Another example of biased reporting right in front of your eyes. Watch out!

When I have some free time and crave some food for thought I go on Youtube and check the suggestions based on what I used to watch in the history. This time I came across a video capturing a presentation of Ashley Gearhardt, MS Mphil from Yale university. 

The opening sounded familiar, I have seen it when watching Dr Lustig's lectures on Youtube. Also the title of the video said: 

And then this was following at the beginning:

OK. I am always open to unbiased scientific knowledge, even if that meant to change my view on the problem. So I watched the whole video. 

How surprised I was when Ms Gearhardt did not focus on sugar only. Instead, her title was: 

 

Now I wonder how the person who uploaded this video came to the title focusing on sugar? Even the title of the whole event did not suggest sugar at all: 

The world seems to go crazy about sugar, ignoring anything else, perhaps equally dangerous for us. 

And I also could see Dr Lustig in the video later on, he was preparing for his own talk after Ms Gearhardt. 

Here is a video, which will enable you to see what the whole event was about. The obesity and health inequality is a much complicated issue than sugar intake. A similar slide with a different title also suggests so: 

As I explained elsewhere, people are made to see the picture they are wanted to see and they are happy to see it and agree with it after all. If only they knew better and thought little more critically as I do. 

If they did, they must have noticed what I have noticed in Ms Gearhardt's presentation: 

Have YOU noticed? 

All first three addictive foods reported by addicts are not only sweet from sugar. They also contain FAT! Only the fourth item, candy, is usually mostly sugar. And what follows is starch based and fat laden processed food, lacking sugar or fructose whatsoever: french fries and chips. The following two items which were not as likely addictive were lacking both; sugar and fat. 

Do you get it? 

Most of the time, when there is sugar, there is also fat. Adding salt to this creates the addictive cocktail of high fat, sugar and salt foods (HFSS), which are so typical for fast food and processed food industry. This is the order the term exists: first is fat, then sugar and then salt. Even Dr Lustig finally announced french fries and chips as the most fattening foods in the world, sugar came as third. And I have already referred to another review of food cravings and addiction in my article here. If that was not enough, here I have found a short video which will give you more insight into how the food industry works hard to make you eat their products, and that is again not only about sugar. 

And this is in contrast with what Ms Marianne Szeto talked about in her speech at about 8:20 minute that only sugar has been linked with the risk of obesity in California. Well, maybe there is something specific in dietary patterns in Californians that makes only the sugar stand out. But I suspect something else. Take a typical diet of a regular fast-food customer. One day it is McDonald's with burger, fries, milkshake. The other day it is Nando's with whatever they serve, laden with fat, washed down with a soft drink. The other day it is Pizza Hut with their famous thick pizza with generous portion of cheese on top. Another day it may be again McDonald's or some Indian of Chinese takeaway, again laden with fat, finished with a can of soft drink. Then the person usually snacks on chocolate, other sweets, many times on salted crisps and other savoury snacks, washing it down with sugary drinks every single day, several times per day. Now tell me: could you expect that Pizza Hut makes people fat when they eat it only once a week? Or Nando's? Of course it will be the sugar that comes out, especially in soft drinks as these provide most of the sugar to the diet of many. Have you noticed this unequal view? The extra fat seems to mean nothing, fatty foods are not looked at the same way as sugar and sugary drinks. And they call this statistics. 

However, there is nothing wrong about statistic. But the result of statistical analysis is as good as is the data that was used for the analysis. If the data was rubbish, then is the outcome of the statistical analysis. And you should remember this when you will hear anyone, not just Dr Lustig, saying that they do not believe in common sense - they belive in data.

The truth is right in front of your eyes folks, just keep your eyes and mind open!

Another example of manipulative focus on sugar and sugar alone.

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. 

Are we all addicted to sugar?

Dr Lustig says we (the Americans) are. Listen to him at about 49:15 minute. He takes the average population data (275 kcal over consumption per capita per day) and applies it to all Americans. He also used the statement of the American Heart Association paper, to which he contributed by the way, that there is a sugar problem. 

I do not deny that there is a problem with excess sugar in the U.S. and other countries worldwide. 

What I am saying is that we are NOT ALL addicted to sugar. Definitely not me. As I mentioned elsewhere, I may be "addicted" to fruits, but also to fresh vegetables which make me feel great and keep me healthy. You will hardly find sweets in my house except of an odd 70% and above dark chocolate. One bar is there, it has been there untouched for over a month. I do tend to add a little honey into my peanut butter sandwich, but not always. And this peanut butter contains no more than 1% of added sugar. Full stop. I even find an apple sometimes so sweet that I do not enjoy it as much and I often give out an over ripen banana because I just do not like it for its intensive flavor. Once I stopped at a cafe (I think it was called American, what an irony) and ordered a BBQ chicken with a lettuce salad and some vegetables. I expected a true barbecued chicken meat. Instead I received some meat covered with sticky BBQ sauce. That sauce was so bloody sweet it ruined the whole meal. So what addiction to sugar is this?

Regarding the drinks, I mostly drink clean filtered tap water during the day, some fruit or herbal infusion and I only sweeten an occasional black tea with added lemon juice because I grew up on it and I like it that way. One Splenda into my morning coffee is just right - because I do not want to mess up with my insulin straight in the morning - by glucose found in the sugar, not fructose. By controlling my diet I managed to lose 9 kilos over the past 4 years, steadily, without a drastic dieting or yo-yoing and I am in a healthy BMI range now. This happened while still living in London, while attending a university and spending hours and hours in front of the computer, hence not doing much exercise. Should I have been more active, the weight loss could have been bigger.

So why Dr Lustig keeps saying we are all addicted to sugar? There are many people like me and we balance the statistics of people really hooked on unhealthy food in general (fatty, rich, processed) who are over consuming by even thousands calories a day. That is what the average 275 extra calories represent - the AVERAGE, not that each one of us is consuming this amount of extra calories. 

I know Dr Lustig knows this as well. But he just keeps saying the nonsense again and again:

"We cannot eat moderately because it is being abused, we are all addicted."

The truth is that while many really struggle in this obesogenic environment and cannot resist the junk food of all sorts (not just sugar), others just cannot be bothered to do something better for them. In contrast to these, there are armies of health conscious Americans who manage to be fit, avoiding junk food and feed their bodies with the right stuff in the right amounts. Do those who CAN moderate their food intake live on a different planed or something? Am I?

Check my other article about debunking the sugar only oriented focus regarding the food addiction.