Dr Lustig presented a legitimate results of a study examining the brain response to unknown stimuli (it does not say that it was sugar in the obese person). This is mediated via dopamine and its receptors. That is fine. But look at the slide he showed:
The metabolism of what carbohydrate they refer to? GLUCOSE. Our brain asks for glucose. Not fructose. Fructose is only a marker that there is glucose in the fruit that our ancestors used to consume, and as such it provided them not only with easy energy but also with vitamins and other plant protective compounds, with a small amount of safe fluids to rehydrate. Fruits and vegetables are very refreshing. And it is already known that the large part of the ingested fructose is converted into glucose by the liver, especially when people are physically active as our ancestors once used to be.
I admit - I am "addicted" to fruit. Is this bad? Not at all. It makes me feel great and I crave it every day but I have a healthy BMI, no abdominal obesity, my blood tests come out perfectly normal and I have no interest in processed food items from the supermarket shelves. I even easily avoid confectionery that is almost jumping on me at every supermarket till or local newsagents. The sugary snacks simply do not exist for me.
While writing this article I finished two figs and two ripen sharon fruits. We are supposed to like sweet taste because we have evolved this way. Even the human milk has almost twice the amount of lactose than cattle has, which makes it sweeter. The problem is we are getting our energy from wrong food sources today. People have replaced the healthy source of glucose and fructose, rich in vitamins, minerals, antioxidants, for processed food items lacking all these benefits and load their bodies with fat calories on top of it.
The diagram above was only used to demonstrate how addicted people have a lower dopamine mediated brain response to the same stimuli as the non-addicted people. But Dr Lustig forgot to tell you that there are people who have affected genes coding for the D2 dopamine receptors and these are particularly vulnerable to developing addiction to virtually anything: cocaine, sugar, fat (yes, fat), alcohol, anything, according to the Food Addiction Institute in Sarasota, Florida. There are also malfunctions in the serotonin processing, which have been linked to the addiction to not only sugars, but also FLOUR, which is not sweet itself but is broken down to glucose, absorbed as such and delivered to the brain. Hence the glucose metabolism mentioned at the beginning.
That diagram above shows how the obese person has similar dopamine response as the addicted one and Dr Lustig highlights that obese people are also addicted. However, are they obese because they are addicted to sugar (alone) or are they addicted because they were born with the affected D2 gene and sugar just happened to be the guilty substance for this particular individual? I have already said that sugar is not the only dietary compound that such people get addicted to and binge on. In general, they tend to seek energy dense food items, which means that not only sugar, but also fat, figures in their lists of bingeing foods.
Saying that, I agree that even people without this genetic trait can develop addiction to some sort of food or the food constituents. But is it only because of the sugar as Dr Lustig constantly suggests? It would be fair to examine other food items and observe the brain activity. He did not do that. I believe that if he had the data and only sugar had produced such response, he would not hesitate to make it stand out. Or, did he have the data, but ignored it and still focused on sugar only?
Let's continue with debunking this sugar focused push. Look better what the 'Supersize me' man is holding:
It is not too clear, but if you have watched the clip, you would see: Mac burger and Mac fries. Also the cover of the DVD portrays him with mouth full of french fries. Where is the sugar? This is all energy dense, nutrients deprived, rubbish food based on glucose from starch (bun and fries) and fats/oils (beef, cheese and again - the fries). He did not show you the milk-shake or a liter of Cola, that often comes with fast food and makes the situation worse.
I agree, sugars add up on this fast food doom, but are they the trigger that makes people coming to the 'restaurant'? Do they go to McDonald to have a Coke? NOPE. They want to EAT. Eat the burger and fries. Most of them. In fact, back to 2009 I remember reading about why the fast food is so magic to many fast food addicts. It was not only sugar. It was the combination of sugar, FAT and salt. If the fast food was fat-less it would appeal to nobody. But they manage to eat the burger and fries with just a hint of sugar in the pickle or ketchup. The soft drink is just an addition to it. And exactly as in the first slide above, this deadly three-combo of tastes was compared to the effect of cocaine on peoples brains via dopamine activity. There are even policies throughout the world that limit advertisement of the high fat, sugar and salt (HFSS, not to be misled to HFCS) foods to children. Google it. One such related to the UK is here.
And my personal addition to this is that you also get savory sauces and condiments in your fast food that tricks your brain into thinking that savory fruits or vegetables are on the way, providing the so needed nutrients your body is craving for. But, at the end, it gets nothing again. That little lycopene in the ketchup is nothing.
Or take the other addicts: they abuse the only substance that brings them pleasure, might it be cocaine or heroin or alcohol. Have you seen anybody pouring white sugar to their mouth like cocaine addicts sniff the cocaine or alcoholics empty the bottle of spirit in one sitting? I doubt so. I hope that you understand now that this food addiction problem is more complicated than just pointing at sugar and making it a single villain.
In the light of what you could read in this article I would finish it with this little snapshot:
At 48:04 Dr Lustig talks about substances that are being abused:
Where is the fat? Where is the fat:sugar:salt? Where is the fast food? Fat consumption went up while sugar consumption went down. Why the constant focus on sugar alone?
Agenda.
You want more proof?
I am adding this material to the already published article because I have noticed another example of the audience manipulation. At 56:10 minute of another video, to which I have dedicated few of my later articles, you can see this:
Read the title and the text and contrast it with the picture put in there probably by Dr Lustig or somebody from his team. Can you read anything about sugar in the title or the description? Nothing. HIGH-CALORIE FOODS. That is the fast-food, not soft drinks per se, not even sugar and definitely not fructose as such.
And what is more, Dr Lustig tries to support his agenda with a number of published books about how the sugar is addicted, criticizing the Washington (government, experts) that they do not know about it while multiple authors with little scientific background knew it for years:
Well, to me these books only are the jump on the bandwagon against the sugar to bring money to the publishers and the authors. They are not the scientific studies. There are many such books about ANYTHING and many people believe that anything, despite it is sometimes a complete nonsense, or not a complete truth at least. Dr Lustig also published several books and he promoted them to the audience of students and other attendees to his multiple lectures worldwide, but unfortunately he did not give them access to its content free of charge, unlike the number of peer-reviewed articles he brought to their attention and which they could find online if they wanted - he said.
Overall, I am not saying that people do not get addicted to sugar. Many certainly do. But is it only the sugar that causes addiction to junk food? I doubt so and the information presented above supports my view.
No comments:
Post a Comment