Prophetic warning about sugar in 1972 was suppressed.

Sugar: the Bitter Truth by Robert Lustig, professor of paediatric endocrinology at the University of California, in which Lustig hailed Yudkin’s work as "prophetic".

I was first going to post this in Health & Wellness, but if you read through you can see that there are claims of a pretty decent suppression and cover up attempt by powerful lobbying groups against the person who tried to voice their concern about high fructose corn syrup and other sugars, back when low fat diets were first recommended.

A couple of years ago, an out-of-print book published in 1972 by a long-dead British professor suddenly became a collector’s item. Copies that had been lying dusty on bookshelves were selling for hundreds of pounds, while copies were also being pirated online.

The story has all the usual tales of political posturing, shunning in social and professional circles, as well as corporate interest funding "scientific" studies to refute the claims. Which of course is the anathema to scientific inquiry.

Essentially, back in the 70s when low fat high carb diets were being recommended, a single person came out believing that he had evidence to suggest correlation between high sugar and a list of medical ailments that are a major health problem today. He was ostracized and hindered. He went as far as suing some of his detractors and they pulled their comments but claimed the right to their own opinion of his work.

Definitely worth the read…

… one voice stood out in opposition. John Yudkin, founder of the nutrition department at the University of London’s Queen Elizabeth College, had been doing his own experiments and, instead of laying the blame at the door of fat, he claimed there was a much clearer correlation between the rise in heart disease and a rise in the consumption of sugar. Rodents, chickens, rabbits, pigs and students fed sugar and carbohydrates, he said, invariably showed raised blood levels of triglycerides (a technical term for fat), which was then, as now, considered a risk factor for heart disease. Sugar also raised insulin levels, linking it directly to type 2 diabetes.

When he outlined these results in Pure, White and Deadly, in 1972, he questioned whether there was any causal link at all between fat and heart disease. After all, he said, we had been eating substances like butter for centuries, while sugar, had, up until the 1850s, been something of a rare treat for most people. "If only a small fraction of what we know about the effects of sugar were to be revealed in -relation to any other material used as a food additive," he wrote, "that material would promptly be banned."

Yudkin was "uninvited" to international conferences. Others he organised were cancelled at the last minute, after pressure from sponsors, including, on one occasion, Coca-Cola. When he did contribute, papers he gave attacking sugar were omitted from publications.

From the Eighties onwards, several discoveries gave new credence to Yudkin’s theories. Researchers found fructose, one of the two main carbohydrates in refined sugar, is primarily metabolised by the liver; while glucose (found in starchy food like bread and potatoes) is metabolised by all cells. This means consuming excessive fructose puts extra strain on the liver, which then converts fructose to fat. This induces a condition known as insulin resistance, or metabolic syndrome, which doctors now generally acknowledge to be the major risk factor for heart disease, diabetes and obesity, as well as a possible factor for many cancers. Yudkin’s son, Michael, a former professor of biochemistry at Oxford, says his father was never bitter about the way he was treated, but, "he was hurt personally".

As a result, the World Health Organisation is set to recommend a cut in the amount of sugar in our diets from 22 teaspoons per day to almost half that. But its director-general, Margaret Chan, has warned that, while it might be on the back foot at last, the sugar industry remains a formidable adversary, determined to safeguard its market position.

f you look up Robert Lustig on Wikipedia, nearly two-thirds of the studies cited there to repudiate Lustig’s views were funded by Coca-Cola. But Gillespie believes the message is getting through. "More people are avoiding sugar, and when this happens companies adjust what they’re selling," he says.

www.edmontonjournal.com...

reply to post by boncho


I have Yudkin's book, it's one of the ones that got me to give up sugar. Over and over again. I get hooked very quickly, and so if I go a few years, then eat one cookie, I want to eat all the cookies everywhere. I've been "off" sugar (and all of the names they use to disguise it) again since September of 2012. Of course I must recommend it, and it's a great way to lose weight (just imagine all the things sugar is in that pack on the pounds). And don't worry, you don't miss it once you stop. Seriously, you'd think you'd miss eating all the cakes and candy and cookies and everything the stuff is included in, but nope. An interesting phenomena that the sugar industry probably doesn't want us to know.

reply to post by Aleister


I noticed the same thing switching diets. I think pretty much anything can cause its own cravings. As I crave healthier food now. The difference being some of the cravings are just plain unhealthy (spiking blood sugar levels.) And a subtle craving for good food is much easier to deal with then someone packs down a case of pop every day.

Akin to the difference of getting addicted to caffeine vs. heroin.

Yeah, the carb pushing companies are in full swing, funding UK gov research in an effort to stall the legislation that's going to hit sooner of later.

The Flour advisory bureau was funding a leading gov nutritional advisor:
www.telegraph.co.uk...

It emerged yesterday that Susan Jebb, the head of nutrition and health research at the Medical Research Council (MRC), has been commissioned by Fab, the organisation which is recognised as the lobbying arm of the National Association of British and Irish Millers

Also Tate and Lyle chucked a chunk at the Uk govt recently.
www.dailymail.co.uk...

According to an investigation by Channel 4’s Dispatches programme, five of the eight members of the Government’s scientific committee on nutrition receive funding from large confectionary companies. The chairman, Professor Ian Macdonald, receives money not only from Unilever, the world’s biggest ice-cream maker, but from Coca-Cola and Mars, too. Another of the Government’s most trusted scientists on diet, sugar and heart disease, Professor Tom Sanders, has been given £4.5 million towards his research by sugar giant Tate & Lyle Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk... Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

We in the position we were in with the tobacco companies when they were denying it caused cancer.

I'm heinously insulin resistant, and I was told all through the eighties and nineties to eat a low fat high carb diet. THE worst possible diet for me. I now eat a shed load of animal fat and meat and usually low carb. Humans did not evolve to eat grain and sugar. I now tell my doctors face to face when they are wrong when they tell me to eat low fat.

Several REALLY large scale dietary studies have now concluded it's not fat but high GI carbs that cause heart attacks. Govt and food industry still plugging low fat as healthy on TV. Diabolical.

I wonder how different things would be now if they had not put all that
sugar into EVERYTHING. I too had to give up sugar just because I wanted
to be healthier. It's hard to give up until you pass over the hump, LOL!

But even having a small cheat like during the holidays & stuff makes it
difficult again to stop. I just wish that they would come out with a way
to allow people to eat whatever they want without gaining any weight.

I eat healthy & am no couch potato but have a slower metabolism than
the fortunate ones who can eat anything & be skinny as a rail. If I could
eat like that I would be able to eat as much healthy food as I wanted &
enjoy every bloody morsel!

I know the big pharm would only be making money off the "pill" or
whatever allowed the people to consume & therefore no money off
ALL the health problems today's diets cause.
But too bad because ALL the farmers would be rolling in the dough!

Cheers
Ektar

Infuriates me to read this. Back in 1975,as a young child I was diagnosed as having low blood sugar. Doctors advice to my parents...feed her all the sugar and junk she wants!!! Set me up for a lifetime of bad eating habits and poor health. Amazing I don't weigh 600 lbs,and still have my teeth. I have tried to stay clear of sweets and carbs,but a 40 year habit dies hard. I guess it'll be death by hershey bar for me...

reply to post by boncho


Yes, but it is so highly addictive that one bite can get me hooked again. It should be classified as a drug for sure, imnho, but won't be until civilization matures a little bit. And the horror of it is that corporations push it on children, over and over and over again, making sure to hook them as early as possible and they have them for life. First ones free.

I read once that there was a major poll of hippies (or some sub-strata of hippiedom) where sugar was listed as the number two most addictive drug. The first? Television (it's got a hold on me for sure).

I just don't understand people who say this.

I don't have that reaction to sugar at all. I like it, but I don't NEED it. I have no trouble grabbing one or two pieces of chocolate and leaving it alone after that.

The only time I ever have trouble is during certain "hormonal" times that I'm sure other women are familiar with, and it isn't even guaranteed then.

I don't even like sweet stuff all that much.

My weakness is salt ... heh, good for me that I have low blood pressure.

There must be something else at work in a person because it's not like sugar is instant death to everyone. Obviously not all of us need it or I'd be just as lost. Maybe it's a brain chemistry issue.

ketsuko
I just don't understand people who say this.

I don't have that reaction to sugar at all. I like it, but I don't NEED it. I have no trouble grabbing one or two pieces of chocolate and leaving it alone after that.

The only time I ever have trouble is during certain "hormonal" times that I'm sure other women are familiar with, and it isn't even guaranteed then.

I don't even like sweet stuff all that much.

My weakness is salt ... heh, good for me that I have low blood pressure.

There must be something else at work in a person because it's not like sugar is instant death to everyone. Obviously not all of us need it or I'd be just as lost. Maybe it's a brain chemistry issue.

edit on 13-2-2014 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)

It's like any addict. You can either have none or all of it. And not everyone is an addict, so you are lucky. Speaking of luck, luckily I've never liked alcohol, or the bars would have had a loyal customer.

reply to post by Aleister


So either a person can be addicted or they can't?

And it counts for every substance?

ketsuko
reply to post by Aleister

 

So either a person can be addicted or they can't?

And it counts for every substance?

Likely. Look at Philip Hoffman, he was off his addiction for 23 years, and then wham, he had to have it all. Most people can drink just fine, and stop when they feel like it. An alcoholic can't do that, nor probably can a cigarette smoker (another one I never got into). It's either cold turkey or nothing, and with sugar, going cold turkey means knowing all the fake names, and giving up things people usually love, like candy and ice cream and such (luckily, by the time I first gave up sugar I was already a vegetarian, and did so to be a vegan, and was surprised at how easy it was after going cold turkey).

ketsuko
I just don't understand people who say this.

I don't have that reaction to sugar at all. I like it, but I don't NEED it. I have no trouble grabbing one or two pieces of chocolate and leaving it alone after that.

The only time I ever have trouble is during certain "hormonal" times that I'm sure other women are familiar with, and it isn't even guaranteed then.

I don't even like sweet stuff all that much.

My weakness is salt ... heh, good for me that I have low blood pressure.

There must be something else at work in a person because it's not like sugar is instant death to everyone. Obviously not all of us need it or I'd be just as lost. Maybe it's a brain chemistry issue.

edit on 13-2-2014 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)

You may not realize what sugar is, or what it's in.

One interesting fact is that, year on year, we’re buying fewer actual bags of sugar — “visible sugar”. The big increases are in “invisible sugar” — the sugar the food industry sneaks into things. Looking around my local supermarket, let me tell you what I found. There is glucose-fructose syrup in one organic yogurt; organic sugar and organic invert sugar syrup in another. There is fructose in Müller Light. There is sugar in Hovis bread, sugar in healthy-looking Burgen bread, dextrose in Warburton’s wholemeal bread. There is fructose syrup in my Forest Feast dried berries. There is sugar in the steak pie. There is sugar in the smoked salmon. There is sugar in the seafood sticks. There’s a cheese I like, Wensleydale with apricots, which is delicious – thanks to the added fructose. There are sausages with sugar.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

The first complaint among some people in nations on the opposite side of the world when they immigrate is that everything is too sweet. Their "sweets" are not really that sweet.

Don't believe me? Try oreo cookies from Asia…

The reason why this report was discounted, is due to the study, commissioned by the US government on Sugar. It also turned out that the scientist who did the study ultimately condemned it from the get go, for 2 reasons.

The first reason is that the study was conducted by the artificle sweetener companies, thus showing bias, and the other reason was that they did the experiment so badly, it was unrealistic with what all they were doing, making the entire study, results and claims to be highly suspect.

Once it was proved that the entire study done by the US federal government was no good, then it made all other studies similar to it to be heavily suspect of bad procedure and ultimate not considered valid or conclusive. After all if you botch a study it can do more damage. Peer review is important and ultimately how results are either proven or disproven.

Aleister

ketsuko
reply to post by Aleister

 

So either a person can be addicted or they can't?

And it counts for every substance?

Likely. Look at Philip Hoffman, he was off his addiction for 23 years, and then wham, he had to have it all. Most people can drink just fine, and stop when they feel like it. An alcoholic can't do that, nor probably can a cigarette smoker (another one I never got into). It's either cold turkey or nothing, and with sugar, going cold turkey means knowing all the fake names, and giving up things people usually love, like candy and ice cream and such (luckily, by the time I first gave up sugar I was already a vegetarian, and did so to be a vegan, and was surprised at how easy it was after going cold turkey).

edit on 13-2-2014 by Aleister because: (no reason given)

Lots of people do heroin and coke recreationally for years without becoming addicted.

Sugar is constantly around us, it's impossible to avoid.

reply to post by boncho


Those things you listed?

I don't eat those. Can't afford most of it. Processed food is too expensive for the most part, and I read the labels on what I do buy.

reply to post by Antigod


Exactly. And some people get addicted right off the bat. "First one's free" is actually the rule to addict the addictable. And with sugar products, lots of free handouts to the kiddies.

boncho

ketsuko
I just don't understand people who say this.

I don't have that reaction to sugar at all. I like it, but I don't NEED it. I have no trouble grabbing one or two pieces of chocolate and leaving it alone after that.

The only time I ever have trouble is during certain "hormonal" times that I'm sure other women are familiar with, and it isn't even guaranteed then.

I don't even like sweet stuff all that much.

My weakness is salt ... heh, good for me that I have low blood pressure.

There must be something else at work in a person because it's not like sugar is instant death to everyone. Obviously not all of us need it or I'd be just as lost. Maybe it's a brain chemistry issue.

edit on 13-2-2014 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)

You may not realize what sugar is, or what it's in.

One interesting fact is that, year on year, we’re buying fewer actual bags of sugar — “visible sugar”. The big increases are in “invisible sugar” — the sugar the food industry sneaks into things. Looking around my local supermarket, let me tell you what I found. There is glucose-fructose syrup in one organic yogurt; organic sugar and organic invert sugar syrup in another. There is fructose in Müller Light. There is sugar in Hovis bread, sugar in healthy-looking Burgen bread, dextrose in Warburton’s wholemeal bread. There is fructose syrup in my Forest Feast dried berries. There is sugar in the steak pie. There is sugar in the smoked salmon. There is sugar in the seafood sticks. There’s a cheese I like, Wensleydale with apricots, which is delicious – thanks to the added fructose. There are sausages with sugar.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

The first complaint among some people in nations on the opposite side of the world when they immigrate is that everything is too sweet. Their "sweets" are not really that sweet.

Don't believe me? Try oreo cookies from Asia…

Try a low carb diet for a few months then eat a normal apple. WAAY sweet. Donuts are truly nauseating after time off sugar.

I really only get a sugar/carb craving when I'm.. you know, woman's stuff. Otherwise I'm more steak and salad now.

People need to cut down on the processed food.

reply to post by Aleister


There is a difference between being an addict to one substance and then picking up something else and without ever having had it being addicted to it, too.

What is said is that if you are someone with addictive biology, you're screwed because if something is addictive, you can't avoid being addicted to it.

In other words, you're an alcoholic, a crack addict, addicted to sugar, a smoker, and a sexoholic all rolled into one even if you never had a cig in your life or did crack. You just know you're a sugar addict and that's enough to know you're going to be addicted to all the rest too.

reply to post by Antigod


Exactly, I started drinking tea after years of being a regular pop drinker, and at first I couldn't stand it. Then after I got used to it, my whole palate changed. Things I used to think were awesome are now so nauseatingly sweet that I can't stand them.

Basically, you just have to get your palate through that adjustment period.

Watched this little video the other day about, whats really eating at us, started with the fat, went to the sugar, then when that was found to be bad went to refined sugars now we have all sorts of concoctions shoved down our throats and considered ok cause people in power want it to be that way.

The American Parasite watched it and was sickened by the attempts to make us unhealthy all the while knowing so, and its only going to get worse according to video if left unchecked as it has been for so long

SaneThinking