 'most' or even 'the vast majority' of processed foods contain added sugar I would have had no complaints. His claim that all processed foods contain added sugar is simply wrong (consistent with many of his claims).

Gordon also wrote: 'Ultimately the book is a "case report" of one person's success at weight loss (himself) with some really interesting analysis of the literature put in.'

From my viewpoint, how interesting anyone finds his analysis of much of the literature depends on how much they enjoy reading fiction :-). I am prepared to accept that some of his claims about the biochemistry of fructose may be shown to be correct. But they are based largely on animal studies, and we don't know how relevant those results are to humans. Also, the aspects of his book I could be bothered reviewing contain so many mistakes I simply can't take his writing about fructose seriously.

Gordon also wrote: 'There IS definitely some truth in David Gillespie's hypothesis.'

I can't agree with this. David's 'hypothesis' (which he puts forward as virtually incontrovertible fact) is that added fructose in the diet is the sole cause of the epidemics of obesity, type 2 diabetes and heart disease. A flat claim of this kind cannot contain 'some truth' … it is either true or false. And the evidence simply isn't sufficient to come to the conclusion he puts forward as absolutely and undeniably true.

Again, if David had hypothesised that high intakes of added fructose are making a major contribution to the epidemics of obesity, type 2 diabetes and heart disease, I don't think anyone would have objected. This is consistent with the current state of the science. For example, Johnson et al. [Endocrine Rev. (2009); 30: 96–116] hypothesised that '... excessive fructose intake (>50 g/day) may be one of the etiologies of the metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes'.

But how many books would David have sold if he hadn't grossly exaggerated the evidence so he could falsely claim that '(We can be) absolutely certain that fructose is a killer of epidemic proportions …'? My guess is 'not many'. So it is in his (financial) interest to continue to exaggerate and distort the science.

On acceptability from a personal level... I was c...

2011-05-01T23:10:00.874+10:00

On acceptability from a personal level...

I was convinced enough by Sweet Poison to pretty much eliminate sugar from my diet.

I saw the book as a hypothesis rather than incontrovertible truth. David uses the words "my conclusions" a lot in the book. Ultimately the book is a "case report" of one person's success at weight loss (himself) with some really interesting analysis of the literature put in. I would never take any one person's opinion on such a subject as true gospel and started to research the topic myself.

I was most concerned about the potential for negative health effects of fructose (appetite, dislipidemia, free fatty acids) rather than the weight loss issues as I was maintaining my weight at a low BMI already.

In any case, for about a month I've eaten much much less "fructose" than I used to. I have noticed the following in my body:
-I lost 3-4 kilos without ever feeling as though I was depriving myself. I am in the low end of the healthy weight range. This weight loss has brought my BMI down to 21.5.
-I have REALLY noticed a reduction in my appetite. The portion size I feel comfortable eating has probably reduced to about 1/3 to 1/2 less than what it was previously. Since I made this change I can now eat a "normal" dinner portion and actually not feel hungry. I don't have to wait 20 mins I don't have to drink vast amounts of water to get the full feeling.
Previously, to lose weight (I put on quite a bit during a holiday in Italy) I had to be always hungry at the end of every meal. To maintain my previous weight at about 66.5-67.5kg I had to intentionally eat less than I wanted at most evening meals. In the 4 weeks since I reduced fructose I'm now down to 63.5-64kg and have lost this weight despite not intending to. I have eaten as much as I wanted (and often more out of habit).
-My waist measurement has reduced.
-I now taste things that I have never tasted before. I am AMAZED, for example, that Vitabrits actually have a flavour! I can actually really enjoy them now without the two desert spoons of sugar/honey that I used previously. So I actually enjoy my food more now than before despite it not being sweet.
-About the other stuff: I don't know whether my liver's insulin sensitivity has increased or whether m cholesterol has decreased or whether my liver is pumping out citrate. I will be checking my lipids in the next few weeks and will be able to report back on whether the change has made any difference.

My diet:
It was already low in saturated fat. I mostly eat home cooked food with plenty of vegies and my preferred source of fat is olive oil. I prefer multigrain bread. If it is late at night, we often try to eat carb-free dinner. We do have takeaway about once per week.

From reading the labels, I am amazed at how much sugar is actually added to most processed foods. Actually Chris some canned vegies and also natural yoghurt and even Weetbix do actually have added sugar. Miniwheats used to be very low in sugar but they changed the formula and nearly tripled the sugar to 8.8%.

So back to acceptability:
Is a 10g fructose per day diet acceptable to me? Yes, pretty much. I don't want to turn off my taste buds again and lose the new tastes I have discovered. But on the other hand I still want to be able to have thai food and enjoy cakes made by my friends from time to time. I don't miss most of the foods I've cut out. I don't mind not having chocolate and ice cream if it means I can have chips. But I'll probably still have some sugar, it'll just be much less than it was before.

There IS definitely some truth in David Gillespie's hypothesis. There may not be convincing intervention studies (in humans) or a satisfactory cohort study to prove it yet but I hope that someone does them soon.

Have a safe trip Chris.

Gordon.

Hi guys, I've had no problems posting since D...

2011-05-01T18:29:15.368+10:00

Hi guys,

I've had no problems posting since David fixed it up. The reason I was banned at first was I was trying to copy and paste a very long pre-prepared comment in several parts. When I posted the second part of the commend, the first part was replaced by the second one. So then I re-posted the first one. I think that Google objected to me posting the same comment over and over. I don't blame Google. If I were a computer and someone was posting duplicate comments repeatedly I'd think that it was a spammer too.

Personally, I'd like to think that the content of the comment was really interesting and important - but, of course, a computer would not be able to see the "brilliance" of my literature analysis ;-) LOL.

Anyway, since then I would for the comment to appear in my email before I post a second part.

Chris, I think that your comment about acceptability is a valid point, especially the part in relation to a cultural need to share food. I agree that there is somewhat of a social need on occasion to take part in consumption of sweet. For example, I graciously accepted the gift of easter eggs last week. I also allowed my 3.5 year old to eat some chocolate easter eggs that he received as presents. I also made him some glucose sweetened chocolate. I did not personally eat any of the chocolate and gave it all to my brother, (who has a BMI below 20!). But I did eat a small slice of cake sweetened with sugar AND honey that my wife made for a dinner party last week.

Mmmm that recipe does sound good. Especially the syrup drizzled over ice-cream bit. I reckon though that I'd be able to modify the recipe to be made with dextrose syrup and dextrose ice-cream and it would be just as good and fructose free :-) Don't get upset, I'm just having a dig:-)

I do have more to say about acceptability but I will write after I put my son to bed.

Gordon.

Thanks Chris That book sounds very interesting. ...

2011-05-01T14:19:14.278+10:00

Thanks Chris

That book sounds very interesting.

There is no one true gospel when it comes to obesity and the more ideas research and debate the better.

Perhaps we can discuss the ideas in that book on you return.

Have a safe trip
Paul

On an unrelated subject I have you been connected up to the NBN in Scottsdale - is it good?

While I’m waiting for the copy of the paper by Jac...

2011-05-01T14:17:54.908+10:00

While I’m waiting for the copy of the paper by Jacobsen et al, I thought I would bring up a couple of issues that haven’t been mentioned before in these comments — the social and cultural aspects of eating, and also acceptability.

Firstly, acceptability:

I know of no-one who eats solely for nutrition. Most people (or at least most sensible people) will also take acceptability into account. I mentioned recently that a liking for sweetness is natural in humans. The evidence for this is very strong. For example, neonates (i.e. new-born babies) will react to having a drop of water containing dissolved sugar placed on their tongue with facial expressions that indicate pleasure, and will readily open their mouths for more. On the other hand, a drop of water plus vinegar on the tongue will elicit facial expressions indicating disgust, and a refusal to accept more. This is before the baby has had any chance to learn food behaviour from its mother, so the liking for sweet-tasting food is clearly innate.

Whether it is ‘natural’ or not to eat fructose other than in fruit, it is certainly a very pleasurable experience for the vast majority of people to eat sugar-sweetened foods. In moderation this is clearly harmless: people in most existing cultures prized sugar-sweetened foods — but generally ate only moderate quantities of these foods — for at least several centuries before the onset of the obesity epidemic 30-40 years ago.

As mentioned in the first paragraph of this comment, food also has deep cultural and social values, and food habits help bind people together. The Greek family member who will not share the baklava with the other members of his/her family when it is offered for dessert would risk becoming a stranger in their own family, I should think! Similar comments apply to the Italian who rejects the panna cotta or gelato, and the French person who passes on the crêpes suzette or the crème brulée. Yet despite a fondness for rich, sweet foods, these nations buck the trend by having relatively low levels of obesity compared with the US, Australia, New Zealand and the UK.

In my case, it is chocolate and desserts that I have no intention of ‘deserting’ (so to speak). Nor do I feel any health- or nutrition-related need to do so. I am weight stable, my BMI and all other health indicators (body fat percentage, blood cholesterol, blood pressure and so on) are in the normal or healthy range. Even if fructose is causative of obesity and metabolic syndrome when eaten in large quantities (and the evidence for this is equivocal), by eating only moderate amounts of sugar-containing foods and taking part in about an hour of light, moderate and vigorous physical activity each day I seem to be in no danger of succumbing to these pathogenic states. I can’t think of a good reason why anyone else should completely avoid sugar either.

If you want to eat fructose, eat two serves of fruit per day and only moderate amounts of sugars and foods containing added sugars.

Simple message.

Cheers,

Chris.

PS Here is my recipe for my favourite home-prepared dessert — pears in red wine, which is ‘to die for’ (although not literally :-)

I use home-grown winter cole pears, one per diner.

Take off the stalks and peel the pears. Place the pears in a saucepan containing red wine (about 100 mL per pear) which should be of at least good drinking quality, add sugar (to taste) cinnamon (a generous sprinkle) and a couple of splashes of vanilla essence.

Bring to the boil, allow to simmer slowly for about one hour, or until a fork easily penetrates the pear flesh. Turn the pears every 10minutes or so while they are cooking to ensure that all parts spend roughly equal time under the red wine syrup.

When the pears are cooked, place one in each dessert bowl, pour the red wine syrup over them, and serve with vanilla ice cream.

Be a devil Paul and give it a go. I promise you won’t become obese that evening (or the next day) or die of a heart attack as a result.

Okay Paul, you didn’t exactly agree that David has...

2011-05-01T11:28:38.171+10:00

Okay Paul, you didn’t exactly agree that David has exaggerated the case against added fructose, but in your comment posted on April 26, 2011 at 9.08 PM you wrote: ‘I tend to agree that some of his turns of phrase are a touch sensational’. I’m not sure how they can be ‘sensational’ without being ‘exaggerated’, but it appears that you are not prepared to soften your position. Neither am I, so there is no point in continuing this discussion.

I will be going overseas next weekend on holiday (to the land of high-fructose corn syrup :-) so I won’t be able to send any more comments after this week. Unfortunately, the paper by Jakobsen et al didn’t arrive on Friday, so it will have to be later this week before I can send any comments about it.

I'm also sick of having to try four, five or even six times to post each comment. Why Google worked well 12 months ago and now makes life very difficult, I don't understand. Gordon, are you still having only intermittent success at posting comments?

On another (but related) issue, readers of these comments (yes, both of you :-) may be interested in a new book titled ‘Planet Obesity’. Written by two of Australia’s leading obesity researchers, Planet Obesity proposes a whole new way of looking at the origins (and therefore possible treatment) of the obesity epidemic. It draws parallels between (and even talks about a common root cause of) the obesity epidemic and global climate change. This might seem far-fetched, but they make a persuasive case. For a review of Planet Obesity go to: http://www.suite101.com/content/a-review-of-planet-obesity-by-garry-egger-and-boyd-swinburn-a273625

And for Paul’s sake, I’ll point out that added fructose isn’t considered by Garry Egger and Boyd Swinburn to be the sole cause of the obesity epidemic and global climate change).

Hmmmmm "..You now say that you can also see ...

2011-04-30T18:34:00.816+10:00

Hmmmmm

"..You now say that you can also see how he has exaggerated the evidence.."

Nice try Chris but I did not say that.

I have no difficulty with David's strict position on fructose and the evidence to date either supports his position or is sufficient to warrant taking a cautious approach to the consumption of fructose pending additional research.

It is a fairly straight forward and sensible application of the precautionary principle assuming you accept that large quantities of added fructose is a recent addition to the day to day diet and was introduced without thorough testing.

It is a shame that there were not more keen eyed observers such as yourself on patrol when fructose was being introduced into the food supply in large quantities. I am sure that you would have been quite vigorous in defending the then low fructose status quo.

If anything I would broaden the case against fructose as follows:

* The intense sweetness of fructose is at least habit forming if not addictive

* The sweetness of fructose encourages the over consumption of other foods to which it is added, particularly moderate - high GI carbohydrates but also staurated fats (chocolates etc).

* Fructose inhibits hormonal appetite triggers

* Fructose metabolism produces higher levels of blood fat.

* Fructose consumption contributes to the development of metabolic syndrome.

If you want to eat fructose eat fruit.

Simple message.

Cheers
Paul.

Paul, I think we (you and I) have found some com...

2011-04-28T19:52:02.987+10:00

Paul,

I think we (you and I) have found some common ground at last.

I agree with you (and with David) that consumption of added fructose in high amounts is harmful. I agree with you both that many (probably most) Australians consume too much added fructose.

My main argument with David has always been that he has distorted the science beyond all recognition of reality to exaggerate the case against added fructose. As a scientist, I saw this as wholly inappropriate and inexcusable. You now say that you can also see how he has exaggerated the evidence.

And although you believe that David has raised awareness of the potential problems of excessive consumption of added fructose, unfortunately he glosses over (or rather rejects as ‘ancient’) the other dietary guidelines, which are equally important as (or perhaps even more important than) the one about sugar.

But I am very happy to (at last) leave David's dodgy science behind and concentrate on discussing the real science.

Finally, and for Gordon's information, I've ordered a copy of the paper by Jacobsen et al. If it arrives tomorrow, I'll read it on the weekend and comment on it on Sunday.

Chris Unfortunately holidays are over and I have ...

2011-04-27T23:59:18.561+10:00

Chris

Unfortunately holidays are over and I have to get back to my day job.

I see you have generated an extensive list of the precise points of difference between David and you, and I am sure there are people out there who care as much about them as you do.

It may stick in your craw that David may get credit for raising awareness when you think he has gone way over the top but I doubt many will care - if he is proved correct.

As you may have gathered I am more interested in the points of common ground between you and David than whether David has 'gone too far' in his claims and public statements.

I have only been critical of you insofar as your obsession with attacking David's position/comments tends to obscure that there are real concerns, shared by you, concerning the consumption of fructose.

At best the average person following David's advice will reduce their fructose consumption to the eating of some whole fruit each day. This will probably mean they will greatly reduce their consumption of processed and packaged foods.

That is hardly a frightening best case scenario.

In practice even the most enthusiastic supporter of David's position will still be eating added fructose in significant amounts simply because it is very hard to avoid the stuff.

It seems clear that there is already enough evidence to warrant a cautious approach to the consumption of fructose.

Further research will confirm/establish whether David's strict recommendations are warranted but when the cost of being cautious is only eating less fructose it seems a fairly harmless exercise.

As one my previous posts speculated I think the major problem with fructose may prove to be simply the fact that it is sweet and tempts people to overeat. It is the drive for sweetness that causes people to eat a packet of biscuits or keeping drinking soft drink and juices when they should have had their fill.

Try some liquid glucose and you will understand what I mean when I say that when people are thinking sweet they are thinking fructose. Glucose simply doesn't taste sweet.

Needless to say if this 'sweetness' is part of a substance that has even some of the metabolic issues postulated by David there is a real problem to be addressed.

Good Eating
Paul.

Continued from my previous message ... (x) I disa...

2011-04-27T20:32:56.634+10:00

Continued from my previous message ...

(x) I disagree that the American Dietetics Association recommends that ‘fructose should be completely avoided (by people with diabetes).’ The ADA position statement includes: ‘The myth that sugar causes diabetes is commonly accepted by many people. Research has shown that it isn't true ...’

(xi) I disagree that ‘every gram of fructose we eat is directly converted to fat’. Fructose can be converted to glycogen (the form in which glucose is stored in the liver and muscles) or to triglycerides (i.e. fat).

(xii) I disagree that ‘all processed foods contain some sugar'. The following is an incomplete list of processed foods that generally do not contain added sugars: Canned and dried soups; canned vegetables; frozen vegetables; dried vegetables; frozen fruit; dried fruit; most frozen ‘TV dinners’; cured meats; Vegemite; potato crisps; frozen potato chips; unflavoured corn chips; pasteurised milk; cheese; natural yogurt; unsweetened fruit-flavoured yogurt; cream; butter; margarine; cocoa powder; instant coffee; some breakfast cereals (e.g. Weetbix, rolled oats); and many savoury crackers/biscuits.

(xiii) I disagree that ‘non-caloric sweeteners ... contain the same number of calories per gram as any other carbohydrate.’ This is not correct – ‘non-caloric’ implies that no energy is provided by these artificial sweeteners.

(xiv) I disagree that the ‘joule (is) calculated using Einstein’s famous equation E=mc2 …’. This would be true and relevant only if our stomachs contained fully functional nuclear reactors! The joule is the SI unit of work (or energy) and is defined as the work conducted (or energy converted from one form to another) when one kilogram of mass is accelerated at one metre per-second-squared over a distance of one metre.

(xv) I disagree that the watt ‘measures electrical energy consumed per hour ... a 60-watt light bulb uses 60 watts of energy every hour.’ This is probably best described as gibberish. The watt is the SI unit of power (i.e. the rate at which work is conducted). A power output of one watt occurs when work is conducted at the rate of one joule per second.

Paul, do you still believe that ‘The only difference is that (I) claim David says no fructose and (I) say some fructose is okay (more if you run marathons)'?

Continued from my previous message … 3. Points of...

2011-04-27T20:31:50.749+10:00

Continued from my previous message …

3. Points of disagreement between me and David Gillespie”.

(i) I disagree that added fructose is a poison at any dose.

(ii) I disagree that fructose is undoubtedly addictive to humans(the review paper in the December 26 edition of Clinical Nutrition found no evidence for this).

(iii) I disagree that the evidence is overwhelming that added fructose is the sole cause of the epidemics of obesity, type 2 diabetes and heart disease.

(iv) I disagree that the Dietary Guidelines for Australians are ‘ancient’ and that as a result of following them ‘real people … are suffering very real and very debilitating diseases’.

(v) I disagree that there has been a clear and compelling association over the past 40 or so years between consumption of added fructose and the epidemics mentioned above.

(vi) I disagree that the study by Reiser et al. [Am J Clin Nutr. 1985Aug;42(2):242-51] had to be abandoned because four participants nearly died as a result of being in the fructose group. The authors of this study state clearly that there was a ‘... lack of relationship between the onset of the abnormalities and the type of dietary carbohydrate.’

(vii) I disagree that there were no further human studies following the one by Reiser et al. Studies continued and are still being conducted.

(viii) I disagree that fructose accounts for 20% of our total energy intake. Using David’s own estimate that we eat about two-thirds as much fructose as Americans, and the consistent reports in the literature that American consumption accounts for about 10% of total energy intake, Australian fructose consumption is likely to be less than half the level claimed by David.

(ix) I disagree that our energy intake has increased by 30% in the past three decades. Evidence provided by Dr Rosemary Stanton suggests that food intake has hardly varied in that time.

To be continued ...

Paul wrote: ‘As for whether David has gone beyond ...

2011-04-27T20:22:03.357+10:00

Paul wrote: ‘As for whether David has gone beyond Peter (actually ‘James’) Watson's reasonable bounds of exaggeration when writing for the general public that is a completely separate issue.’

No it isn’t! For me it has been the central issue in this entire debate. My Ockham’s Razor program (the one that triggered this blog entry) was a de-bunking of David’s grossly exaggerated case against fructose.

I simply don’t know if fructose is ‘guilty as charged’ or an innocent bystander. I do know that David hasn’t contributed one iota to our understanding of its role (if any) in the epidemics of obesity, type 2 diabetes and heart disease. I also know that he doesn’t address the health issues associated with excessive consumption of salt and alcohol, and the potential consequences of inadequate intakes of iron, iodine and vitamin D (among other micronutrients) by Australians. I also know that he is selling thousands of copies of books that are not based on good science to unsuspecting members of the public.

In another comment Paul wrote: ‘You acknowledge in increasingly strident terms that you share David's concerns regarding fructose to the point that you now claim that you were warning the public about them before David.’

Not me Paul, the NHMRC. The dietary guidelines were first published in 1979. I can’t find the actual wording of the original guideline for sugar, but it was along the lines of ‘reduce consumption’ or ‘limit consumption’ (or similar). This advice preceded the publication of Sweet Poison by almost 30 years.

As I’ve mentioned previously, the dietary guidelines are being rewritten. I don’t know the form the revised guideline for sugar will take (but my offer to Paul to ‘put his money where his mouth is’ still stands).

Paul: ‘The only difference is that you claim David says no fructose and you say some fructose is okay (more if you run marathons).’

Paul, I don’t know if you are simply being your usual perverse self, or you genuinely cannot see that there is a chasm between David’s beliefs and mine. For your edification I’ve compiled three lists. The first shows areas (or the area) where I agree with David. The second shows two points on which I partially agree. The third details the many points on which we disagree.

1. Point of agreement: I agree with David (and nearly everyone else who hasn’t been living in a cave for the past decade or so) that high intakes of fructose are almost certainly harmful to health.

2. Points of partial agreement:

(i) I agree that two serves of fruit per day is an appropriate recommendation. I do not agree that three (or even more) serves of fruit are likely to be harmful. I suspect that the entire world population of fruitarians (people who will not eat anything that had to be killed, so their diet consists mainly of fruit, nuts, honey and plant oils such as olive oil) would also disagree. Fruitarians eat prodigious quantities of fruit, but have few or no problems with weight control.

(ii) I agree that physical activity is important for general health. In Sweet Poison, David lists seven reasons for taking part in physical activity. However, he blots his copybook by advising: ‘Don't exercise if your dominant purpose is to lose weight: let a lack of fructose do that instead.' The NHMRC, American College of Sports Medicine and every other health-related body I am aware of advises that physical activity is important in weight control.

3. Points of disagreement … to be continued (this will take so long, I’m going to have to post it in a new comment).