Sugar and the Insane World of �Scientific� Studies
You would think that the case against excess sugar in the diet is now clear cut--that the
scientific community is lined up against it.
You might also think that, as a result, like cigarettes, the consumption of sugared foods
and beverages is on the decline.
But you would be wrong on both counts.
To paraphrase the great Mark Twain, "The Reports of sugar's death are greatly exaggerated."
And this is especially true when it comes to sugared drinks: sodas, energy drinks, sports
drinks, etc.
Like Alice, we are about to go "through the looking glass" and enter a bizarro world where
up is down and left is right.
We are about to enter the unsettling world of scientific studies where, despite everything
you have been led to believe, very little is what it seems.
And like Alice, we will start at one point and end at a different point far, far away--before
we finally get to return exactly where we started in our normal reality.
Our journey will begin with a discussion of sugared beverages and a recent study that
says they are still alive and well, totally contradicting everything we thought we knew
about changing dietary habits in the United States.
But that's just the beginning.
We will very quickly move on to a discussion of the numerous contradictory studies about
the effects of sugar--and once again, we will find that everything we thought we knew is
contradicted by numerous studies of dubious reality.
And ultimately, we will conclude by trying to get a handle on how to deal with all of
these contradictions--which will finally allow us to go back through the looking glass to
the marginally saner world we know and love.
The CDC National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey
For years, U.S. Dietary Guidelines, as well as the alternative health community which
has been on this issue for far, far longer, have urged people to reduce their consumption
of sugary drinks.
And for a while, at least, it appeared people were listening.
As for the scientific community, as we will see in a bit, their message has been decidedly
more mixed, and this may have led to some of the confusion we are seeing from the public
at large.
But first, some history.
During the majority of the 1990s, the volume of soda consumption grew about 3 percent a
year.
But beginning in 1999, the rate of growth began to slow--and then actually decline beginning
in 2005.
And for 11 straight years it "apparently" continued to fall, reaching levels not seen
since the Clinton administration.1 And indeed, some of that decline was real as many consumers
switched to bottled water.
But, as it turns out, much of that so-called decline was illusory as consumers merely migrated
from sodas to energy drinks, sports drinks, iced teas, flavored waters, and bottled coffees--all
of which have plenty of added sugar.
The net result is that according to a data brief just released by the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC), that "trend" of declining sugared beverage consumption
is over--and actually has been for several years.
According to the brief, both adults and children are essentially consuming the same number
of calories from soda, sports drinks, and other sugared beverages now as they did in
2009-10, the last time the CDC published comparable data.
Also, according to the market research firm Euromonitor, at the same time as the U.S.
market for conventional carbonated sodas was contracting by 0.6 percent between 2011 and
2016, the sales of other sugar drinks as listed above grew by between 5 and 13 percent.
With that as a background, let's take a closer look at the CDC study that triggered this
newsletter.
The study/report started by stating that sugar-sweetened beverages are a major contributor of calories
and added sugars to diets of U.S. adults.
It then went on to say that other studies have found that sugar-sweetened beverage consumption
has been linked to weight gain, metabolic syndrome, dental caries, and type 2 diabetes
in adults.
Further, the 2015--2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommend reducing added sugars
consumption to less than 10% of total calories per day and, specifically, to choose beverages
with no added sugars.
The CDC report then presents its own results for the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages
among U.S. adults aged 20 and over for 2011--2014 by sex, age, race, and Hispanic origin.
For this report, sugar-sweetened beverages include regular soda, fruit drinks (including
sweetened bottled waters and fruit juices and nectars with added sugars), sports and
energy drinks, sweetened coffees and teas, and other sugar-sweetened beverages (including
horchata and sugarcane beverages).
Sugar-sweetened beverages do not include diet drinks (defined as less than 40 kcal/240 mL
of the beverage); 100% fruit juice; beverages sweetened by the survey participant, including
coffee and teas; alcohol; or flavored milks.
The study concluded that:
During 2011--2014, 49.3% of U.S. adults consumed at least one sugar-sweetened beverage on a
given day.
A higher percentage of men (53.6%) than women (45.1%) consumed at least one sugar-sweetened
beverage.
Men were also more likely than women to consume two sugar-sweetened beverages, or three or
more on a given day.
Among men, 29.1% consumed one sugar-sweetened beverage, 16.0% consumed two sugar-sweetened
beverages, and 8.6% consumed three or more on a given day.
Among women, 27.3% consumed one sugar-sweetened beverage, 11.5% consumed two sugar-sweetened
beverages, and 6.4% consumed three or more on a given day.
It also should be noted that among both men and women, consumption of sugar-sweetened
beverages decreases with increasing age, and calories consumed from sugar-sweetened beverages
are almost triple among young adults compared with older adults.
Also, among men, sugar-sweetened beverage intake is highest among both non-Hispanic
black and Hispanic men, followed by non-Hispanic white and non-Hispanic Asian men.
For women, sugar-sweetened beverage intake is highest among non-Hispanic black, followed
by Hispanic, non-Hispanic white, and non-Hispanic Asian women.
What Does the Study Mean?
So, we all kind of assumed that everyone knew that excessive sugar consumption--especially
in the form of sweetened beverages because you consume so much sugar that way--is bad
for your health and that, like cigarettes, consumption was dropping.
We assumed that everyone knew that sugary drinks have been linked to obesity in children
and adults--that they also contribute to heart disease, type II diabetes and some obesity-related
cancers, all of which have reached epidemic proportions in the United States.
But as the CDC study shows, we assumed wrong.
So, what possible reasons could there be for that?
Well, first of all, it's possible that for whatever reality there was in that ten-year
decline in soda sales, it may have come from Americans who were particularly receptive
to changing their behavior, such as upper-income individuals.
That leaves a lower income, soda-drinking population whose sugar drinking habits are
more entrenched.
There should also be concern about the huge disparity in sugared-beverage consumption
in young VS old.
It's not unlikely that the health messaging that worked on Baby Boomers and Gen X populations,
may not have resonated with Millennial and Post-Millennial generations.
As Henry David Thoreau said: they seem to be marching to the beat of a "different drumer."
It's also possible that Hollywood and the music industry no longer makes stars exclusively
out of the thin and beautiful.
A quick scan of the TV dial shows that plus-size is the new norm, the new beautiful.
And if it's okay for a generation's celebrity idols to be overweight, then it's certainly
okay for you to follow in their footsteps.
And finally, and perhaps most importantly, there is the mixed message coming from the
scientific community.
For every study that you find concluding that sugar is bad for you, you can find one or
two more that say, "Not so fast.
Sugar may not be so bad for you.
In fact, it may not be responsible at all for any of the diseases linked to it."
And even if you don't read those studies yourself, the purveyors of sugared beverages use the
resulting doubt and confusion generated by these studies to continue marketing their
products--even pitching their health benefits.
Did you know that Coke and Red Bull, for example, are now promoting the fact that their drinks
are "gluten free"?
That's not a joke.
Sugar, Health, and the Studies that Muddy the Water
Ultimately, though, when we're talking about the consumption of sugared beverages, we're
talking about sugar.
The beverage part is incidental.
So, what are the health issues connected to sugar consumption?
In truth, there are more than we have time to do justice to in this newsletter.
Given that, let's just focus on the highlights:
Dental health Diabetes
Impact on nutrient intake Weight management
Impact on behavior and cognition And we'll leave for another time, issues such
as: Its impact on the liver
Cardiovascular disease Colorectal cancer
Premature aging Dental health
The connection between sweets and cavities is so well understood and so frequently admonished
by dentists that no one even thinks about it anymore.
And to be sure, there are numerous studies that support the connection.
For example, a 2003 study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition stated,
"A dynamic relation exists between sugars and oral health.
Diet affects the integrity of the teeth; quantity, pH, and composition of the saliva; and plaque
pH.
Sugars and other fermentable carbohydrates, after being hydrolyzed by salivary amylase,
provide substrate for the actions of oral bacteria, which in turn lower plaque and salivary
pH.
The resultant action is the beginning of tooth demineralization�Studies have confirmed
the direct relation between the intake of dietary sugars and dental caries across the
life span."
And a 2009 meta-analysis of 31 studies published in Obesity Reviews concluded that 6 of those
studies found a positive, "significant" relationship of sugar quantity to dental caries and 19
reported a significant relationship of sugar frequency of use to dental caries.
The balance of the studies did not demonstrate a relationship between sugar quantity, but
did demonstrate a moderately significant relationship of sugar frequency to dental caries.
But then we go through the looking glass--where you can find studies to support any contradictory
view you choose to believe in.
For example, a number of studies flip the entire discussion of sugar and dental caries
upside down and declare that thanks to the introduction of fluoride, sugar consumption
is now almost irrelevant when it comes to reducing cavities.
That's neither a joke nor hyperbole.
For example, a 2001 study in the Journal of Dental Education declared, "the relationship
between sugar consumption and caries is much weaker in the modern age of fluoride exposure
than it used to be."
A 2016 Brazilian study agreed with those results, with the caveat that you just need to up the
fluoride concentrations to accommodate higher levels of sugar intake, thereby negating the
harmful effects of the sugar on your teeth.
But as I have explained many times previously, the benefits that are actually attributable
to fluoride are quite small, and more importantly, the percentage of children who are free of
dental decay is consistently higher in the unfluoridated areas.
But be that as it may, the connection between dietary sugar and dental cavities is well
established.
Diabetes
When it comes to diabetes, you probably think that the connection to dietary sugar is also
pretty well established.
For example, a 2012 study published in Global Health concluded that countries using high-fructose
corn syrup have rates of diabetes that are about 20% higher than countries that don't
mix the sweetener into foods.
And those differences remain even after researchers take into account data for differences in
body size, population, and wealth.
And a Harvard School of Public Health study published in Diabetes Care in 2010 concluded
that adding just one serving of a sweetened beverage to your diet each day ups risk by
15 percent.
And how many people drink two, three, or four or more sodas a day?
But when we peek on the other side of the looking glass, we find a surprising number
of dissenting studies--studies that claim to either find no connection between dietary
sugar and diabetes, or that it is at best a minor contributing factor.
How to explain this disconnect?
Well, let's look at one such study conducted by Dr. Tauseef Khan and Dr. John L. Sievenpiper
which was published just last year in the European Journal of Nutrition and see what
we can find.
As the study states in its conclusion:
In summary, there is nothing unique about the sugar, fructose.
It is harmful when in excess but potentially beneficial when taken in small amounts--providing
evidence that it is the excess energy that is causing harm and not some unique metabolic
effect.
Still, the potential for overconsumption of sugars in form of sugary foods and drinks
is substantial, and targeting added sugars as a source of excess calories appears to
be a prudent strategy.
However, sugar content should not be seen as the sole determinant of a healthy diet.
There are many other factors in the diet--some providing excess calories while others provide
beneficial nutrients.
We should consider the whole diet for health benefits compared to just focusing on one
nutrient.
In this regard, improvements in dietary patterns appear to have the greatest influence on weight
gain and cardiometabolic risk and represent the best opportunity for successful intervention.
It may not be quite a free pass for sugar, but it comes close.
So, who sponsored it?
Well, supporters include the Canadian Diabetes Association, Canadian Institutes of Health
Research Knowledge Synthesis Program (Funding Reference Number 102078) and Programmatic
Grants in Food and Health through the Canada-wide Human Nutrition Trialists' Network.
Not a lot to complain about here.
Perhaps something in the researchers' backgrounds raises a red flag?
Nothing is declared for Dr. Khan, but very little about his background is available.
However, when it comes to Dr. Sievenpiper, bingo!
As the last paragraph in the study tells us, he has received research support and speaking
fees from a number of highly credentialed groups such as the Canadian Institutes of
Health Research and the Canadian Diabetes Association.
But buried in the long list of associations some names stand out: Dr. Pepper Snapple Group
(investigator initiated, unrestricted donation), Abbott Laboratories, Canadian Sugar Institute,
The Coca-Cola Company, and PepsiCo.
And he also happens to be a member of the European Fruit Juice Association Scientific
Expert Panel.
Do any of these associations guarantee that the study is biased.
Not at all.
But they do put an asterisk on it.
And perhaps more concerning, we see that Dr. Sievenpiper is active within the scientific
community in his defense of sugar--in association with other doctors who have also received
money from sources with an agenda.
For example, we have a letter he wrote along with two other doctors (Dr. Tappy and Dr.
Brouns) concerning a study published in the Mayo Clinic Proceedings that "implicated added
fructose as a driver of type 2 diabetes."
Needless to say, the letter challenged the study's conclusions.
We've already seen Dr. Sievenpiper's financial connections to the sugar industry.
But what about his fellow letter writers?
Dr. Tappy has received financial support from Nestle, and Dr. Brouns has received support
from Coca-Cola, the European Fruit Juice Association, Kellogg, General Mills, the Dutch Bakery Centre,
and--get this--the Dutch Sugar Foundation.
Impact on nutrient intake
Here's another situation where you think the evidence would be clear cut.
I mean, for how many years now has sugar been tagged as "empty calories?"
Sugar contains no vitamins, no minerals, no micronutrients of any kind--nothing but energy
generation and triglyceride storage.
Obviously then, the more calories that you consume in the form of sugars, the more at
risk your vital nutrient intake will be.
It's simple math, right?
And yet, many researchers find the evidence ambiguous at best.
For example, a systemic review published in the British Journal of Nutrition states: "There
are insufficient data and inconsistency between studies in relationships between added sugars
and micronutrient intakes, with no clear evidence of micronutrient dilution or a threshold for
a quantitative amount of added sugar intake for any of the micronutrients investigated."19
Or the study out of the Center for Food and Nutrition Policy that concluded that the "consumption
of added sugars has little or no association with diet quality."
Weight management
Well, what about weight management?
Surely, there's no disagreement here.
Sugared beverages and sugared snacks add hundreds of empty calories a day to the diet.
The result would seem inevitable--steadily increasing weight and an epidemic of obesity.
The more sugar you eat, the faster you get there.
And yet...
To be sure, there are studies that show that the odds of being overweight or obese increase
among groups with the highest intake of dietary sugar compared with those with the lowest
intake.
But make no mistake, there are numerous studies that flip that conclusion on its head.
For example, there is the 2015 study published in Cell Metabolism that concluded that calorie
for calorie, dietary fat restriction results in more body fat loss than carbohydrate restriction.
Then again, this study appears to be designed to prove that low carbohydrate diets do not
work since the diets weren't actually that low carbohydrate to begin with.
And then there's the study published in the Annals of Behavioral Medicine that flips that
conclusion on its head by determining that calorie restriction is more effective for
obesity treatment than dietary fat restriction.
Are you confused yet?
Well don't be--at least not yet--because it gets worse.
Sugar's Impact on Behavior and Cognition
Now, this should be cut and dried, right?
Everybody knows that when children have too much sugar, they get wired and you have to
pull them down off the ceiling.
And as adults, we know that when we have too much sugar, it wires us up--that is, until,
we have the inevitable sugar crash.
So then, how do you explain this study in Nutrition Reviews that states:
"Anecdotal evidence has led to the hypothesis that there is a relationship between sugar
intake and hyperactive behavior.
To assess this hypothesis, a recent study using a range of behavioral and cognitive
measures evaluated the effects of diets high in sucrose, aspartame, and saccharin on the
performance of school-aged children believed to be sensitive to sugar, and preschool children.
Although intakes exceeded average dietary levels, neither sucrose nor aspartame negatively
affected behavior.
Taken together with previous work, these results indicate that sugar is not a major cause of
hyperactivity."
Or what about the meta-analysis published in the Journal of the American Medical Association
that concluded that their meta-analytic synthesis of the studies to date found that sugar does
not affect the behavior or cognitive performance of children?
According to the study's authors, the strong belief of parents may be due to expectancy
and common association.
Now, to be fair, they did throw believers a bone by adding the following statement to
their conclusion.
"However, a small effect of sugar or effects on subsets of children cannot be ruled out."
How can this be?
How can so many studies contradict everything we thought we knew about dietary sugar?
Conclusion
As I have mentioned many times before, scientific studies are not quite as absolute as most
people believe.
Just because something appears in a study does not make it necessarily so.
In fact, on most issues, it is possible to find multiple studies proving contradictory
facts.
And you will find the scientific community citing only those studies that support their
point of view while ignoring the contradictory studies.
The problem is that there are many, many factors that can impact the ultimate value, reliability,
and even scientific value of that study.
For example:
The size of the study.
Obviously, the bigger the study, the more meaningful the results.
Is it a test tube, animal, or human study?
And keep in mind that clinical studies translate to humans only about 4-20% of the time--test
tube studies, even less.
Who is paying for the study?
Do they have an agenda?
Who is conducting the study?
Have they been funded by someone who has an agenda?
Is it a Case Control Study, a Cohort Study, an Observational or Interventional Study,
or a Clinical Study?
Remember, even when double-blind and placebo controlled, they all have their weaknesses
and are subject to both vagary and bias.
Was the data in the study deliberately jigged to provide a predetermined result?
Was the study actually performed by the researchers whose names are on it, or were they merely
medical ghostwriters who were paid to put their names on an industry study written by
industry shills?
Yes, that's a real thing.
Look, I'm not knocking the importance of studies.
They're the main reason doctors no longer bleed you to death in an attempt to balance
your humors--something they did on faith for almost 3,000 years until scientific studies
ultimately showed that the practice didn't work, except for a handful of very specific
conditions.
But many lay people vastly overestimate the scientific value of a single study--sometimes
conducted in a test tube or on a half dozen mice.
I cannot tell you how often we get emails at the Foundation from terrified readers who
read something in one of these solitary studies.
"Should I stop taking this supplement?"
"Am I going to die."
And then there are the more antagonistic notes.
"How dare you recommend that supplement?
Don't you know that studies have shown it will kill you?"
(Those studies being a single study on six mice that reached an ambiguous conclusion--but
was promoted by the press for its shock value as definitive.)
The bottom line is that when it comes to studies, you have to use common sense and your own
judgement.
A single study that points in a contradictory direction should, at most, trigger a desire
to learn more.
It certainly shouldn't be used as the basis for throwing out everything you already know.
And even when there are multiple studies, as with sugar, that point in a direction that
assaults your common sense, you might want to step back and consider the totality of
the studies.
Are there an equal number or more that support your POV?
And with that, I invite you to go back through the looking glass, to a world where scientific
studies are viewed in their proper perspective.
Finishing up on Sugar
Which brings us back to sugar.
Let me assure you that you can ignore the contradictory studies.
In this case, your common sense is correct.
The most valid, unbiased studies point to sugar's negatives.
It may not be the "ultimate evil" as it is often portrayed in the alternative health
community, but make no mistake, excessive consumption of dietary sugar will absolutely:
Cause cavities Increase your chances of coming down with
diabetes Increase your weight
Negatively impact your behavior Harm your liver
Promote cardiovascular disease Feed the growth of cancer
Contribute to premature aging The bottom line is that in moderation (and
I do mean moderation), it is an indulgence that will marginally increase your odds in
regard to the above conditions.
But when consumed in excess, its negative effects are pronounced--even deadly.
And remember, if you eat processed and pre-packaged foods or eat at restaurants and fast food
joints, much of that sugar intake will be hidden from you.
In other words, what you imagine to be moderate consumption may be anything but.
And if nothing else, you might want to consider adding all-natural, sugar, metabolic enhancers
to your health regimen to help smooth out any insulin spikes that might result from
your dietary choices.
For more infomation >> Plumbing Jackson County MS|Jackson County MS Plumbing - Duration: 0:45. 
For more infomation >> What were you wearing Tracey Ullman's Show Season 2 Episode 6 Preview BBC One 360p - Duration: 1:55. 
For more infomation >> Sewer Line Replacement Jackson County MS|Jackson County MS Sewer Line Replacement - Duration: 0:45. 
For more infomation >> Emergency Plumbing Jackson County MS|Jackson County MS Emergency Plumbing - Duration: 0:38. 
For more infomation >> Water Filtration System Installation Jackson County MS|Jackson County MS Water Filtration System Ins - Duration: 0:39. 
For more infomation >> Spot Clean Pro Portable Deep Cleaner - Duration: 14:38. 
For more infomation >> The best Kinder Surprise Eggs Unboxing - Duration: 1:35. 
For more infomation >> Robert Adams Satsang — Divine Ignorance | ADVAITA | NON-DUALITY - Duration: 1:25:58. 
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét