Sugar is poison

[jamesww]

Well it is not like Americans were super disciplined with their diets in the 1960s and 1970s yet people were dramatically thinner.  Nor do I think everybody just exercised all the time 20, 30, and 40 years ago.  It is puzzling that is for sure.  But then I was not there.  Maybe eating healthy food and exercising was vastly more common in 1975.

Having lived through the 70s, I can tell you the difference is snacking and eating out. Looking back, I just don't remember eating between meals or even wanting to. And any day out, whether just going to work or a leisure trip, you'd bring a sandwich. Eating out was a very special occasion thing. For example, we'd go for a burger (Wimpy's, before McDonalds hit our shores) as a birthday treat!

In my opinion this is the biggest difference, with large disposable incomes, people in my age range have a tendency to eat out far more than their parents. I think another problem is the availability of subsidised catering at work, I know people who have a substantial cooked lunch and then go home and have normal evening meal as well. 

[grumbler]

Like the theory that 'the sky is falling!' is a refinement of the theory that 'the sky is blue!' 

I don't see it, Marty.  It sounds more like "saturated and tran fats are bad" from "all fats are bad".  You start with a theory that explains some observations, and prune and refine it until it fits more of the observations.  That's how science works, scientists don't get things perfectly right the first time, especially sciences where cause and effect is very difficult to test.

If sugars are indeed as bad as claimed, then a diet that restricts all carbohydrates will still be likely a successful one.  It is not at all unreasonable to draw the connection in the absence of other evidence.  The only unreasonable thing is to stick to the old model when a new model explains the obervations better.  That's why Malthus's bit by itself doesn't strike me as damning at all.

Marti, why are you addressing science when we are talking about a Times magazine opinion piece which eschews science in its title ("Is sugar toxic?")?  You may think that, because you personally lost some weight after you took an action, "science" somehow proves the action, by itself, was the cause of the weight loss, and so buy into the kinds of voodoo science that calls sugars "evil" (such a scientific term!  ) burt don't expect anyone with an understanding of science to buy into this.  Science doesn't work via youtube videos (which is the reference Taube starts with) and doesn't define its core concepts so as to promote certain answers (as when Taube defines "sugar" solely as "both sucrose — beet and cane sugar, whether white or brown — and high-fructose corn syrup"). 

If you want science, don't rely on self-proclaimed experts writing opinion pieces in popular magazines.

[Malthus]

I've never been on board the idea that eating too much and not exercising is all there is to the obesity epidemic.

Well it is not like Americans were super disciplined with their diets in the 1960s and 1970s yet people were dramatically thinner.  Nor do I think everybody just exercised all the time 20, 30, and 40 years ago.  It is puzzling that is for sure.  But then I was not there.  Maybe eating healthy food and exercising was vastly more common in 1975.

Agreed.  It's not like we were an agrarian society that instantly urbanized and sub-urbanized 30 years ago. 

Personally, the difference is most striking to me when I'm watching some old NASCAR footage on pit road.  If you watch a clip from 1975, most pit crews look like sticks.  If you watch NASCAR now, pretty much every crew member looks like a whale on very fat legs, and it's not muscle.  You can't say that NASCAR pit crew doesn't excercise enough.

You want to know why (and why Canadians tend overall to be thinner)? It is no mystery to me, and it can be summed up in two words: portion sizes.

When I take my family to the US and dine at a chain restaurant, I'm often surprised by the sheer amount of food that is considered normal. In one place, an appetizer, main and desert was enough to feed my whole family (two adults and a child), with some left over.

If people eat out like that ordinarily, it is no wonder they are more likely to be fat.

(Portion sizes are increasing in Canada too, only seemingly not as quickly).

Portion sizes have grown over the years.

It is no secret that portion sizes, as well as waistlines, in this country are expanding. The Dietary Guidelines for Americans 20051 urge Americans to pay special attention to portion sizes, which have increased significantly over the past 2 decades. Restaurant meals of all kinds have gotten larger with an emphasis on getting more food for the money. However, the rise of portion sizes is not limited to restaurants alone. Bags of snack foods or soft drinks in vending machines and the grocery store are offered in larger and larger sizes that contain multiple servings while a 1-ounce bag of snack food or an 8-ounce soft drink, which are the recommended single serving sizes, are very difficult to find. Americans are surrounded by larger portion sizes at relatively low prices, appealing to the consumer's economic sensibilities. However, the cost to America's health may be higher than most people realize.

From: http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:3Ffz23FKOUMJ:www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/nutrition/pdf/portion_size_research.pdf+portion+sizes+increased&hl=en&gl=ca&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiUfTFnHRYtzC-wAJ-29gl16jAEDYW8y7TDMX0FT9O4o4p7cuKuvcYwZ6NU4_j37ZbOw0sec7CSjLdpAdOpqFC2dGJ7D-OvfjXi1TYXF3C7jdo30jcX94IeUnSu5QIsvFR0b56X&sig=AHIEtbQca07j3C8Re_soh40MOd8MOd9TFA

Don't need some crackpot theory to explain the obvious: eat more all the time, you are more likely to get fat.

[grumbler]

The difference between US and UK versions of the same European foods is very marked. Maybe it's one of the reasons Americans find our food bland and we find American food stodgy?

I was just in France and the food there was generally as sweet as in the US, if not more so.  The marked exception was the baguette, which was buttery-tasting but not sweet.  French croissants were far sweeter than i am used to, to the point that I couldn't stand to eat them after about the second day.

[DGuller]

Of course, Malthus, your own theory assumes that causation goes one way, when in fact it's not obvious which one causes the other, if at all.  Are portion sizes leading to people being obese, or do fat people want to eat more food and thus expect more when they eat out?

Another point is that "eat more" theory only makes obvious sense if humans weren't equipped with a mechanism to control their food intake.

[grumbler]

If you watch NASCAR now, pretty much every crew member looks like a whale on very fat legs, and it's not muscle.

 

Maybe some glasses would help.  That also opens the possibility that your eyesight is misleading you as to how your scale reads, and that maybe you didn't lose all that weight when you quit taking in foods with sugars added.

[Malthus]

Of course, Malthus, your own theory assumes that causation goes one way, when in fact it's not obvious which one causes the other, if at all.  Are portion sizes leading to people being obese, or do fat people want to eat more food and thus expect more when they eat out?

Another point is that "eat more" theory only makes obvious sense if humans weren't equipped with a mechanism to control their food intake.

Well, to start, much as I'd like to take credit for the starling notion that eating more is more likely to make one fat, it isn't *my* theory. Read the link. It is, evidently, the conclusion come to by the folks at the US Department of Health and Human Services, based on a bunch of research that is described in the link. There are chapter headings entitled "Short-term studies show that people eat more when they are confronted with larger portion sizes".

Now I know that common sense, combined with clinical research by scientists, should not weigh against the inspired writings of a man like Gary Taubes, who has in the past demonstrated in his infinite wisdom total indifference to either, but still ... 

[DGuller]

If you watch NASCAR now, pretty much every crew member looks like a whale on very fat legs, and it's not muscle.

 

Maybe some glasses would help.  That also opens the possibility that your eyesight is misleading you as to how your scale reads, and that maybe you didn't lose all that weight when you quit taking in foods with sugars added.

We can all play that game.



The difference is that my picture is more like what you would typically see, at least on TV.

[HVC]

hard to tell if they're fat or just wearing baggy clothes. Either way not whales on fat legs. Advantage grumbler

[Caliga]

All I ever drink anymore is coffee, tea, water, or unsweetened iced tea.

Ok, sometimes beer, wine, and liquor too.

[frunk]

The people in the second picture look like they are wearing bulky fire resistant clothing.  I can't really tell how thin they are.

[DGuller]

Well, to start, much as I'd like to take credit for the starling notion that eating more is more likely to make one fat, it isn't *my* theory. Read the link. It is, evidently, the conclusion come to by the folks at the US Department of Health and Human Services, based on a bunch of research that is described in the link. There are chapter headings entitled "Short-term studies show that people eat more when they are confronted with larger portion sizes".

Now I know that common sense, combined with clinical research by scientists, should not weigh against the inspired writings of a man like Gary Taubes, who has in the past demonstrated in his infinite wisdom total indifference to either, but still ... 

Should it have weight?  Of course.  Should it trump any other theory?  That would imply that we know everything there is to know about nutritional science, and that federal government is a good judge of what it is.  I'm doubtful about both, personally.

I do think that we're still in the dark age when it comes to nutritional sicence, and thus no one has the absolute authority to dismiss any theory outright, unless it is self-contradictory.  People are still bulging at alarming rates, so whatever we do know is either incomplete, or impractical to implement.

[Duque de Bragança]

The difference between US and UK versions of the same European foods is very marked. Maybe it's one of the reasons Americans find our food bland and we find American food stodgy?

I was just in France and the food there was generally as sweet as in the US, if not more so.  The marked exception was the baguette, which was buttery-tasting but not sweet.  French croissants were far sweeter than i am used to, to the point that I couldn't stand to eat them after about the second day.

There's the difference between croissants au beurre (butter croissants) and croissants ordinaires. The butter ones are heavier on the stomach and the fat. Ask for an ordinaire next time.

Portions are smaller in France in general, even when compared to the rest of Europe. I blame Nouvelle Cuisine.

[DGuller]

The people in the second picture look like they are wearing bulky fire resistant clothing.  I can't really tell how thin they are.

So do they people in the first picture.  Fire resistant clothing really isn't bulky at all, it's made of three thin layers at most.  It's nothing like what firefighters wear.

[grumbler]

Should it have weight?  Of course.  Should it trump any other theory?  That would imply that we know everything there is to know about nutritional science, and that federal government is a good judge of what it is.  I'm doubtful about both, personally.

I do think that we're still in the dark age when it comes to nutritional sicence, and thus no one has the absolute authority to dismiss any theory outright, unless it is self-contradictory.  People are still bulging at alarming rates, so whatever we do know is either incomplete, or impractical to implement.

I guess the issue people have here (and certainly I do) is that you seem to be equating Taube's theory with scientific theory.  It is very common for laymen to fail to recognize the difference between "'theory" as used in common parlance, meaning "guess" (like conclusions of opinion pieces) for which evidence of proof is sought, and the scientific use of "'theory" which is an explanation for outputs  of certain inputs, usually containing a prediction of future outputs based on future inputs, and for which evidence of disproof is sought.

You are correct to say that no theory can be dismissed out of hand, but you need to decide which kind of theory you want to discuss.  You cannot elevate Taube's "theory" to the status of scientific theory by mere assertion.  Science and Taube seem to be mutually exclusive.