yes, I eat fruit. and, no, I’m not misleading Australia.

Posted on January 18th, 2013

You might have caught last night’s A Current Affair segment on the telly about sugar? I popped up as a sugar-quitting expert, along with my mate David Gillespie. However, I was used mostly as a voice of extremeness via some quotes I’ve made to ACA journalists previously, repackaged in rather extracted form. In particular, I was presented as being anti-fruit. You can catch the clip here.

Image by stephaniegonot

Image by stephaniegonot

A few people today have got outraged on my behalf (fired up that my quotes seemed to be placed out of context), or just outraged that I would diss fruit. I don’t tend to get upset by these kind of things. ACA presented an interesting take on the subject. And besides, how splendid! I now have a great opportunity to clear things up nice and crystal-like.

1. I eat fruit. One of the ACA grabs sees me listing the high-fructose fruits, as requested by the journalist at the time (during an interview a while back). I recommend eating the low-fructose fruits where possible: kiwi, berries, grapefruit and so on. If you’re doing my 8-week program, I advise cutting out fruit for 6 weeks. This is to break the sugar addiction and to recalibrate our bodies, just for that short period. I then, at the week-7 mark, invite everyone to reintroduce fruit and read how their bodies take to it.

2. I make the point over and over, based on the only comprehensive research I’ve found (by the American Heart Foundation):

we are only able to handle 6-9 teaspoons of sugar a day. Which is about the amount contained in 2-3 pieces of low-fructose fruit.

Many experts in this area – cardiologists, endocrinologists and nutritionists without vested interests in the sugar industry – confirm this amount as being appropriate. I personally find it’s the amount my body can handle before I start to feel the effects.

3. If fruit is your only source of fructose in a day, then 2-3 pieces of fruit is fantastic. If fruit is treated as a treat…which is how I was raised to eat it, and our parents and grandparents were raised to eat it…then bloody fantastic. But do you eat fruit as your treat? Do you eat fruit instead of chocolate or ice cream? Or as well as?

4. Know this: fruit today is MUCH sweeter than it was only two generations ago. They’re being bred this way because we want things sweeter.

5. Know this: fresh, whole fruit is fine. BUT:

Fruit juice is terrible stuff: it contains the same amount of sugar as coca-cola.

It doesn’t matter if it’s freshly squeezed or bottled. It’s the same stuff. Which is where my ACA quote comes in: our bodies don’t know the difference between fructose from Coke and fructose from apple juice. Sugar is sugar. Sure, apple juice has more vitamins and minerals and less toxins than soft drink. But we’re talking sugar. And so far as their impact on our metabolisms, liver, fat conversion and insulin levels go, the two drinks are as dangerous as each other.

Picture-52

Picture-41

ALSO:

Dried fruit is dire stuff: it’s 50-70 per cent sugar.

Again, sugar is sugar.

Picture-16

Sadly, so many people eat dried fruit and fruit juice thinking this is healthy. It’s not. Juice is a treat, as sugary as a Coke. A few dates are a treat, even MORE sugary than a Mars bar. I’m really not misleading Australia. I reckon the “health food industry”, who push fruit juice and dried fruit, are.

6. I choose to get those important vitamins and minerals – and fibre – from vegetables. We all have to be responsible for our sugar intake. Me, I’m aware I get a little sugar from other sources throughout the day – I sometimes like to have a few squares of dark chocolate, for instance – and so I keep my fruit intake to 1-2 pieces of fruit. I choose, instead, to eat a stack of vegetables. Most vegetables are more nutrient-dense than fruit.

Australian guidelines tell us to eat 5-7 serves of vegetables and fruit a day. I totally agree with this…but advise skewing things toward vegetables instead of fruit.

I suggest this breakdown for those on my program, once they’ve completed the first six weeks.

7. Dr Alan Barclay, the expert they use to debunk what David and I say, is an interesting expert. He’s the human nutrition manager at Diabetes Australia, NSW and media spokesperson for the Dieticians Association of Australia.  But as David Gillespie highlighted last year in an article, he also represents the Glycemic Index Ltd (GIL) a mob who hand out a “tick”-like “GI” symbol to food companies who pay them to…hand them out a “GI” symbol. One such company is sugar giant CSR. Barclay was also involved in the launch of CSR’s new GI-ticked sugar in March. Hmmmm……!!!

It baffles many why a scientist or dietician would be so hell-bent on slamming people like me who argue we shouldn’t be eating so much sugar. It seems an odd thing to get fired up about if you’re engaged in nutrition, no? Unless there’s a vested interest…….?! I can pretty much name all such experts and dieticians who do the hell-bent media slam…they’re the same names wheeled out over and over…I’m guessing they stick their hands up for the gig…and all of them have sugar interest somewhere in the vault.

FYI: This is an interesting read about the mis-information that the “low-GI crew” spread.

8. Barclay calls it “nutritionism”. Cool. But David Gillespie and I are not claiming to be impartial scientists or doctors with no agenda. We both are really open: we were curious, we tried quitting sugar for ourselves, we read up on research around the world, and now we’re sharing the information and our personal experiences. We’re also open about the fact we sell books on the matter. I’ve not yet heard Barclay, or other nutritionists and experts who quietly get paid by various lobby groups or sugary food companies, disclose their side interests.

9. The important part of the ACA story, however, was the bit at the end, about soft drinks. This week, the Cancer Council, Diabetes Australia and the National Heart Foundation have joined forces to launch a television campaign geared at regulating soft drink marketing to kids and imposing higher taxes on soft drinks. The Rethink Sugary Drinks campaign is an Australian version of a US television ad in which a man sits at a bar eating 16 sachets of sugar, representing the amount of sugar in a 600ml bottle of soft drink.

You can watch the video here.

They’re an interesting trio behind the campaign. I’ve commented on the sugar-vested companies that sponsor these organisations before here. And so I guess I’m sitting back thinking, if I had to wade into the anti-sugar debate and didn’t want to get my feet too grubby, what would I do? I know! I’d target something that most people agree is bad – soft drink – which might just give me license to push more seductive messages later…like “sugar in moderation is OK”.

Regardless, it’s a worthwhile campaign, even if it just gets people visually aware of how much sugar is in soft drink. Step two is to get them aware that just as much is contained in fruit juice.

What do you think?

 

 

Related Posts with Thumbnails
  • Deanne Willis

    I think people need to quit watching A Current Affair!

    [Reply]

    Kate Harris Reply:

    haha agreed!

    [Reply]

    Elle Reply:

    Also agree!

    [Reply]

    Stacey Reply:

    Haha, agreed!

    [Reply]

    Kelly Exeter Reply:

    x4!!

    [Reply]

    Amanda Harvey Reply:

    HI Sarah,

    I am an accredited Nutritionist and absolutely agree with you! Although there are nutrients in fruit, it is so important to be aware of the amount of fructose it also contains. We know that the body can only handle a small amount of fructose before it has detrimental affect on our health and that is why I strongly recommend to all of my clients to only stick to 2-3 servings of fruit each day. As you mentioned, this is only if they don’t contain other forms of fructose in their diet that day, even natural sources such as honey and coconut nectar. Due to the nutrients and fibre in fruit, I recommend that they choose this over sweeteners. If your diet is high in vegetables, there is no reason you need to consume fruit every single day, I go some days without fruit because I know that I have received enough nutrients form the rest of my days food intake.

    I also agree that it takes 6-8 weeks to change a habit, and by giving up all forms of fructose for this amount of time really helps to stop the ‘need’ for sugar everyday. Once you have experienced how your body functions once sugar is out of your system, you then know what a healthy body feels like and you won’t want to turn back!

    I give you credit for your passion in the health of others and you are really making a difference! I too share that passion, there is no beter feeling knowing I have impacted the health of another and that’s why I love what I do!

    Amanda

    [Reply]

    Rebecca Reply:

    Hi Amanda and Sarah,

    I hav fructose malabsorption and am currently eating two pieces of fruit a day but am still eperiencing bad cramping and extremely bad bloating – i am quite petite but some days I can appear six months pregnant!! – would you recommend I cut out fruit altogether and just get my fructose from vegetables? ive seen nutiritonists, naturpaths, doctors, gastroenterologists and still no relief i dont know what to do! plz help me!

    [Reply]

    Jules Reply:

    Hi Rebecca,
    It would depend on what fruit you are eating. Some is very high in fructose, some is low. If you are eating fruit that is high is fructose every day it is likely more than enough to give you those symptoms. There are several online resources that list fructose levels in different foods and there is also an excellent smartphone app from Monash University. For some people it is not only fructose that causes those symptoms but also other foods in the FODMAPS categories. Check out this page for a good place to start finding out more: http://shepherdworks.com.au/disease-information/low-fodmap-diet. You will also be able to find some support groups on Facebook who may be able to recommend practitioners. I know some people find relief by taking digestive enzymes prior to eating. All the best in finding relief!

    David Driscoll Reply:

    Amanda, are you an accredited nutritionist with DAA (Dietitians Association of Australia)?

    “The Dietitians Association of Australia (DAA) has developed credentialing systems for the credentials ‘Accredited Practising Dietitian’ (APD) and ‘Accredited Nutritionist’ (AN) which are protected by law, and only qualified practitioners who have met certain requirements can use these titles.”

    http://www.nutritionaustralia.org/national/resource/nutritionist-or-dietitian

    [Reply]

    Lauren Rose Reply:

    Hi Amanda and David

    I am also interested in David’s question to you, Amanda. I would like to become a APD or APN but am weary about spending 4 years at university and not having the opportunity to be educated about true holistic health.

    I want to be able to practise to improve people’s health conditions through evolutionary health principles and perform my own research. I also want to be able to align personal training/gym programs for clients with diet and other factors.

    In your experience (or any one else’s) is doing the four year degree and joining DAA the est way to do this?

    Thanks everyone for your help.
    Lauren

    David Driscoll Reply:

    “am weary about spending 4 years at university and not having the opportunity to be educated about true holistic health.

    I want to be able to practise to improve people’s health conditions through evolutionary health principles and perform my own research.”

    Since dietetics is a science-based discipline, the question is – does science support those principles? If not, chances are it won’t be taught.

    You could start researching at pubmed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed) and see if there is science to support what you specifically talking about – or google scholar.

    Pretty sure that you don’t even need a degree to perform research and publish – after all an nine year old can get published in the Journal of the American Medical Association – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Rosa
    http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=187390#qundefined

    Although part of what you learn in any science degree is about how science works, how research is done and how to qualify science papers.

    Stephanie Arthur Reply:

    I have a friend who works with animals – specifically the monkeys, marmosets etc. Despite the popular image of a monkey eating a banana as it’s staple food – their standard diet actually consists mainly of vegetables. Fruit is only provided as a treat (& of course a training aid).

    Why are we able to feed animals in captivity their natural diet as if they were in the wild, but are unable to feed ourselves our natural diet as nature intends it?

    [Reply]

    Michele Chevalley Hedge Reply:

    Dietitian, Nutritionist, Accredited or Not, Parent, & Humans who want to be Healthy,

    Sarah you are doing a wonderful job at sharing key messages that are the foundation of our health and the health of our children!

    from Pub Med – peer reviewed- evidence based medicine-
    Why are children developing a disease called NAFLD- once only diagnosed in alcoholics?
    Nutrition. 2012 Jul;28(7-8):722-6. doi: 10.1016/j.nut.2011.11.017. Epub 2012 Mar 28.
    Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in children now: lifestyle changes and pharmacologic treatments.
    Alisi A, Nobili V.
    Source
    Unit of Liver Research, Bambino Gesù Children’s Hospital and Research Institute, Rome, Italy.
    Abstract
    Over the past decade, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) has become one of most common chronic liver diseases in children. A greater understanding about the risk factors and molecular pathogenesis of NAFLD suggests that lifestyle interventions aiming to decrease obesity/body mass index and metabolic derangement are the first line of treatments adopted in children affected by this disease. However, because these therapeutic options are often at the beginning misjudged by the patients and their parents, the use of pharmacologic agents may help to protect the liver and other organs from further irreversible tissue damage. Pharmacologic therapies against one or more specific factors and/or molecules involved in the development of NAFLD (i.e., insulin resistance, free fatty acid lipid toxicity, and oxidative stress) also might slow the progression of this increasingly prevalent pediatric disorder. On this basis, insulin sensitizers, antioxidants, cytoprotective agents, and dietary supplementations have been evaluated in pediatric clinical trials. In this review, we discuss the efficacy of the dietary approaches, possibly coupled with regular exercise, on decreasing the metabolic and histologic damage in pediatric NAFLD. We also emphasize several advantages of the pharmacologic treatments adopted or adoptable in combination with lifestyle interventions in children with NAFLD.

    [Reply]

    David Driscoll Reply:

    Great to see you looking at research,, did you read the article? Fructose appeared in the whole document only once. What conclusions were you drawing from it?

    [Reply]

    Lissa Reply:

    Michele, also check out Robert Lustig (if you haven’t already) and his new book ‘Fat Chance’.

    [Reply]

    Lauren Reply:

    Can someone please confirm the fructose content of popular fruits. Every search I do comes up with conflicting information. Sarah, you advise pears sand grapefruit are a low fructose option but so many websites say otherwise. How do I know what site is telling me the correct information. I obviously wish to eat low fructose fruits only but am finding it difficult to know what’s what! Thanks!

    [Reply]

  • Aubrey

    Spot on Sarah – the more they push back with underhand tactics, the more they are threatened that you are exposing them as frauds.

    The key point here is that you have stuck to the facts and they have played the person – you.

    [Reply]

    David Driscoll Reply:

    Did you read point 6?

    [Reply]

  • http://www.katequitsugar.com Kate Harris

    I totally think that eating fruit should be a part of most peoples diet – if they can handle the fructose. I know many people who are not able to eat any fruit (due to allergies). But for me, I, like Sarah, avoid eating TOO MUCH FRUIT. I will have a handful of blueberries in the mornings on my oatmeal and then I might have something small in the afternoon. I don’t have more than two servings of fruit a day and most of the servings happen in the morning.

    I think people love to jump down your throat if you say you like to live a “low sugar” lifestyle – you get attacked for eating any fruit! Food choices are mine alone and I enjoy fruit in moderation. I did find that when I was snacking on dried fruit that I never seemed to be able to shift my excess tummy weight (ugh..). Obviously I was eating more calories and fructose than my body needed!!

    [Reply]

  • Caz

    I hate how these shows put on the people giving an opposite view after your view has been aired and you have no chance to answer any of their negativity, leaving the public with the negative view as the last thing they hear. Not fair at all.

    [Reply]

    Lissa Reply:

    I agree Caz!

    [Reply]

  • http://studioexsto.com Elle

    It was indeed an interesting article – I like the way they implied it is Sugar Free diets that are causing the decrease in fruit purchases and not the tiny teddy’s and packets of chips that are instead finding their way into kids lunch boxes! Great post Sarah – I’m not eating sugar free but I try every day to make better choices about my food and that which I feed my son.
    Thank you for the work you do!

    [Reply]

  • http://adventuresofawogarella.blogspot.com.au Abi Moustafa

    Sarah, I agree with you. I’m only 22 years old, but I have a family history including over 10 people who suffer from diabetes. And that’s just on one side of my Lebanese family ha. I’ve recently lost over 30 kilos, I eat fruit everyday and I make sure it’s treated as a, well treat. I’ve always been told treating yourself to one date is enough. Eating a whole packet of dried apricots is ridiculous. I think that the health industry are simply promoting these fruits as opposed to sugary soft drinks as despite the sugar content, they are a healthier/more natural option overall. Great response, glad to see you didn’t get offended and cause a big schamozzle out of one ACA employye’s editing skills. Abi X

    [Reply]

  • stephofsydney

    Do you know of a chart that details fructose content in fruits? Or do you have one that you could pass onto us?

    Plan to start the 8-week program as soon as I get my book in the post :-)

    [Reply]

    Sarah Wilson

    Sarah WilsonSarah Wilson Reply:

    yeah, there’s one on my IQS facebook page…I’d have to dig deep to find it…

    [Reply]

    phyllis Reply:

    hi stephofsydney, I just found this link while going through sarah’s IQS articles;

    http://www.reducetriglycerides.com/reader_triglycerides_low_fructose_fruit.htm

    sarah, I love your blog – thanks for sharing your experiences. I will give IQS a shot as well and hope that it is going to help me with my hashimoto’s.

    greetings from germany, phyllis

    [Reply]

  • http://www.cookchewconquer.blogspot.com Monique

    More than 3 pieces of fruit a day is pretty ridiculous anyway…so many other things we should be eating during the day, no room for piles of fruit! Gotta love ACA for skewing stories…it’s just a bad habit of theirs….

    [Reply]

  • http://www.sparrowandsea.com Jess @ Sparrow + Sea

    I am blown away at the number of parents I see feeding their little kids poppers and sultanas… May as well be Coke and M&Ms, people!!

    It is really unfortunate that the opinions of experts with vested interests get legitimized in this way. But this seems to underscore most of the conventional wisdom surrounding nutrition – food pyramid anyone? Got Milk? Swap it don’t stop it?

    I think that the general population accepts conventional nutritional messages at face value, and is not even aware that bias is a possibility. Food pyramid as gospel. And anyone who steps outside of this paradigm can easily be painted as a crazy-hippy-looney.

    Nicely explained, Ms Wilson!

    [Reply]

  • http://www.shopnaturally.com.au Jo @ Shop Naturally

    What do I think? I’m not remotely surprised that two of your quotes were yanked out of context to create the ‘loony’ of the story. Every story needs a villain, and this wasn’t about health, it was about protecting the reputation of the sugar industry. Period. They’ve used your previous interview snippets, out of context, to make you look like a radical and make the sugar industry look more sane.

    A good portion of the content on these shows is driven through sales motivations and not ‘current affairs’ like they were a very long time ago. This show is pure drivel and is a waste of air space. Interesting information about the expert they called on. He has his finger in a lot of pies. A small disclaimer about his background could have taken place in 15 seconds to position him properly, oh, hang on, that’s journalism. This is ACA.

    [Reply]

  • Hayley

    What a fantastic, well thought out argument, Sarah. If only our “journalists” were able to present their stories in the same succinct and balanced manner.

    [Reply]

  • Amanda Gabrielle

    Since my family and I quit sugar I’ve found the most difficulty lies with people understanding that we can eat healthily without piles of fruit. Yet when I say that we do eat fruit they are then incapable of transposing that knowledge back across to other things, eg: suddenly it must be OK to eat strawberry ice cream!!! Its soo frustrating!! I don’t get what they don’t get!!

    [Reply]

  • Adie

    I thought the story was quite ridiculous when you look at it in the context of their other stories – Australia’s obesity problems, over weight children, ex-biggest loser contestants putting on weight, fastest lose weight detox diets.

    This is why there is an obesity problem – too many mixed messages.

    Any alteration to ones diet that instills a change of habit to healthier food should be praised. Nay sayers with hidden agendas should not be given the air time they don’t deserve.

    ACA were happy to run positive stories when they thought they “discovered” IQS but turned quickly when Tall Poppy Syndrome (TPS) kicked in.

    [Reply]

  • Mia Bluegirl

    I agree with Deanne – if anyone watches ACA expecting a lack of bias they need their head read. Unfortunately people are deluded and do just this.

    They did a hatchet job on you, but it could have been worse. Anyone who knows you, or came to your site following ACA to do their own research, can figure out the truth pretty quickly and see your moderate approach. Unfortunately you also mentioned weight loss and people go even more batshit crazy when you do that.

    [Reply]

  • Kristy

    Hi Sarah,

    I’m keen to know what you and others in the IQS world feel about green juicing? Writers like Kris Carr have outlined the multitude of benefits in drinking green juice including alkalising your body and getting extra greens in an easy format.
    I understand the resistance to high fructose fruit juices, but am curious to hear your thoughts on green juice?

    [Reply]

    Lucinda Reply:

    Me too!

    [Reply]

    Sarah Wilson

    Sarah WilsonSarah Wilson Reply:

    green juices made mostly from leafy greens, with a little apple or kiwi or berries, is fine! So long as it’s only a little fruit, not 3 peices, going into it. Me, I prefer to eat whole. I do drink green smoothies – but I blend (ie I don’t extract the fibre).

    [Reply]

    Lucinda Reply:

    Thank you Sarah. I just want to clarify – by a “piece” of fruit, do you mean a *whole* apple, or a *whole*pear for example?

    rory robertson (former fattie) Reply:

    Good on you, Sarah. Keep on fighting the good fight. The intellectual tide is turning against sugary drinks in particular and sugar consumption in general, offering the prospect of an eventual downsizing of sugar’s massive damage to global health. As an example of the intellectual shift, the British Medical Journal last week published this feature: http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.e7800?etoc=

    Many also will have seen reports of an important Yale University study published earlier this month in a real scientific journal further documenting the damaging properties of fructose, the “Sweet Poison” half of added sugar: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-01/fructose-tied-to-obesity-as-study-shows-it-doesn-t-cut-appetite.html (For those who worry about the veracity of published science, I can at least confirm that the lead author in this case did not multi-task as the Guest Editor of the publishing journal.)

    Closer to home, the Heart Foundation finally has grabbed the right end of the stick on this matter. The big news in the Australian nutrition space in 2013 so far is that the previously pro-sugar Heart Foundation now is acknowledging that modern levels of sugar consumption are a serious health hazard (http://www.heartfoundation.org.au/news-media/Media-Releases-2013/Pages/time-rethink-sugary-drinks.aspx ).

    Yes, the Heart Foundation’s focus is explicitly on sugary softdrinks, but I think all of us – including Geoff Parker, CEO of the Australian Beverages Council – can agree that the main health hazard reflects the added sugar, not the added water or the added bubbles!

    Will the Heart Foundation’s next move be removing its (supposedly) healthy “Tick” from sugary breakfast cereals? After all, it makes no sense for the Heart Foundation to claim that the excess sugar in sugary softdrinks is a health hazard but the excess sugar in sugary breakfast cereal is deserving of a Heart Foundation “Tick”. I’m not saying that the Heart Foundation will be unprepared to maintain its new hopelessly inconsistent policy on sugar. We can only wait and see.

    Readers, stay tuned in 2013 for a further series of clumsy if overdue backflips on the status of sugar as a health hazard. One can hope that even the pro-sugar University of Sydney and Australian Diabetes Council finally will do the right thing.

    For the record, the University of Sydney’s Dr Alan Barclay – featured in the ACA report slamming Sarah and David Gillespie as know-nothings – has a dark cloud over his own scholarship – and that’s being kind – as a result of his co-authorship of the high-profile Australian Paradox paper that falsely claims to document a “consistent and substantial decline” in refined sugar consumption between 1980 and 2010 (http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/22Slideshowaustraliangoestoparadoxcanberrafinal.pdf ).

    That mistaken claim was unwittingly but bizarrely based on an Australian Bureau of Statistics sugar series that was discontinued as unreliable after 1998-99 (http://www.smh.com.au/national/health/research-causes-stir-over-sugars-role-in-obesity-20120330-1w3e5.html ).

    Extraordinarily, the four other measures of per-capita sugar consumption in the University of Sydney authors’ own published charts point up not down in the relevant timeframe (you can scroll down to those four charts in http://www.australianparadox.com ). Also extraordinarily, Dr Barclay’s prominent University of Sydney co-author multi-tasked as “Guest Editor” of the relevant pay-as-you-publish E-journal, assisting the original paper’s (shall we say) controversial publication. How’s that for credible quality control!

    More disturbing than the deeply flawed Australian Paradox paper has been the University of Sydney scientists’ incompetent-if-amusing efforts to defend the original “study” as flawless and its false claims as correct (http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/JBM-AWB-AustralianParadox.pdf ; http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/Update-AustralianParadox-Dec2012-27.pdf ).

    My personal favourite remains the authors’ made-up silly false claim that cars not humans were eating a big chunk of the available sugar via fast-growing-but-in-fact-sugar-free ethanol production (http://www.smh.com.au/business/pesky-economist-wont-let-big-sugar-lie-20120725-22pru.html ).

    Next best actually was the University of Sydney’s Deputy Vice Chancellor, Research – presumably the person in charge of overseeing academic and scientific integrity at the University – claiming that the Australian Paradox paper was subject to quality control involving “internationally accepted standard practice”, despite being aware that the lead author and the Guest Editor are the same person! (http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/Sept2012-Conversations.pdf )

    Now every time I hear the phrase “standard practice” I think of Dr Evil in the film Austin Powers describing his childhood as “Pretty standard really”. (Here it is at 1.21 minutes in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTJj4wbmAhk )

    Beyond Dr Barclay’s silly false Australian Paradox claim of “an inverse relationship” between sugar consumption and obesity – yep, eat more sugar, and get thinner – it’s interesting that Dr Barclay’s main job appears to be “Chief Scientific Officer” at the University of Sydney’s Glycemic Index Foundation (GIF; http://www.smh.com.au/national/health/research-causes-stir-over-sugars-role-in-obesity-20120330-1w3e5.html ).

    Indeed, Dr Barclay’s main role appears to be generating GIF revenues from food and beverage companies by stamping and promoting as “healthy” the consumption of low-GI sugar and other low-GI carbohydrates (pp 5-6 of http://www.foodhealthdialogue.gov.au/internet/foodandhealth/publishing.nsf/Content/D59B2C8391006638CA2578E600834BBD/$File/Resources%20and%20support%20for%20reformulation%20activities.pdf or search for “reformulating Barclay PhD”, and http://au.linkedin.com/pub/alan-barclay/5/378/a1a ]

    With the “sweet poison” half of sugar – fructose – having a super-low GI of 19 – readings of 55 and under are deemed “low” – the mounting evidence that sugar is a disaster for global health – http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html?pagewanted=all – is in turn a disaster for the University of Sydney pro-sugar low-GI business and its pro-sugar low-GI advocates. Viewers of ACA would have benefited from being told that Dr Barclay – to the extent that he enjoys prestige and income from his main job – has a strong incentive to insist that (i) sugar is not a particular problem and (ii) David Gillespie and Sarah do not have a clue.

    Dr Barclay’s other job is “head of research” at the Australian Diabetes Council (ADC). Whether Dr Barclay’s devotion to the public promotion of low-GI fructose and other sugary carbohydrates as healthy is consistent with the Australian Diabetes Council’s responsibility to provide Australians at risk of diabetes with competent health advice is an important issue. Former The New York Times science writer Gary Taubes’s tour-de-force Good Calories, Bad Calories (2008) – the gold-standard in terms of a multi-century history of nutrition science – suggests that a much, much healthier “low GI” diet – with a near-zero “Glycemic Load” – would feature meat, poultry, fish, eggs, cheese and green vegetables. That is, a healthy diet would ditch Dr Barclay’s GIF brands of sugar and other processed carbs (http://www.gisymbol.com/cmsAdmin/uploads/Glycemic-Index-Foundation-Healthy-Choices-Brochure.pdf ).

    In any case, my bottom line is that – with obesity and diabetes together (“diabesity”) the biggest public-health issue of our times – journalists at ACA and elsewhere need to be careful about featuring claims on “the science” from conflicted nutritionists and other “experts” without also disclosing any relevant financial relationships with the food industry. Ideally, journalists also would quote only those nutrition scientists with a strong record of competence and reliability.

    For the record, standard sugary Coca-Cola has a (low) GI reading of 53 whereas supposedly evil potatoes often prompt readings of 80 or more (http://www.glycemicindex.com/foodSearch.php ). Perhaps that’s one of the reasons why Dr Alan Barclay felt the need to defend sugary softdrinks both on ACA and in his deeply flawed Australian Paradox paper in a pay-as-you-publish E-journal journal that, in the process of maximising revenues, allows its lead authors and Guest Editors overseeing quality control to be the same person, and has no problem defending scientific findings unwittingly based on an ABS data series discontinued as unreliable a decade earlier (http://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/4/4/258 ).

    Importantly, from the perspective of those interested in the integrity of Australia’s publicly funded institutions, the University of Sydney’s formal and uncorrected view remains that “The [Australian Paradox] findings challenge the implicit assumption [including now by the Heart Foundation, Cancer Council Australia and Diabetes Australia, but not the separate ADC where Dr Barclay appears excessively influential] that …measures to reduce intake of [sugary] soft drinks will be an effective strategy in global efforts to reduce obesity” (p. 502 at http://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/3/4/491 ).

    Too bad that the Australian sugar industry’s attempt to rescue the deeply flawed Australian Paradox paper – note that the sugar industry is an important business partner in the University of Sydney co-authors’ GI operation – was spectacularly unsuccessful: http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/JBM-AWB-AustralianParadox.pdf

    But no-one should take any notice of me. According to Dr Alan Barclay on The Conversation website late last year, I’m just a criminal “Troll”: http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/Update-AustralianParadox-Dec2012-27.pdf .

    Perhaps David Driscoll – a regular and enthusiastic contributor to the sugar debate – could start – as a favour to his alma mater – to encourage his high-profile low-GI friends at the University of Sydney to correct their silly-and-somewhat-dangerous pro-sugar position. The Australian Beverages Council would not thank him or the University of Sydney for correcting the public record, but it would be a helpful step along the path to improved public health and towards rebuilding the University of Sydney’s scientific integrity.

    In the meantime, hats off to Sarah and David Gillespie for being key driving forces towards an eventual reversal of Australia’s obesity and diabetes uptrends.

    David Driscoll Reply:

    Oh, look Rory is here to continue his one trick pony act and turn this discussion into something about him.

    Let’s correct Rory on his poor research skills (once again!)

    Did you read the accompany study that went with the BMJ feature “Dietary sugars and body weight: systematic review and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials and cohort studies” http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.e7492

    The study categorised added sugars and found that increased sugar inatke resulted in weight gain, less sugar resulted in weight loss (consistent with what ‘the establishment has been saying for years). Note also that “Isoenergetic exchange of dietary sugars with other carbohydrates showed no change in body weight”. Oops, swapping fructose/sucorse for other carbs made no difference, the energy mattered!

    You may also want to read the actual Yale study in JAMA, they measured satiety, fullness and hunger and despite using massive doses of fructose or glucose, they could find no statistically significant difference between the groups – oops. You should read the science and not the news reports!

    You’re also buying into the ‘new position’ of the heart foundation re sugar sweetened beverages. Maybe some of your own research would show their actual position on it for YEARS, not to mention sugar intake in general has NOT changed! – http://davidgillespiesbigfatlies.com/117/australian-health-bodies-do-have-positions-on-sugar-and-they-all-suggest-reducing-intake/

    Once again even the slightest bit of research on your own part would show that I didn’t study at Sydney Uni – nice try Rory, but wrong again!

    Australian Paradox – yawn!

    Sarah and David are key driving forces to the Heart Foundation, Diabetes Australia and the Cancer Council for unifying their message re reducing sugar-sweetened beverage intake? Oh that’s right, your were told they didn’t have a position before and believed it without fact checking! More misinformation by Rory!

    Pity your false dichotomy leads your to think anyone who isn’t anti-/zero sugar is pro sugar – the world is much prettier in colour vs the black and white you seem to see in so many things!

    Ridiculous as always Rory

    David Driscoll Reply:

    Oh, look Rory is here to continue his one trick pony act and turn this discussion into something about him.

    Let’s correct Rory on his poor research skills (once again!)

    Did you read the accompany study that went with the BMJ feature “Dietary sugars and body weight: systematic review and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials and cohort studies” bmj.com/content/346/bmj.e7492

    The study categorised added sugars and found that increased sugar intake resulted in weight gain, less sugar resulted in weight loss (consistent with what ‘the establishment has been saying for years). Note also that “Isoenergetic exchange of dietary sugars with other carbohydrates showed no change in body weight”. Oops, swapping fructose/sucrose for other carbs made no difference, the energy mattered!

    You may also want to read the actual Yale study in JAMA, they measured satiety, fullness and hunger and despite using massive doses of fructose or glucose, they could find no statistically significant difference between the groups – oops. You should read the science and not the news reports!

    You’re also buying into the ‘new position’ of the heart foundation re sugar sweetened beverages. Maybe some of your own research would show their actual position on it for YEARS, not to mention sugar intake in general has NOT changed! – davidgillespiesbigfatlies.com/117/australian-health-bodies-do-have-positions-on-sugar-and-they-all-suggest-reducing-intake/

    Once again even the slightest bit of research on your own part would show that I didn’t study at Sydney Uni – nice try Rory, but wrong again!

    Australian Paradox – yawn!

    Sarah and David are key driving forces to the Heart Foundation, Diabetes Australia and the Cancer Council for unifying their message re reducing sugar-sweetened beverage intake? Oh that’s right, your were told they didn’t have a position before and believed it without fact checking! More misinformation by Rory!

    Pity your false dichotomy leads your to think anyone who isn’t anti-/zero sugar is pro sugar – the world is much prettier in colour vs the black and white you seem to see in so many things!

    Ridiculous as always Rory

  • Shayne

    All I can say is I chuckled when I had to sit through a 30 second KFC commercial before the video even started.

    [Reply]

    Sarah Wilson

    Sarah WilsonSarah Wilson Reply:

    really??? funny

    [Reply]

    Sarah Wilson

    Sarah WilsonSarah Wilson Reply:

    ha!!

    [Reply]

  • Murray

    Right on! I’m a Blueberry eater and love them as a treat. Most commercially available fruit has been stored for different periods of time so the nutrition value gets reduced and the sugar content increases. Our body’s need to align with nature. There is a season for certain fruits. If you buy them out of season, they’ve been turning into sugar bombs for months. Fruit needs to be eaten with the ‘packaging’ and not as juice. Organic doesn’t necessarily mean more nutritious, it just means grown without chemicals. Make sure your fruit comes from farms who rest their soil and use farming practices that support nutrition. There is no upside to sugar. take the commercial interests away and its pretty logical. Thanks for your work Sarah, fantastic!

    [Reply]

  • Ali

    Great article Sarah! I’ve cut sugar out of my diet with the exception of some berries in my morning breakfast smoothie. I make the smoothie with almond milk, ‘supergreens’ like spirulina and chlorella, some chia seeds and a handful of frozen berries. Berries are a wonderful source of antioxidants and as the few at brekky are the only fruit I eat all day (and the only sugar) I don’t feel too bad for eating them. I’m not surprised by the tv segment but I just wish people would do their own research on food/health/nutrition instead of accepting what they’re told without question. We’d have so many more healthy people!! I especially loved the quote about how having a glass of juice is pretty much the same as having a glass of coke! So true! I hope your message gets to a lot more people. Thanks for helping me in my quest for good health!

    [Reply]

  • Mardi

    I agree with Deanne! Although it does give us a good chuckle from time-to-time.
    My hubby and I (FF since August 2012) watched the segment last night and at the end just looked at each other and shook our heads.
    For the informed you could tell it was just a ‘cut-and-paste’ job and unfortunately ole` Barclay just gave the ill-informed an excuse not to persue a healthier way of life.
    But of course ACA producers will still sleep at night because they think they’ve provided a ‘balanced’ story!

    [Reply]

  • Ian

    Sarah… I was a fruitaholic until you introduced me to #IQS way back when. How long is it now? I thought eating bucket loads of fruit was good so I’d polish off 4-5 pieces a day plus have a glass of OJ.

    If I happened to be in Woolies and there was one of those “all fruit and only all fruit” drinks with cute branding I’d grab one of them too.

    Then I listened and read. Yes mostly that produced or referred to by SW Enterprises, and I say unashamedly. So I cut back my fruit intake.

    And I lost 4-5 kgs over 4-6 months. I was pretty happy about that outcome.

    I now eat fruit most days, but just a few strawberries or blueberries… But the yellow nectarines have been superb this season, so I’ve been tempted by them.

    And I don’t miss it… I nibble on walnuts and vegies…

    Positive change challenges and so there will always be opposition. Sugar is now being openly debated and discussed at dinner tables and around office water coolers. That’s gotta be a good thing.

    [Reply]

  • Ms Jane

    If I see Joanna McMillan Price espousing the virtues of eating yoghurt with 27g of sugar in it one more time I’m gonna SCREAM!!! Go Sarah xxx

    [Reply]

    Mia Bluegirl Reply:

    I feel exactly the same way when I see Zoe Bingsley-Pullin on tv flogging those weight-loss shake diets. These people bring shame upon their professions and should be humiliated in a town square somewhere, medieval style.

    Or at the very least NOT be allowed to call themselves nutritionists.

    [Reply]

    Ms Jane Reply:

    That just me made me snort with laughter!! Yes a “Game of Thrones” style retribution is definately called for!!

    [Reply]

    Fi Reply:

    I almost sobbed when I say Poh had hooked up with Celebrity Slim….

    Mia Bluegirl Reply:

    No, not Poh! Anyone but Poh! *sobs*

    Lissa Reply:

    I agree and I have to wonder who is funding her research too.

    [Reply]

    Lissa Reply:

    .. just to clarify, I wonder who is funding Joanna McMillan Price’s research.

    [Reply]

  • Andrew

    It would have been nice to be told about GIL on ACA.

    [Reply]

  • http://Www.ameliakumar.com Amelia Kumar

    Well said ! I always get funny looks from people when I say ‘no’ to my 5 y/o to bottled fruit juice..way too addictive for them aswell.

    [Reply]

  • Peta Osborne

    Hi Sarah,

    I can’t thank you and recommend your book more! I don’t care what anyone says! :)
    I started IQS in September after finding out I was fructose intolerant (I’ve never really liked fruit anyway so never ate too much of it so that made sense when I found that out)

    I’VE NEVER FELT BETTER!
    My bloating & stomach problems are completely gone, and as an added bonus everyone tells me I look fantastic and asks what I’ve been doing to lose the weight – I tell them I’m not on a diet I just don’t eat sugar, I eat more now and I never go hungry.

    Keep up the great work! x

    [Reply]

  • http://www.naturalnewagemum.com Sonia @ Natural New Age Mum

    ACA is probably not the best place to get advice on nutrition!

    [Reply]

    Nat Kringoudis Reply:

    Yeah ain’t that the truth!

    [Reply]

    Jo @ Shop Naturally Reply:

    Probably? ;)

    ACA is not the place to get any kind of advice about ANYTHING. They’re scaremongerers. Pure & Simple.

    [Reply]

  • http://hailtothenihilist.wordpress.com Hail To The Nihilist

    Acting skeptical of individuals for having vested interests is a bit rich, don’t you think Sarah? You are an ambassador for the MLA and have already been caught out quoting dubious facts; and you have financial interests in the anti-sugar industry–your book is spruiked by yourself and your fans like there is no tomorrow!

    Before people get too carried away I think they ought to do the scientific thing and attempt to falsify Sarah’s claims. I’m not particularly interested either way–I am an ethical vegan that eats a relatively low-fat diet, though not an affiliate to any particular diet or individuals. Go out there, read the works of dieticians and other scientists and be wary of claims against vested interests, broadcasted by people with vested interests.

    [Reply]

    rachel Reply:

    Sarah only gives advice as to what works for her. And others who have quit sugar (of which is a BIG problem in this country) have felt the benefits as well. She is only selling, what, one cookbook, of sugar and wheat free recipes, compared to the sugar cane industry, the beverages organisation and practically any company of which their food has significant sugar – they have billions invested in making sure that people are still addicted to the white stuff.

    [Reply]

    Mia Bluegirl Reply:

    I think everyone in this Sugar Wars debate has vested interests – be it selling a book, or ebook, or having your wages paid by food interest groups.

    While I’ve been vocally skeptical about Sarah’s ambassadorships in the past (actually, just the Jeep thing) I think she has a very good point when she says that only one half of this debate is being honest about where their interests lie. I find this intriguing as I know in the past she & David have been slammed by a “health expert” who turned out to have an involvement in Nestle.

    [Reply]

    Sarah Wilson

    Sarah WilsonSarah Wilson Reply:

    I don’t hide my vested interests and am always upfront in declaring what I’m paid for and who I’m an ambassador for…

    [Reply]

    David Driscoll Reply:

    Is that really true Sarah?
    davidgillespiesbigfatlies.com/212/sarah-wilson-hypocrisy-conflicts-of-interest-and-cheap-debating-tricks/

  • http://melbournenaturalfertility.com.au/ Nat Kringoudis

    Here’s what I reckon. Some people need to pull their heads out of their butts. Plain and simple. Every day, as a solo voice I have to educate people about the ill effects of sugar and they stare at me like I’ve two heads. I’m not even kidding! About time somebody with a beautiful strong voice put a rocket up em and some. Go you good thing. Soft-drink is a brilliant start.

    [Reply]

  • geraldine

    so Sarah- when you said ‘ whether you’re having it in fruit or having it in a soft drink, it’s all the same stuff ‘ are you just referring to high sugar fruits?
    (‘apples pears bananas and grapes’)

    low sugars fruits act differently in the body?

    [Reply]

    geraldine Reply:

    I wanted to add that I’m a bit perplexed by all this- to me your message was the same in both vid’s. Don’t eat high sugar fruits. (The ones you mentioned, I wrote above) So that quote about it being all the same stuff, I’m assuming you meant the really sugary fruits.
    So what’s the fuss about?

    [Reply]

    Mia Bluegirl Reply:

    I think the point was to be aware of how much sugar you are eating. People think fruit is natural so the sugar in it doesn’t count, but if you are watching your sugar intake, you need to be aware of ALL sources of it. Fructose is the same whether it it in a soft drink or in a piece of fruit, so be sure to include ALL of it when you are taking into account how much you actually eat.

    Some fruits are definitely better than others, but I like to be moderate about it. I dont eat fruit every day (I prefer veggies) so the odd banana or piece of dark chocolate or dollop of chili sauce is still doing to keep my weekly sugar intake nice and low. But if I do all this every day, plus sugary cereal plus sweetened yoghurt like a lot of people do, then that could be a problem. Does that make sense?

    [Reply]

    geraldine Reply:

    Hey Mia Bluegirl
    yes I did get that to be the point…and this is my point. I don’t see how she was misrepresented to the extent everyone here is expressing. Sarah put her point across to avoid the high sugar fruits pretty clearly, I didn’t walk away from watching thinking otherwise. She said to ‘avoid apples, pears bananas and grapes’ she didn’t say to avoid all fruit period. So I don’t get it. the fuss. I don’t think she came across as dissing all fruit.

    Mia Bluegirl Reply:

    Yeah, me neither! Although apparently some people took it that way.

    In my honest opinion, if I hadnt heard of Sarah before and was a bit naive about nutrition, I’d have noticed three things from that editing:

    - Shake diets are good (note Melinda is never seen with any actual food, just a countertop of supplements and shakes?)
    - Drink as much booze as you want
    - Fruit is full of sugar

    Of course there is no way I’d actually undertake those diet changes without doing my own research. But you would be surprised how many people do just that. I worked in customer care for a company who at one stage was also badly misrepresented on A Current Affair – trust me when I say, people really do want to believe what the tv tells them. Without questioning it or doing any research. It’s mind boggling how stupid people can be and how badly they want to be spoon-fed.

  • Emma

    ACA were out of context with the ‘report’ which was no surprise. I’ve read your book Sarah and the information is factual and very useful. Thank you

    [Reply]

  • Kristy Marrone

    Interesting how they supported your cause originally and then use your words against you!!!

    [Reply]

  • Rachel Fry

    Sarah, I have been following your blog for a few months now and have given up sugar and feel great for it! I appreciate your openness and transparency and feel that as long as you are honest and truly helping others then not too much else matters. Anyone truly ready to make better choices for themselves will do thorough research and find the same answers you have found. Thank you.

    [Reply]

  • http://Neenjackson.com Neen

    Well ACA is hardly known for its accurate journalism. I just find it interesting that people can watch shows like that and not question the motive of the people being interviewed! ‘Nutrionists love sugar! They’re always promoting flavoured yoghurts, up and go and cans of flavoured tuna. they’re paid a hefty sum for doing so no doubt.

    [Reply]

  • http://www.secretsocietea.com Secret Societea

    As soon as I saw this story and heard about it on the radio – straight away I thought to myself.. okay the fruit/sugar industry is behind all this. Clearly there profits have taken a nose dive and now they are on the firing line at yourself and David. The problem is there is so much misconception/persuasive marketing out there promoting what is ‘healthy’ consumers are just down right confused. Different companies and industries have there bottom line to protect and unfortunately consumers are the ones who lose out.

    [Reply]

  • http://achievetheimpossiblecoach.blogspot.ca/ Natalia

    This is an outstanding article about misconceptions of healthy eating. As one of my friends always says: ‘I don’t know who to believe anymore” because it seems that messages about healthy food are always twisted around. I found it very interesting that things like dried fruit are full of sugar and should be eaten as a treat. Thanks so much for this!

    [Reply]

  • Sophie

    Sarah I appreciate you mentioning the fruit juice topic. My 4 yr old daughter had a cup of fruit juice just yesterday and she had become this little devil child later on that afternoon. (She is usually so delightful and pleasant) So I’m thinking the sugar drinks (and food) + kids = not nice children (put nicely)
    Is that why we have ‘naughtier’ kids these days??? And maybe a lot more short tempered, violent kiddies..?

    [Reply]

    rachel Reply:

    Sophie juice has just as much sugar as a can of coke. If your daughter is thirsty she will drink water or milk. If she doesn’t want either of those, then she’s not thirsty. Don’t bring any more juice into the house and replace it with a couple of slices of apple or orange instead (the way nature intended for you, and your children, to eat fruit).

    [Reply]

    Liz Reply:

    Sophie – there was an article last year in a NY Times parenting blog, where the writer was covering the topic of children and snacks/snacking, and the modern day ‘need’ for kids to be constantly eating. She related the story of taking her 6-year old daughter to a Christmas party for kids at a friend’s house. Before they arrived she was her normal happy self. By the time they left (and she had to drag her daughter crying to the waiting taxi) she was a mess and all she had eaten at the party was decorate your own cupcakes/cookies, pizza, and juice. I’m not a parent (yet) but that really gave me pause for thought. While the blog wasn’t on sugar (more about snacking), it was interesting.

    [Reply]

  • http://theunnester.blogspot.com/ Amanda

    I’m with you, girl! Totally in love with your blog.

    Just know, people will always defend their ‘habits.’ It’s up to them to soak in what you are telling them.

    To me, its just simple common sense that fruit juice has sugar just like any soda out there. Not to mention it rots out childrens teeth on a regular basis. Hmmm?

    Glad you are putting this stuff out there! And I’m certainly hoping it clicks with more people because I am in a HUGE BATTLE every day beause I don’t eat sugar or flour either :) I’m low-carb not paleo though. I feel 1 million percent better when I cut out sugar. No argument about that at all.

    [Reply]

  • http://www.lifecommaetc.com Sarah Greesonbach

    I think… that you are awesome! I have never, ever felt mislead by your information or your account of your personal experience. Such a shame they would try to take that away!

    [Reply]

  • Kristy

    I think you are very inspiring Sarah and you have single-handedly changed my life for the better. I adore your writing, your honesty, your humour and your recipes. Your blog is my go-to.

    However, I couldn’t help but be disappointed that you even appeared on ACA in the first place. It surprised me as I couldn’t have thought of a worse platform in which to spread the IQS message.

    The show is known for its shifty techniques, bias and scare tactics. Your IQS message was always going to be viewed by the ACA masses as another extreme ‘weight loss’ diet instead of the amazing wellness message it is. The show was always going to run a counter story to discredit you. It is what they do.

    [Reply]

    rachel Reply:

    To be fair she also did 60 minutes – whether ACA took her footage from her 60 minutes story, I don’t know.

    [Reply]

    Sara Reply:

    And to be fair again it’s an almost unparalleled platform to reach the masses. Yes, there’s bound to be bias but chances are her original story got a decent chunk of people to consider her message and look into it.

    [Reply]

  • Michelle

    Hi Sarah,
    A current affair taking you out of context is just bad bad bad. i have cut out all added sugar and only have 2 serves of fruit a day (blueberries on home made muesli plus one other) and i have never been stronger or leaner or had more energy. And i use no natural sweeteners or artificial either. i go to the gym and i started a running program last year, as well as working, volunteering and painting the outside and renovating a house (and i turned 50!) the People say to me ” oh but we all need some sugar in our diet for health”. I explain that sugar occurs naturally in foods and you don’t need added sugar, or much fruit at all. i have also cut out just about any processed foods (so i’m not getting all those additives). A big concern to me is what preschool aged children have in their lunch boxes (i visit children in childcare as part of my work), even the ‘healthy’ lunchbox may have 2 large peices of fruit, a flavoured yoghurt, maybe some sultanas, a sandwich (possibly white bread), some biscuit or crackers and a juice and some water. These are little tiny children and yet they have adult servings of fruit which is way too much, the yoghurt is full of sugar, and the juice and often the bread and biscuits too, the dried fruit full of sugar. And these are parents trying to do the right thing for their child’s nutrition. We need a really good accurate national health education program to educate Australians on what is actually a healthy diet, so parents can be empowered with the knowledge.

    [Reply]

    Lissa Reply:

    Also check out Robert Lustig’s work on childhood obesity and fructose Michelle if you haven’t already.

    [Reply]

    David Driscoll Reply:

    While Dr Lustig’s theories and evidence may seem convincing to the general public and reporters, the real test is how well he performs with his fellow scientists!

    He was certainly called out for overstating the evidence and poorly extrapolating rat research at a conference he spoke at earlier in the year – check out the Q and A video in the attached article by David Despain (as well as the other lectures)!

    http://evolvinghealthscience.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/sugar-showdown-science-responds-to.html for a full review and links to all lectures – if not just watch the Q and A at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypWe6npULUQ and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnGhfX2yaU4

    What research shows that it is fructose that causes addiction? At the Q and A at the Sugar Symposium, Dr Lustig was called out on this and one researcher showed that rats liked glucose based carbohydrates over sucrose, and another questioned the applicability of rat research to be extrapolated to humans!

    Also a recent rat studied suggests that it might be the sweet taste and NOT the fructose (as they used an artificial sweetener) although the article title gets it wrong also!
    http://www.health.msn.co.nz/healthnews/8582942/sugar-as-addictive-as-cocaine-nicotine

    The major issue with Dr Lustig’s theory is looking at US Sugar intake over history – levels were still high in the early 20th century – so saying it is sugar is either an oversimplification or there is a threshold value that we have recently crossed. Methinks that it is a perfect storm of more sugar and less burning it up with physical activity!

    http://davidgillespiesbigfatlies.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/sugar-intake-20th-century.jpg

    [Reply]

  • Debra

    Great post and response to them…yikes! I eat super healthy but can not get rid of the bloat or belly. So, you and some of the comments above have inspired me to give fruit the boot for 6 weeks. I’m super excited.
    One (probably sounds stupid) question: when you or others say “piece” of fruit do you mean “serving”…for example a serving of apple is maybe one small apple, but a piece of apple is maybe 1/6 of an apple.

    [Reply]

  • Amanda Frey

    Just read ‘the Paleo Answer’ by Dr L. Cordain, I personally now prefer to eat whole fresh low GI fruit only – berries, grapefruit, half a peach per day; half a plum; lemon, lime, avocado – 2 or 3 pieces a day or about one and half cup I guess; I was eating large amounts of fruits, sweeteners, etc for most of my life to great detriment to gut and general health. It’s easy to make pumpkin (squash) bread with sweet butternut pumpkin, almond meal, few other ingredients; simple, sweet and no fruit! a special treat only, as breads/cakes should not be part of every day eating (my opinion) of course. stick with whole fruits. Lots of vegetables every day like Sarah; Sarah you look great!

    [Reply]

    Lissa Reply:

    Amanda, the following website is also very interesting too:
    http://www.primalbody-primalmind.com/?page_id=1260

    [Reply]

  • Amanda Frey

    Oh, grains, legumes, dairy also can make is bloated and damage the intestinal lining!

    [Reply]

  • Miche

    We should send ACA a big fruit basket!

    [Reply]

    Sophie Reply:

    Hahaha! Hilarious response Miche. Good call.

    [Reply]

  • Sara

    Good old Aca. I’ve had thm do a story on my business and the attention to detail was pretty much non-existent. So much wrong info even though I had everything for them. Was still very positive for me but still I was surprised how much they got wrong.

    Just a quick question though- I thought bananas were quite low in fructose (compared to other fruit). Can anyone point me to their fructose content as the website I used says they’re lower than kiwi and strawberries.

    [Reply]

    C Reply:

    The banana thing confuses me too, I’m on FODMAPs and bananas are fine. Habing said that, recommended serve of all fruit in one day is 1-2 low fructose fruits.
    So, some blueberries and a small (not too ripe) banana, small orange or one kiwi is my limit. If I stick to that, & no other fructose foods and no sugar (of any kind) I feel much better- bloating, IBS symptoms etc.
    I’ve replaced fruit ‘snacks’ with carrot sticks, capsicum cut up and cherry tomatoes. Same vitamins and healthy snack but I do notice a big difference in my IBS. Actually, when I limit sugar I actually find I snack much much less.

    on ACA…is anyone surprised? I think everyone should actively switch off this program- their reporting standards are woeful, their content frequently verges on intolerance and is basically ‘shock jock’ TV. Frequent segments promote fear, particularly with respect to migrants/refugees & ‘advertorials’ dominate content. Not good for our brains or our community!

    [Reply]

    Sara Reply:

    Thanks for that, C! Lots of conflicting info on what fruits are high sugar and what are not. I think you have used the magic words though – not too ripe. That makes sense! Actually I’ve never been a huge fruit eater anyway but every once in a while if I’m hungry and I don’t have a savoury snack handy I grab a nana.

    Since I was a young child I’ve had issues with sugar as has my Dad but back then ‘sugar’ was just the added stuff. After almost 40 years of dealing with it (well, much longer but he wasn’t tested until his 40s) Dad has finally clued onto the problem with his overconsumption of fruit, cut back and now no longer suffers migraines. IQS spelled it out for him (Sarah convinced him of what I couldn’t!)

    Aca – you said it my friend.

    [Reply]

  • http://davidgillespiesbigfatlies.com/ David Driscoll

    Sarah, once again – you have misrepresented the research – The explanation is clear, so I’m not sure how yourself and David Gillespie keep getting it wrong!

    Your quote ” I make the point over and over, based on the only comprehensive research I’ve found (by the American Heart Foundation):

    we are only able to handle 6-9 teaspoons of sugar a day. Which is about the amount contained in 2-3 pieces of low-fructose fruit.”

    The American Heart Association states in their paper (found at circ.ahajournals.org/content/120/11/1011.full.pdf) in the abstract is says “A prudent upper limit of intake is half of the discretionary calorie allowance, which for most American women is no more than 100 calories per day and for most American men is no more than 150 calories per day from added sugar”

    You both continue to claim that this is a statement about sugar or fructose levels – it is NOT! Please read the actual paper and you will see that it is merely a percentage of discretionary calories! It doesn’t refer to how much our body can handle – looking at the table 5 shows and active males 21-25 being allowed 18tsp of sugar AS PART OF DISCRETIONARY CALORIE ALLOWANCE!

    I would also ask why this is the only comprehensive research that you can find? Have you read lots of other papers (including all of the ones supporting this one) and decided that the research is high quality or do you just like the low sugar message and fudge the rest?

    Will address you conspiracy theories later, but not that yourself and David have also made plenty from the anti-fructose industry – should that raise a few red flags too?

    [Reply]

    Mia Bluegirl Reply:

    Same American Heart Foundation that put approval ticks on chicken McNuggets?

    [Reply]

    David Driscoll Reply:

    Sarah used them as an authority to support her premise – did you mean to undermine them – oops ;-)

    [Reply]

    Mia Bluegirl Reply:

    They put approval ticks on McDonalds products and high sugar cereals for crying out loud. Both sides of this debate should be held accountable. I agree with Sarah’s stance on sugar cos it has worked for me, but I strongly disagree with using the Heart Foundation to do it.

    No oops about it :)

    David Driscoll Reply:

    You disagree with using the Heart Foundation to support your personal experience? Sarah said that ” the only comprehensive research I’ve found (by the American Heart Foundation)” – so you want to trash the research, not based on its merits or contents – only because of other actions of the same group. So the research isn;t true then?

    David Gillespie also relies heavily on misrepresenting this paper to justify his claims – my point is that if you think it is good enough to quote, – actually read it and quoting in honestly and in full!

    Mia Bluegirl Reply:

    You must be new here. I question everything.

    However if I have this wrong, then please correct me. Where can a layperson with no nutritional credentials like myself go to verify the authenticity of a nutritional study?

    If I cannot call into question the integrity of the company who funded the study in the first place, then what else can I go on? (I’m not being sarcastic for once, this is an actual question.)

    I agree with you about not quoting the full study, though. My point was why you would use that particular study in the first place. Perhaps I should have made that comment separately, and not as a response to your comment. My bad.

    David Driscoll Reply:

    “However if I have this wrong, then please correct me. Where can a layperson with no nutritional credentials like myself go to verify the authenticity of a nutritional study?”

    Compare it to all of the other studies or find review studies that do it for you. Here are some examples (Cochrane Collaboration is one great soruce – if not go to pubmed and search reveiw articles as I did here)

    Metabolic Effects of Fructose and the Worldwide Increase in Obesity

    http://physrev.physiology.org/content/90/1/23.long

    Health implications of fructose consumption: A review of recent data

    http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/pdf/1743-7075-7-82.pdf

    Effect of fructose on body weight in controlled feeding trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22351714

    The Effects of Fructose Intake on Serum Uric Acid Vary among Controlled Dietary Trials

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3327749/pdf/nut14200916.pdf

    Effect of fructose on blood pressure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled feeding trials

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22331380

    Role of fructose-containing sugars in the epidemics of obesity and metabolic syndrome

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22034869

    Evidence-based review on the effect of normal dietary consumption of fructose on blood lipids and body weight of overweight and obese individuals

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21108071

    Fructose toxicity: is the science ready for public health actions

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22617566

    Review article: fructose in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22469071

    ‘Catalytic’ doses of fructose may benefit glycaemic control without harming cardiometabolic risk factors: a small meta-analysis of randomised controlled feeding trials

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3411192/pdf/S000711451200013Xa.pdf

    Effect of fructose on glycemic control in diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled feeding trials.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22723585

    “If I cannot call into question the integrity of the company who funded the study in the first place, then what else can I go on? (I’m not being sarcastic for once, this is an actual question.)”

    The results and how they compare to other research – you can’t just dismiss research based on the sponsor (just should be monitored more closely) or if you don’t like their stand on something else eg tick program. Also note that a literature review isn’t a study but a review of existing literature, so it is a bit harder to ‘corrupt’ the data. If you look in the journals, large errors are usually addressed in letters to the editor – called out by other scientists (and usually referred to via pubmed) in the months following publication.

    ” My point was why you would use that particular study in the first place. Perhaps I should have made that comment separately, and not as a response to your comment. My bad.”

    Because it is the closest either David or Sarah can come to having support for their theory, hence supporting it.

  • David Driscoll

    Sarah used them as an authority to support her premise – did you mean to undermine them ;-)

    [Reply]

    K Reply:

    David, is this your blog? http://davidgillespiesbigfatlies.com/138/so-are-you-theres-nothing-wrong-with-eating-sugar-so-we-can-eat-as-much-sugar-as-we-want/

    [Reply]

    Kris Reply:

    Oh this explains it all. Here is a guy blinded by science. A man who doesn’t yet know that sometimes (and unfortunately quite often) science gets it wrong. And a person who hasn’t twigged that stats and research can be manipulated to prove whatever you want to prove. I prefer an open mind and experience. But whatever floats his boat!! :)

    [Reply]

    K Reply:

    Yes, I had a quick look too.

    No offence to him, but I always draw the conclusion that information is less trustworthy if the spelling and grammar are poor.

    Hail To The Nihilist Reply:

    Hold up, Kris. It sounds like you’re scrutinising David Driscoll for his use of science. “Oh science. It doesn’t get everything right. Therefore you ought to be sketpical of it!” INDEED! Sarah too uses science to support her arguments, therefore she too deserves the same scrutiny!

    David Driscoll Reply:

    Hi Kris, pity you couldn’t argue about anything that I’ve actually talked about, so in order to try an insert yourself you’ve made up a statement and then starting arguing against that.

    Since you obviously missed high school debating, that logical fallacy is called a strawman. I never said that science doesn’t get it wrong, nor that stats can’t be manipulated – but note that Sarah quoted this study and qualified the level of evidence – it was I who merely pointed out that she mis-quoted it (to which you seem to have no comment!)

    Regardless of how fallible science is, it is still the best tool for discerning evidence that we have. If you could look outside your own little bubble, you would find that every claim and experience here could be replicated elsewhere with a similar anecdote.

    Why not look up a few fruitarian websites and show us how obese they are and are all dying of cancer diabetes etc? Why are your anecdotes more valid than others?

    If you feel like actually discussing a topic, go ahead, but try a bit harder than putting words in my mouth and then trying to debunk them – it is a bit childish!

    Mary Reply:

    http://www.fairdinkuminternetmarketing.com.au/ is also David’s website. Are you a Dietician or someone who flogs domain names on a cheap-arse Word Press install website? I’m a tad confused.

    David, there are many professionals who disagree with dietary theroies. They all have degrees and have different research and test results.

    We understand you’re on the other side. You, on the other hand, seem to think that only your side is correct. What a narrow minded petty little man you are.

    [Reply]

    Hail To The Nihilist Reply:

    “What a narrow minded petty little man you are” – This doesn’t sound like the language of a person with a rock-solid, defensible position either.

    David Driscoll Reply:

    Wow, you have all learned well from Sarah. An inability to argue on science or evidence is replied with ad hominem attacks. Trying to discredit the witness without listening to their testimony, wonder where you could have learned that??!!

    David Driscoll Reply:

    I’m a dietitian, could you not discern that from the website? No wonder you are struggling so much with this topic then!

    There are many theories that disagree …. I’d love for you to refer me to some of these studies, maybe just the ones that support your theories, because the ones Sarah quotes DON’T!

    My side is based on research Mary, when the research supports you theories, you will see a number of people change their thinking as I have on a number of topics such as meal frequency, saturated fat, acute hormone levels and resistance training but to name a few.

    Mary Reply:

    David, I’m sure you’re a deititian, just not good enough of one to be doing it as your full time career. While I’d love to point out some of the studies I’m referring to, I actually have a life and have better things to do with my time than to argue with a sad troll on a Sunday evening. If you want to spend your life arguing with an audience who obviously don’t agree with you, knock yourself out. You’re boring me to tears now. I’m going to get back to my family now.

    David Driscoll Reply:

    ” just not good enough of one to be doing it as your full time career.”

    Could be my choice – since I have other qualifications, but feel free to keep making up facts!

    ” While I’d love to point out some of the studies I’m referring to, I actually have a life and have better things to do”

    Surprise surprise! Bluff called

    David Driscoll Reply:

    Yes, did you read any of it?

    [Reply]

    Kris Reply:

    Hmmm… if David and Hail could stop trolling long enough they may just see we’re all on the same side. Encouraging people to eat less processed foods and getting back to whole real foods. They could even work with Sarah and David! Oh if only!!
    If it works for people to eat minimal to no fructose (and it does work for many people) so be it. If Sarah and David have convinced people to eat minimal to no fructose and improve their lives so be it. There is noone from politicians to pharmaceutical companies to government departments to leading scientists who don’t use ‘research’ to prove their points. Sarah and David have done what all of these people do. They have used their interpretations of what they’ve read and what they’ve experienced to share their ideas and beliefs with others.
    Perhaps David and Hail should try Sarah’s 8 week plan. It may just improve their ‘aggression issues’. Which leads me to the aggression…. If Sarah and David are doing what all people do (including Dr Barclay!) what motivation is there for this aggression aimed at them? Perhaps Sarah and David have attacked David and Hail at some point? No? Perhaps they have a personal issue with Sarah and David? Perhaps they are jealous because people respect Sarah and David and are grateful to them for making real positive changes in their lives (me included!!)?
    Hide behind your interpretations of ‘science’ if you must. Continue to persecute Sarah and David if it gives you pleasure. Just know that those of us who are living on our new low to no sugar diets are blissfully happy with our new lives and nothing you can spit at us or David or Sarah can undo our happiness and our health.
    As Mary said ‘you’re boring us’ with your rants and we have minimal sugar fabulous lives and families to get back to.
    Hope your fury keeps you warm at night! :)

    David Driscoll Reply:

    Kris look above and at almost any David Gillespie interview and note they like to establish themselves different from the establishment. It’s part of what makes it ‘newsworthy’. Cut down sugar intake has been a message for 20 years, sugar is a toxic poison thus must be eliminated is much a better news and headline!

    When you constantly need to call into question the integrity of large National health advisory bodies as well as individuals – then maybe you can understand why they can’t get along?

    “Sarah and David have done what all of these people do. They have used their interpretations of what they’ve read and what they’ve experienced to share their ideas and beliefs with others.”

    No they do what salespeople do – try to represent the limited research they quote as the most reputable and majority. Did you even read the study to see how it DOESN’T say what Sarah said? And she said it was the best evidence.

    Perhaps, perhaps …. more made-up situations to distract from speaking on topic! Really is strawman central here. Keep telling me what my motivation is, how I wish everyone ill health and want them to change their lifestyle – if you can’t debate on topic – make one up that you can! Then need to ‘join in’ must be strong here?

    Why not just read the study and show me how YOU interpret it? It is pretty cut and dry with regards to what it says – why the sugar recommendations are there, how they change with activity, how they DON’T represent sugar as being unique and how they refer to ALL added sugars, not just fructose-containing ones.

    The irony of many here getting personal with those who oppose their views and experiences, after Sarah got personal in the same way (as opposed to speaking about evidence) and then asking why are people getting personal with David and Sarah (let alone using their best creative writing skills to explain it) is golden!

  • http://davidgillespiesbigfatlies.com/ David Driscoll

    While telling people that you aren’t misleading them – you may also want to note that the AHA guidelines apply to all added sugars – so using what you call a ‘safe sugar alternative like glucose’ or following David Gillespie’s ridiculous recommendations of replacing with dextrose, actually goes against the guidelines (which has more information on their website) here is the relevant section “Is the American Heart Association taking a position for or against certain types of added sugars (e.g., raw sugar, high-fructose corn syrup and non-nutritive sweeteners)?

    The AHA hasn’t taken a position on different types of added sugars, but we will continue to assess the science on this topic and any relevance to the impact on cardiovascular disease.”

    http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/NutritionCenter/HealthyDietGoals/Frequently-Asked-Questions-About-Sugar_UCM_306725_Article.js

    [Reply]

    Annie Reply:

    David,
    Sarah Wilson has (if you read the comments on this blog) helped many, many, many people with her messages about reducing sugar in our diets and eating healthier, real, whole foods. You will also notice that each person takes her (and David’s) advice and adapts it to fit with their lifestyles, food intolerances and personal beliefs. In doing so they have improved their lifestyles (physically, mentally, emotionally and healthwise) and dare I say perhaps their life spans and health longevity. Can I ask you, David Driscoll, how you help others? I wonder if you have tried Sarah’s I Quit Sugar program? If you had, I wonder if you perhaps would find the same benefits we all have.

    Sarah,
    Thank you, Sarah. For persevering with getting this message out there to those of us willing to listen and give it a try. You have made a massive difference to my health and my life. Wishing you the strength to accept those who choose to undermine as opposed to offering constructive criticism or even enter into positive, interesting debate. You are a gem, Sarah.

    [Reply]

    David Driscoll Reply:

    So instead of talking on topic you would like to discredit or question me? Why can’t we just talk about the evidence? Character assassination works well against Dr Barclay, did you think to apply any of these questions to him or just enjoying joining in on the ‘bash the establishment’? How many people have taken his advice and improved their life (or other professionals who don’t believe fructose is a poison) etc etc

    Nutritionists have been telling people to reduce sugar intake for decades, why don’t they get any credit? Lots of other diet books (with opposing views), have similar success stories, so why is this one so compelling? Go and have a look on the Tony Ferguson board, lots of people there having success, despite drinking fructose-based meal replacements!

    I have enough experience and skill to know that the method I use to drop bodyfat doesn’t work for everyone and thus tailor my messages to suit the individual. I don’t become a zealot based on my experience and then attempt to discredit much better qualified people who actually have the discipline and skill to base their practice on evidence or have other experience!

    I have no issue with anyone trying any diet they want. Just don’t misrepresent the research and imply or (in David Gillespie’s case and Sarah’s in this article) state directly that those people who oppose do it because they aren’t up with the research or have vested interests that guide them.

    My point here is Sarah get’s the basic research wrong – maybe that is why people oppose here, not to mention her extreme views on fructose.

    If you note my only objection here (and previously) has been her misrepresenting or cherry-picking research!

    [Reply]

    Annie Reply:

    I don’t attempt to character assasinate or discredit anyone. I merely noted that Sarah and David are helping people. I also pointed out that your overzealous “objections” are not helpful to anyone. As I said, I encourage constructive criticism and interesting debate. I would be very interested to hear about the research you have done and your knowledge on the topic as I have been interested to hear Sarah and David’s. What I don’t condone or appreciate is aggressive attacks on others who are helping people nor upon myself. I do wonder why your points are being so “aggressively” made? Surely there are better ways to engage in the sugar debate?

    I am also very confused by people so aggressively defending fructose. I haven’t read anything which indicates that reducing your intake of fructose to minimal levels and having up to a couple of pieces of fruit each day can actually hurt anyone? Please let me know if I’m wrong? And yet, people seem to get so upset when others say that it has helped them in the ways I have already mentioned.

    Misrepresenting or cherry-picking research may be a pet hate of yours but please don’t attack Sarah and David so aggressively when the ‘big picture’ message they are trying to spread is so important and so helpful. Help others by offering your knowledge in a ‘helpful’ way.

    David Driscoll Reply:

    “I merely noted that Sarah and David are helping people.”

    But yet you wouldn’t acknowledge that anyone else was or call foul on Dr Barclay’s (or other opposing dietitians) treatment above! Couldn’t they have good intentions too that should be considered?

    ” I would be very interested to hear about the research you have done and your knowledge on the topic as I have been interested to hear Sarah and David’s.”

    Sure thing – start here, I show you how to do the research and don’t ask that you just take my word for it – http://davidgillespiesbigfatlies.com/200/latest-fructose-research-part-1/ it provides links to 11 recent review studies about fructose from 2010-2012 i.e. they review all of the past research, compare, contrast and put it into perspective.

    “What I don’t condone or appreciate is aggressive attacks on others who are helping people nor upon myself.”

    And I didn’t appreciate Sarah or David’s attacks on anyone that opposes their view, including the one above!

    “I do wonder why your points are being so “aggressively” made? Surely there are better ways to engage in the sugar debate?”

    People have tried that in the past and failed – hence I am merely ‘returning serve’. Please reread the above article and consider the tone directed at Dr Barlclay and opposing dietitians – of which I am one and then consider if it is only I that is being aggressive!

    “I am also very confused by people so aggressively defending fructose.”

    That logical fallacy is called a strawman. Saying something isn’t as bad as someone else says isn’t the same as saying they support it or encourage its use (despite the way they are portrayed). Dietitians and health professionals have been trying to get people to decrease sugar intakes for decades.

    “I haven’t read anything which indicates that reducing your intake of fructose to minimal levels and having up to a couple of pieces of fruit each day can actually hurt anyone? ”

    Another strawman, no one is saying that it is. It is the attacks on people research abilities, knowledge and ethics/morals that is being objected to as well as the mispreresentation of the research, as it doesn;t support David or Sarah’s position either!

    Please admit that some of the appeal of this ‘method’ is going against the grain, sticking it to all of those dietitians and know-it-all professors, going against the big organisations like the Heart Foundation, Diabetes Australia and thinking that you have information that most don’t have! classic anti-establishment thinking!

    “And yet, people seem to get so upset when others say that it has helped them in the ways I have already mentioned.”

    As mentioned above, this isn’t unique to YOUR group. A dietitians speaks out against some aspects of veganism, they get slammed with the same arguments, then against extreme paleo diets, same response, another ‘pet’ diet – its devotees respond the same. The only thing all of these diets have in common is the trained professional in the middle trying to be reasonable and adapt it to the general population who aren’t all that motivated, is ALWAYS wrong! Go to Facebook and type in any diet and look at the devotees! NOw ask why your position is unique or should take priority over others? Wheat Belly has many times more likes than David’s Gillespie’s Facebook page, so maybe we should just focus on poison wheat?

    If David and Sarah just say that it is their experience plus that of others and leave it at that, there probably wouldn’t be an issue. But that doesn’t get you on TV, in newspapers, on radio and your books sold. You have to say everyone has it wrong, it is a conspiracy a coverup and anyone who actually knows the science, knows the truth!

    “please don’t attack Sarah and David so aggressively when the ‘big picture’ message they are trying to spread is so important and so helpful. ”

    I’ll quote John Rambo “They drew first blood, not me!”

    Annie Reply:

    David
    You are a very angry man (not my fault you’re angry by the way). You are also not listening to my message. I respectfully agree to disagree with your methods of information sharing and decline to engage in any further conversation with you. As a famous chef said this week, I hope your mother isn’t reading this. If I were your mother, I’d be ashamed of the way you are speaking to people you really know nothing to very little about. Goodbye.

    David Driscoll Reply:

    Well that must make two not listening, your double standards for manners are only matched by your poor psychic ability, I’m actually laughing at your post as you talk about me talking about people who I know very little about!

    Sara Reply:

    David, your link to the AHA doesn’t work. Not trying to inflame, I’d actually like ot read it!

    I will point out though I don’t actually see Sarah’s views as opposing other diets. I actually think a lot of them work well together and I have yet to see Sarah criticise other diets (she in fact is very favourable to Paleo and certainly Wheat Belly would be up there with her given her gluten issues) so I’m unsure where the idea that she and David G “say everyone has it wrong”. That has never been the impression I have been given and in fact she takes great pains to say ‘just try it for yourself, don’t take my word for it. I’m just sharing what I’ve found to work for me’. And I do, with the healthy scepticism she encourages. I cannot speak to David G as I have not read his book.

    David M Driscoll Reply:

    Just gooogle American heart association and sugar or the title of the paper “Dietary sugars intake and cardiovascular health: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association” = sorry but links need to be moderated and sometimes don’t get approved

  • Lisa Ingram

    What is it with people and making up rubbish rules?! I was a vego for 20 years (now I eat fish too) and I remember more than one person asking me “what are you allowed to eat?” What? I’m “allowed” to eat whatever I want! Goodness, so IQS advocates sometimes eat fruit. Oh, that must prove quitting sugar is a hoax perpetuated by wrong-uns! Spot the logical syllogism. Thank goodness for Sarah and my IQS e book. Lisa

    [Reply]

  • http://davidgillespiesbigfatlies.com/ David Driscoll

    Finally got through the rest of your ridiculous and inconsistent rant!

    “It baffles many why a scientist or dietician would be so hell-bent on slamming people like me who argue we shouldn’t be eating so much sugar. ”

    Yet you could be accused of exactly the same thing. His core messages in the interveiww were “If we are just saying avoid or eat less added sugar, not a problem” and “Eating better quality food and less of it and be more physically active” and yet you choose to demonise him and his message? Then you accuse anyone who oppose your extreme position as having a vested interest?

    “It seems an odd thing to get fired up about if you’re engaged in nutrition, no? ”

    Why are you hell bent on slamming people who have the same ‘eat less sugar’ as you do? You attest any difference to a conspiracy?

    “FYI: This is an interesting read about the mis-information that the “low-GI crew” spread.”

    Once again attacking a group that is trying to get people to eat better? Why? And maybe you should be more up to date on the Australian Paradox debate, because since Rory’s questions have been answered, we haven’t heard much from him?

    http://www.theaustralianparadox.com.au/answers.php

    Seems your research skills may be lacking once again!

    “we read up on research around the world, and now we’re sharing the information and our personal experiences.”

    No, you are calling into question anyone who opposes you. You don’t know the science, you ignore most of it and misrepresent much of the rest – as shown above and below!!!

    “They’re an interesting trio behind the campaign. I’ve commented on the sugar-vested companies that sponsor these organisations before here. And so I guess I’m sitting back thinking, if I had to wade into the anti-sugar debate and didn’t want to get my feet too grubby, what would I do? I know! I’d target something that most people agree is bad – soft drink – which might just give me license to push more seductive messages later…like “sugar in moderation is OK”.”

    So once again you are “hell-bent on slamming people like me who argue we shouldn’t be eating so much sugar”, you couldn’t maintain your insincere reasonable position even within the one blog post!

    Before you question why these groups are targeting sugar sweetened beverages, consider the main source of sugar in people’s diets, the fact that hey have had this message for A LONG TIME and finally you might want to read that document that you claimed was “based on the only comprehensive research I’ve found”. Here’s what it says about liquid calories vs solid “Both lean and obese adults responded similarly to beverage and solid food intake; the liquid form resulted in greater energy intake than the solid form of food.” and in summary “Weight gain may occur with greater caloric intake from fluids than from solid foods because of the weak satiety signals evoked from energy-containing beverages; therefore, total energy intake may be greater with fluid calorie intake than with calorie consumption from solid foods.87,90,91″

    Those numbers at the end refer to more research that I suspect that you haven’t read?!

    Are you understanding why most professionals don’t take you seriously – here’s a hint – it isn’t a conspiracy!

    [Reply]

    Queenie Reply:

    Hey David

    I’m way not impressed with your methods, dude. Shape up and present your message in a polite way, respecting the many very intelligent people who read this blog and the very intelligent person who writes it, and who does not take attacks to the personal as you have so quickly done (Sarah has never written that somebody else’s work is a ‘ridiculous and inconsistent rant’, even when she disagrees). I am like many other people here, highly educated, highly literate, working in a professional situation whilst running a household and looking after children, and this is the last thing I will say to you. I don’t like your tone of voice, and if somebody addressed me in this way personally, I would excuse myself and leave their presence – as i think many other people on this blog would. If you wish to be taken seriously in any situation, not just on an anonymous blog, but in your professional life, in your personal life, and in your daily interactions, I would seriously look at your own behaviour. Because I’ve just dismissed you without even bothering to read through the rest of your discussion – I got to the first sentence and thought “Sorry, I don’t waste my time on people like this.” Bravo!

    [Reply]

    David Driscoll Reply:

    So you were happy with her treatment of Dr Barclay and other dietitians such as myself who oppose her. Textbook cognitive dissonance, you’ve found a reason to ignore the message – no need to challenge your beliefs now!

    [Reply]

    Queenie Reply:

    Right, what beliefs are those, David? I reserve that word for religion and fairies. Why do I need to challenge these ‘beliefs’ I hold? Would that make you feel I was a more ronded and intelligent person? Would that vindicate you?

    Seeing as you have taken it personally, let’s get personal. I was born with a congenital hole in my heart that conventional medicine failed to find until I was in my early thirties, after it almost killed me, and after I had carried a child and breastfed her for 15 months (ho did you manage to do that? asked my operating doctor How indeed. I almost lost my daughter throughout the first 4 months of my pregnancy and subsequently miscarried another early-term foetus. At the point at which my kidneys packed up and talk turned to dialysis, the enormous hole was found. One.

    Suffering from chronic clinical depression, properly diagnosed at 17 but probably starting at 12 or 13, with all the adjacent intense insomnia. I spent most of my teens almost comatose. When I was diagnosed properly, I realised that I had to make a choice, and that choice was between death and life. Once I chose life, I chose to do as much as possible to make myself live. This included monitoring all my thoughts and everything I ate.

    A correlation emerged. Not a vague correlation – an incredibly strong correlation. On a usual western diet, with cereal for breakfast, the usual other stuff, my mood suffered hugely. In case you’re inclined to dismiss this, let me say that my mood fluctuations have included lining up all the knives in the house and self-harming, and in recent times, considering how to aim my car at a tree the best to finish myself off. And I don’t sleep.

    And when I cut out all sugar – I do sleep. And I don’t have mood fluctuations.

    Now, lets see. The conventional approach put me on Xanax (I almost killed myself), and Zoloft (side-effects so severe I didn’t seep for 4 days straight, and when i took myself off, my then-boyfriend had to shake me awake to keep me breathing).

    Both Zoloft and Xanax have since been discredited as a dangerous approach to medicating severe depression. The medical community still has no easy answer for mental illness.

    My heart is now fixed (when I was 32), and at the age of 38, i am healthier than I have ever been in my entire life. I don’t eat sugar or grains. My migraines have gone. I sleep well. I am ovulating again properly. Chronic cystic acne which has scarred my skin has completely cleared up. Depression completely gone. Maybe I grew out of all of this? Maybe I grew out of the incipient arthritis in my left foot too which would be the first I’ve ever heard of someone growing out of arthritis. I didn’t quit sugar when my heart was fixed, it took me five more years to come to that, five years of still fighting with the depression and the insomnia and the acne

    I did all my experiments on the only person I now trust – myself. I couldn’t give a good goddamn if you think I hold some weird beliefs, I am alive and healthy. I want to ask you why you seem to be so threatened by something which I do to myself in the privacy and safety of my own home. Nobody on this blog is holding a gun to my head. But I would like to point out that in order to eat how I do, I now never shop in supermarkets, and I never buy anything packaged. Is this what you’re afraid of? What is your problem? Is it child abuse if I feed my daughter the same diet I now eat, the diet millions of people in developing countries the world over eat (I’ve lived in several of them for extended periods of several years at a time, don’t challenge me on this one until you have too, don’t quote textbooks at me, they mean zilch to me, not because i can’t read them but becaue I don’t give a fuque because they don’t tally with my own eyes). Whats wrong with eating a huge range of plant-based life plus the occasional bit of meat or dairy? Would it be better if I went back to shopping at Coles and going on the latest Xanax-equivalent? Why don’t I just start snorting cocaine – that helps the mood too.

    I don’t know what your problem is, but thankfully, i don’t have the same problem. Check back with me in 40 years to see if I’ve dropped dead from cancer and we’ll discuss it again. Otherwise, make no assumptions about me or anyone else on this blog. And stay out of my kitchen.

    David Driscoll Reply:

    Wow, sorry to hear your situation, but I’m not sure what you hope to achieve by making it all about you? Not to mention ignoring my repeated questions re your double standards on how people should be treated?

    Do you think your story is unique? Could surfing the web not find similar stories (or worse) where people have used different ways to ‘heal’ themselves? If so does that invalidate your experience? What if I could find ten for everyone one you had. Should eveidence be simply based on a scorecard?

    When practitioners look for the best evidence, they turn to science, not anecdotes – otherwise there is no way to discriminate amongst the endless personal accounts.

    The fact that you have given up grains and wheat obviously weakens your testimony as to how toxic sugar is, but I wonder how you would respond to stories from fruitarians? They should all be dead with diabetes and cancer by now right? Natural selection should have taken care of all of them if it is as simple as getting rid of fructose right?

    I won’t bother telling my story, because it isn’t relevant!

    So I ask, when I am trying to give the best advice to my clients, whose advice should I base it on, yours or http://www.fruitarianforlife.com/the-fruitarian-lifestyle/? What about Paelo, vegetarian or the breatharians (who get most of their energy from the sun), how do I decide when looking to help a wide range of people after stepping out of this little bubble? Do you have a better tool to discern than science?

    David Driscoll Reply:

    I would also love to know where you keep getting these ‘facts’ from

    “I want to ask you why you seem to be so threatened by something which I do to myself”

    Why would you assume I am threatened by you? You replied to my post calling out Sarah on misrepresenting research, remember?

    ” I now never shop in supermarkets, and I never buy anything packaged. Is this what you’re afraid of? ”

    Did I say this was bad? You’ve gone off on one hell of a tangent!

    “Is it child abuse if I feed my daughter the same diet I now eat,”

    Now I’m thinking you have your threads mixed up and are talking to someone else?

    ” don’t challenge me on this one until you have too,”

    Um, yeah, ok!

    “don’t quote textbooks at me, they mean zilch to me, not because i can’t read them but becaue I don’t give a fuque because they don’t tally with my own eyes).”

    And there we have it, anything that doesn’t gel with your experience, you have no interest in! Sorry but that doesn’t cut it when you are consulting with a wide variety of the population with various problems.

    “Whats wrong with eating a huge range of plant-based life plus the occasional bit of meat or dairy? ”

    Who said there was, but since you love anecdotes so much go an google some vegetarians sites and look at the ‘evidence’ there for improved health when giving up meat. Same goes for dairy – so why is your anecdote so compelling?

    “Would it be better if I went back to shopping at Coles and going on the latest Xanax-equivalent? Why don’t I just start snorting cocaine – that helps the mood too.”

    Wow, you have built a whole field full of strawmen here – are you tired?

    KB Reply:

    there is a huge difference between a belief and experience and scientific evidence.

    This is the objection here.

    Whatever Sarah and David G choose to say and do and write about and make money out of is not the problem.

    People choosing to follow them as their new demi-god of choice is not a problem.

    BUT using bits of scientific language and literature here and there and making x=y or 1+1=3 to get more publicity and interest IS THE PROBLEM. Trotting out one scientist as evidence and confirmation of their ideas and making out that they are the new ‘saviours’ of the world while labelling or ignoring others that don’t quite fit is the issue. Then to label everyone in the industry of dietetics as co-conspirators or puppets of the food industry is highly insulting.

    You can buy, like and even enjoy their message and if you believe you are happier and healthier then fantastic. Just realise the delivery of their message and the arguments they make are not sound and their need to use hype and hysteria to ‘sell’ their message and to slander a whole industry and ignore relevant facts is the problem and they need to be accountable for that and to acknowledge that. They need to recognise that there are many people who have sacrificed much, have worked very hard, have integrity and passion for what they do. That there are many who helps many people in many different ways and according to their beliefs and knowledge. If improving health outcomes were the goal they would be out there working with those people instead of tearing them down. Oh wait not much glory or money in that though is there…

    [Reply]

    David Driscoll Reply:

    Be prepared to be assaulted with a bunch of anecdotes and personal attacks in order to distract from your rational thinking ;-)

    [Reply]

    Queenie Reply:

    Nup, my rational thinking is not at all distracting to me. After conducting a 23-year-long experiment on myself, I’ve concluded that for me, sugar is absolutely impossible. They’re not anecdotes to me (look up definition of an anecdote), there’s no straw men, they are genuine questions, neither are they personal attacks – because the manner of your responses leads me to believe you are very threatened. For me, you can say whatever you like. I’m absolutely (and yes, extraordinarily smugly, given how hard it has been to be here) happy. ‘S all water off the proverbial duck’s to me.

    I’d also like to point out that I told my story because I think it’s fairly indicative of many of the people on this blog. We’ve found a path to health, whether through mood disorders, obesity or chronic illness of one kind or another. You can belittle my ‘anecdotes’ all you want, but just do be aware (as I am from having been on this blog for a long time), that my story is in no way unique.

    If you have such a large problem with Sarah’s methodology, why don’t you write her an email and address it nicely. Going now. Have a nice life.

    David Driscoll Reply:

    “Nup, my rational thinking is not at all distracting to me. After conducting a 23-year-long experiment on myself, I’ve concluded that for me, sugar is absolutely impossible. ”

    Well everyone should change their practice then right? Your anecdote and that of your friends here should change the nature of nutrition advice?

    “They’re not anecdotes to me (look up definition of an anecdote),”

    a short account of a particular incident or event, especially of an interesting or amusing nature.

    “there’s no straw men, ”

    Oh please!

    “my story is in no way unique.”

    As stated above, I know, it appears on every website with every explanation you can think of as a cure – yours isn’t unique!

    ” Going now. Have a nice life.”

    Didn’t really expect a response on topic, just more about you – and you delivered!

  • Jane

    Its really unsurprising that they completely misrepresented you, the surprising thing is that you chose to promote yourself through this kind of program. Given how careful you are about the products you endorse and advertise through your site, you probably also need to give some consideration to how you market yourself. After all, ACA and Today Tonight are to journalism what McDonalds and KFC are to restaurants.

    [Reply]

  • http://www.coconuthealthandhealing.com Amy

    Agreed Sarah!! xxx

    [Reply]

  • http://www.nmah.com.au Ziggy

    Loving this post Sarah! Fruit of itself is wonderful for the body but like many things, too much and that wonderful factor goes downhill. As a naturopath it still worries me that folks believe commercial fruit juices and dried fruits are Ok. As you rightly point out, all that refined sugar in them is not a good thing!
    Keep up your great work,
    Smiles and abundant health, Ziggy

    [Reply]

  • Mrs Woog

    You mean to say that you were misrepresented in the mainstream media?

    [Reply]

    Jo Foster Reply:

    I love you!! x

    [Reply]

  • Pingback: SJ’s response to the ‘Sugar War’… : A Conscious Life

  • Bridget

    I’m getting a deja vu feeling from back in the 80s (showing my age here) when the no-fat message was all the rage. Fat was bad for you!! Eat low-fat or non-fat only!! Or you’ll get fat, have a heart attack, and die!! This message carried on for at least the next 20 years.

    Fast-forward to today and it turns out, science has found that not all fats are bad. Some are actually good for us, if not ESSENTIAL for our bodies to function properly.

    Sugar is an essential part of one’s diet as it’s the body’s key source of energy but it’s also true that people are consuming far too much of it these days in all its forms.

    Fructose is as Sarah says not very good in large doses, but I have a slightly different theory. Perhaps fructose has become a bad thing because people consume too much of it in the form of the notorious High Fructose Corn Syrup which is the sweetener used for MOST IF NOT ALL packaged and processed foods and drink – things like soft drinks, fruit juices, yoghurts, chocolate and candy bars, peanut butter, breakfast cereals, tomato sauce, biscuits, ice cream, even high-energy drinks/sports drinks, you name it! It’s in everything!

    So it would be a fair call to say that if we consume too much of these processed foods that all contain High Fructose Corn Syrup then this is what causes the weight gain and myriad of health problems. It’s not so much fruit that’s the problem (of course eating fruit as well as the processed foods would be having too much fructose). I think that if one eats fruit and avoids all these other processed foods, then they’ll be perfectly OK.

    Personally, if it were a choice between fruit, a natural whole food that contains fibre and nutrients, or a processed food/drink that was high in High Fructose corn syrup, I’d take the fruit as the healthier option any day!

    [Reply]

    David Driscoll Reply:

    That’s what the research currently suggests also Bridget! The dose makes the poison!

    [Reply]

    Lissa Reply:

    Having worked in the field of medical research for the past 26 years, written as well as co-authored a few papers, consulted to a few multinational companies and worked at some of the great universities around the world in the areas of diabetes and obesity (and now finally very glad to be back home!) the best book I’ve read to date Bridget, relevant to your comment, is Gary Taubes’ tome ‘Good Calories Bad Calories’ or the lighter version ‘Why We Get Fat’ – I think you’d really enjoy reading either one or both (if you haven’t already).
    In the future, I personally cannot wait to see where nutritional genomics takes us – it is an area that I will be watching with great interest.

    [Reply]

    Bridget Reply:

    Hello Lissa, thanks so much for recommending Gary Taubes’ books. I never heard of him before actually. But it sounds like his ideas are right up my alley!! I too tried the Atkins diet about 10 years ago as he did and lost a ton of weight, unfortunately I couldn’t withstand the lure of carbohydrates and sugars and they found their way back into my diet pretty quickly. Science journalist Mr Taubes appears to have substantiated the theory with the weight of scientific research that chronically high levels of insulin in the body is what causes fat to be stored and the body gets fat, as insulin is the hormone that regulates fat storage in the body. And what causes insulin to be released? High blood sugar, caused by carbohydrates and sugars, as carbs turn to glucose in the bloodstream.

    Fatty acids will not be released into the blood stream to be used as energy if the glucose level is high. Ergo if you want to lose weight, he says stop eating carbs and sugars (even dairy and nuts and legumes) but replace them all with meat, seafood, vegetables, eggs and fats (I’d go for healthy plant-based fats such as coconut oils and avocados). The body will then use up the stored fat as energy (especially when you’re resting!) and you will lose weight. I’m getting his books to learn more (such as why eating fat is not what causes weight gain, in fact not eating fat CAUSES weight gain, eating fat does NOT cause heart disease and exercise doesn’t help with weight-loss (but still a must to do when you’re healthy again) – seems like we’ve all been sold a pup when it comes to these things). It makes absolute perfect sense what he says, I agree with you, more than anything else that I’ve heard in the diet/nutrition science industry forever. Of course being less insulin resistant will help prevent diabetes and obesity as well.

    I’m hoping that I’ll have more willpower this time around simply by knowing that I’m being kinder to my body, by not starving the other cells of nutrients because I’ve been feeding the fat cells too much with my carb-overload, and as a result will have more energy, feel better, and also be satisfied and have no more cravings.

    It’s taking the “I Quit Sugar” programme a step further by treating ALL carbs as sugars, which they effectively are once we’ve ingested them in our bodies. They are just as if not more harmful and we’re MUCH better off without either of them. So, thanks again!!

    [Reply]

    David Driscoll Reply:

    evolvinghealthscience.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/good-insulin-bad-insulin-its-role-in.html

    Lissa Reply:

    You are most welcome Bridget. An interesting website is that of Peter Attia: http://eatingacademy.com/why-i-decided-to-lose-weight. A lot on there is of course experimental, but his ‘nutritional journey’ from 2009 to 2011 is reflective of what I have seen both clinically and in the research setting. The problem is that carbohydrate ‘tolerance’ varies amongst individuals, and so it is not feasible to allocate a ‘one size fits all’ solution to the problem – the best results in my experience have come from working with the individual patient – and then of course, there are individuals who have no problem at all with carbohydrates (irrespective of amounts and activity/inactivity). After 26 years working specifically in this area I can still say that it is a very complex issue. Who knows where the area of nutritional genomics will take us – it will be very interesting to see; with any luck it will be of great help in this area as well as other areas of disease. Best wishes and good health to you Bridget.

    Sara Reply:

    Just remember cards are in vegies and nuts too so you might need to back off on eliminating all carbs :)

    Sara Reply:

    Oops! I meant carbs.

  • josh

    Really wish people would stop saying science when they are referring to scholars/academics/researchers/theorists.
    It’s not science, science is definitive evidenced knowledge that stands up to scrutiny. Its not isolated out of context rubbish or theory.

    Academia completely overlook the lymphatic system, it’s the major fluid system of the body but all it’s ever about is blood or feces with these people.
    Where is the in between? Where is the elimination system and the understanding of it’s processes? Where the hell is it?
    No where, these people don’t have the answers because they chase symptoms in blood and isolation of singular effects. It’s actually considered the lymph system dumps acid into your bloodstream when common sense tells you uric acid = urine wtf does it get dumped? Geniuses this lot.

    And now they’re looking at a dysfunctional system with generations of degradation that they don’t even understand and are theorizing.
    The body has at least 100 trillion cells that work together, people honestly believe they are smarter then that many processors? Know you aren’t that many processors, you’re the point of presence observing with as much feedback as you can handle.

    Acid and subacid fruits are the astringents that move your lymph system, You get metabolic problems because of drug deposits, antibiotics, vaccines metals, protein acids and sulfurs and eating things that your hands are not designed to gather that congest and kill off your microflora in your lymph system. Yes all the crap the white coats hand you.
    By all means suppress any symptom you ever get from anything. Your sensitivity is an excretion attempt. Your inflammatory, cholesterol, calcification, edema response is an acid defense mechanism, yes your cysts and cancers is your body fighting your illiteracy.
    Now your liver is in an extremely acid state because all your life everything you ever had has been processed by it, you’re sure as hell are going to get visceral glycation as an antacid response, your livers full of parasites, fermentation and who knows what. Now it’s attempting to protect you and your concern is mostly how you look so you restrict your sugars cholesterol’s and fats so it can’t do it so well, you cut out astringents so your fluids can barely circulate and you pack on food meant for cows with fibers that are going to be mal-absorbed and ferment.

    Yeah mate it’s the fruit that’s the problem good on ya. Not your completely non-functioning glands, organs and lymph systems.

    [Reply]

    geraldine Reply:

    @josh-
    clap clap emoticon. right here. (if I had one)

    [Reply]

  • Gracie

    What do I think? I think it’s a storm in a teacup.
    As someone who is promoting a particular kind of lifestyle, you should well know that this leaves you open to criticism, scorn and the target of misinformation. As a journalist, I am surprised that you appear to be surprised by this.
    For a start, A Current Affair is hardly a program of integrity. It is regularly vilified and is widely deemed as a light, fluffy entertainment show, hardly the source of real news.

    So, Sarah, I would say that rather get indignant and complain, get out there and educate. Tell people about the guff that is the Glycaemic Index. Show people where the rot is in the health industry, point out who has vested interests and who can be trusted. Ignore pathetic shows like ACA and Today Tonight and certainly don’t garner them with more attention than they are worth by talking about them.

    And lastly, if you really want to be taken seriously, get a qualification in nutrition.

    [Reply]

    Sara Reply:

    “So, Sarah, I would say that rather get indignant and complain, get out there and educate. Tell people about the guff that is the Glycaemic Index. Show people where the rot is in the health industry, point out who has vested interests and who can be trusted.”

    Um, I thought that was what she was doing? I don’t think sarah’s knickers were in a knot so much as the debate that has now raged beneath her post.

    “Ignore pathetic shows like ACA and Today Tonight and certainly don’t garner them with more attention than they are worth by talking about them.”

    Easier said than done. Regardless of our opinion the show has enormous reach. And I do think it’s a bit elitest to say only those who deem ACA unworthy have the right to these ideas. There are plenty of people out there who might have had their interest at least piqued and so I do think it deserves a rebuttal.

    Do concur with the idea of a qualification though, if feasible. It would certainly mean her ideas are less easily dismissed by the industry.

    [Reply]

  • seeker

    omg just read this post …

    far out, any chance you can block the angry man?

    [Reply]

    Strawman Reply:

    Or let him continue :-)

    If he believes that he’s making a smart career move and enhancing his professional reputation (and the reputation of the DAA) by these posts, then good luck to him!

    [Reply]

    Mia Bluegirl Reply:

    He’s extremely emotional for a someone who claims to be educated in the subject matter. For a scientist (should you believe that) the fact that he chooses to engage in petty insults and personal attacks instead of actual FACTS is… curious. :)

    Maybe he’s secretly very smart and you just hurt his feelings?

    [Reply]

    David Driscoll Reply:

    No need to say thank you for answering your questions and supplying you with bunch of literature reviews. Wondering how after I do that, you then say I haven’t supplied any facts? Lying just to join in with the group to win friends? Very sad!

    You’ll note that most of your fellow disciples have been the ones ONLY supplying insults (with the occasional anecdote), I’ve been able to supply both!

    More than happy to talk about what the research says and why it is okay for Sarah to slander Dr Barclay and other dietitians, but everyone is sensitive when the tables are turned?

    Just because Sarah thinks it is okay to simply trash and discredit people to avoid talking about the science, then why do …. oh, I get it now!

    Annie Reply:

    Hi David:

    This is not to favour either Sarah pr yourself – I think you both have valid points and at least you’re both working with the goal of improving people’s health and well being, which is great! However, your somewhat boorish, sarcastic tone isn’t helping your personal brand. I visited your site and you seem like a well educated fitness instructor and someone who probably gets results for his clients. I’ve worked with a trainer for the past four years and loved it. But I’ve also liked her as a person and did a lot of online research before deciding to approach her. This is what a lot of people do these days – they’re not just looking for qualifications. They’re looking for someone they can relate to on a personal level, who seems friendly and approachable. Your personal brand is what you put out there. It doesn’t mean you’re not entitled to your opinions, or anything like that. But the way you put them out matters too. If I was looking to hire a trainer and this thread appeared in my google results, seeing the tone of some of your comments here would make me think twice about inquiring. But that’s just me. And I could be wrong. Everyone is different. I am sure you’re welcome to debate here and other forums as much as you would like, but maybe take a gentler tack? Just a (well meaning) thought.

    [Reply]

    David Driscoll Reply:

    ” I think you both have valid points and at least you’re both working with the goal of improving people’s health and well being,” Thanks for acknowledging that, (one of the few) the original article though suggests that Dr Barclay as well as dietitians and health professional who oppose Sarah are being led by vested interests and are doing this at the expense of people’s health. The same was being implied re the Heart Foundation and other groups who continue to oppose sugar sweetened beverages – for them serving size matters. It isn’t an all or nothing proposition, which is what the research currently shows

    [Reply]

    Sara Reply:

    To be fair, I think the point was that their affiliations were not disclosed and that called their agenda into question. In saying that it is entirely possible Dr Barclay was happy to include these affiliations and ACA did a hatchet job on him as well.

  • Jan

    Just discovered this site and think it’s brilliant. I quit sugar 10 days ago and feel great. Started eating low-carb. I do use Xylotol and wondered what you (plural, dear readers) think of that sweetener. Thanks to Sarah for this brilliant resource…

    [Reply]

  • http://www.mikewilde.com mw

    So if I cut down to half a family block and 2 cans of coke a day I’ll be fine .. right ?

    [Reply]

  • Sarah

    Sarah,
    I want to say thank you for all your information. I personally find all your advice to be very helpful, and feel at my best when following your ideas. I appreciate that you do always declare any other interests, and allow people the space to form their own opinions.

    David,
    You may want to try a different tactic, as the sarcastic, aggressive approach does not appear to be winning you any fans here. While it is perfectly acceptable to have differing opinions, and helpful to offer links where people can find further information, what you have done on this thread would be considered ‘trolling’.
    While I have a science background, and am able to critically appraise articles and trials, I have no inclination to read anything you have linked through this site. Your attitude is terrible.
    Why not try a succinct statement outlining your views, add a link, and leave it at that. You may actually find you receive a more measured response.

    [Reply]

    David Driscoll Reply:

    Was Sarah’s tone towards Dr Barclay and other dietitians equally offensive to you? When David and Sarah speak that way about the establishment it is usually celebrated, but not here. Even Rory is highly acclaimed in some circles for the aggressive way he tries to push his Australian Paradox message, so maybe part of it is the message too?

    If you are genuinely looking for evidence (vs confirmation) start with the article Sarah referred to (it is the American Heart Association) circ.ahajournals.org/content/120/11/1011.full.pdf and tell me whether it actually says that “we are only able to handle 6-9 teaspoons of sugar a day. ” or whether it is based on discretionary calories (and increases with physical activity).

    Whether the recommendations are based on added sugars or fruit, since Sarah stated “Which is about the amount contained in 2-3 pieces of low-fructose fruit.”

    Whether glucose and other ‘sugars’ are part of this recommendation?

    [Reply]

  • http://www.australianparadox.com rory robertson (former fattie)

    Good news, “mw”. If I am reading David Driscoll and the Heart Foundation correctly, you can simply replace each of those unhealthy sugary items with bowls of healthy sugary breakfast cereal – make sure your chosen 30% sugary cereal has a Heart Foundation heart-healthy “Tick” – and you’ll be as sweet as a nut.

    According to David D., the Heart Foundation still reckons eating a pile of sugar in breakfast cereals is not a problem. It’s only when the sugar is consumed as soft-drink that it’s a problem, please understand (http://www.heartfoundation.org.au/news-media/Media-Releases-2013/Pages/time-rethink-sugary-drinks.aspx ).

    So David D’s bottom line remains that people like Sarah and David Gillespie – who argue that eliminating or minimising all added fructose/sugar from your diet is a sensible “risk management” approach to health – clearly are know-nothings. They are just out to make a buck by depriving us poor slobs of life’s simple pleasures. Being put in a bag and beaten to a pulp with sticks would be too good for them.

    Just because many thousands of fatties here, there and everywhere have removed added sugar from their diet and dropped heaps of weight and reversed their trends to diabetes, you would have to be a goose to think that sugar had anything to do with the weight gain or the trends towards diabetes in the first place. That’s not how “the science” works, according to David D’s reading of the situation.

    And so what if the main completely unnecessary modern foodstuff – that population after population after population has started to eat as it shifted from stone-age to modern, from subsistence to abundance, from rich to poor, from skinny to fat and from healthy to diabetic – is heaps of added sugar? (See chart at http://www.australianparadox.com/part-2 )

    To think that modern doses of addictive added sugar are a serious problem, you’d have to be living with an ever-lasting brain explosion. All you dummies out there who follow David Gillespie and Sarah’s stupid anti-sugar advice should get a clue, stop believing your own lying eyes and shrinking bodies, and look harder at all the stuff that David D. cuts out and pastes willy-nilly across the web.

    If you actually had a clue, you would have noticed that David D. on this blog already has cited dozens of tin-pot papers that prove added sugar is not a significant problem, and certainly is not a key driver of global obesity and diabetes. Have you read them all yet, or are you still being fools to yourselves?

    For the inquisitive only one real question remains: Why does David D. keep going out of his way to do the right thing, to hammer those dumbskis keen to junk added sugar?

    Yes, added sugar is the one large energy (obesity) source we can remove from our diet that doesn’t require any “give up” in terms of nutrition. Awkwardly, Bridget above got it wrong when she claimed “Sugar is an essential part of one’s diet as it’s the body’s key source of energy”. That is true of glucose – not sucrose/sugar – and all of us can get unlimited amounts of glucose from meat, cheese, eggs, green vegetables, whatever, without ever touching sugar/sucrose/fructose, or – gasp! – the University of Sydney’s preferred brands of processed carbohydrates (see http://www.gisymbol.com/cmsAdmin/uploads/Glycemic-Index-Foundation-Healthy-Choices-Brochure.pdf ).

    I’m surprised that David D. didn’t correct Bridget earlier, as he’s keen to correct the statements of pretty well everyone else, for the greater good.

    As I was saying, like tobacco and alcohol, added sugar adds nothing that any of us actually need. At a time of disastrous global uptrends in obesity and diabetes, junking added sugar looks to me to be a no-brainer. So why David D. campaigns against that simple, sensible no-sugar strategy towards better health remains a mystery.

    By contrast, the University of Sydney nutritionists whose shonky research I have highlighted in this blog – and elsewhere – have a strong incentive to be pro-sugar, a good reason to defend modern doses of sugar consumption as yummy but basically harmless.

    Yes, they run an apparently large and prosperous business that depends on the general public continuing to believe that sugar is yummy but basically harmless (see http://www.gisymbol.com/cmsAdmin/uploads/Glycemic-Index-Foundation-Healthy-Choices-Brochure.pdf and http://www.foodhealthdialogue.gov.au/internet/foodandhealth/publishing.nsf/Content/D59B2C8391006638CA2578E600834BBD/$File/Resources%20and%20support%20for%20reformulation%20activities.pdf , or search for “reformulating Barclay PhD” ).

    Comedian Max Gillies used to tell a joke on ABC TV about Russ Hinze – the “Minister for Everything”, including liquor licencing and horse racing – in the Queensland of my youth, and his personal ownership of hotels and race horses. Gillies could tell the same joke today about the operators of the University of Sydney’s pro-sugar low-GI business who at one point chose to put on their “scientist” and “Guest Editor” hats to write and (self) publish a paper – Australian Paradox – that exonerates added sugar (and so low-GI fructose) as a health hazard.

    According to the joke, when asked if his ownership of hotels and racehorses wasn’t a conflict of interest, Russ Hinze said: “That’s not a conflict of interest, that’s a convergence of interest!” (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-10-09/no-joke-qlds-anti-corruption-system-a-hit-worldwide/1099076 ).

    For those new to this issue, the University of Sydney’s undisclosed conflict/convergence of interest can be outlined as follows.

    (i) The “sweet poison” half of added sugar/sucrose is fructose (the other half is glucose).

    (ii) Fructose is a carbohydrate with a super-low GI of 19 (because when eaten it apparently goes directly via the liver to fat storage, not into the bloodstream as glucose like most carbohydrates. (Correct me if I am wrong on that David D. As you say, I’m not a nutritionist but a one-trick clueless pony/economist.)

    (iii) Fructose is almost ubiquitous in the global food supply, via added sugar and added HFCS.

    (iv) A small-but-growing nucleus of global scientists consider fructose – 50% of added sugar – to be the single-biggest driver of global obesity and diabetes (“diabesity”).

    (v) The University of Sydney has spent several decades perfecting a measuring technique to identify good carbohydrates and bad carbohydrates.

    (vi) The University of Sydney operates a business whose revenues are driven by the notion that low-GI carbohydrates (GI = 55 and under) are good (“healthy”) while high-GI carbs (the rest) are bad (unhealthy).

    (vii) To get an understanding of how the GI thing works, note that Coca-Cola is GI=53, a Snickers bar is GI=41 and lots of yummy sugary cakes are in the 36-55 range. Mmmm…healthy. Evil potatoes can be in the 80-100 range or even higher. (Try “cake” in http://www.glycemicindex.com/foodSearch.php )

    (viii) If that small-but-growing and increasingly influential nucleus of global scientists is right – as increasingly seems obvious (start with Gary Taubes’s “Good Calories, Bad Calories” – it will mean that the University of Sydney spent decades of effort and public funding seeking to identify “bad” carbohydrates, yet failed to identify the only disastrously unhealthy carbohydrate in the global food supply – the ubiquitous and super-low-GI fructose in added sugar.

    Now, think about this: if you had a career and business revenues that depended on people thinking the world is flat, you might spend quite a bit of time arguing that case. You might never concede that the world is round. If you didn’t know it for sure already, you might not be in a hurry to keep up with all the new-fangled science that pointed in that awkward direction.

    And that’s fine as long as everyone knows where you – a flat-earther with a business depending on others too remaining of that belief – are coming from. If you properly declared your conflict of interest, you would tell us explicitly that your business revenues depend on your ongoing (false) claim that the world is flat. Everything would be out in the open in plain view.

    The problem I have with the University of Sydney’s low-GI advocates and food-industry service providers – beyond their clownish Australian Paradox claim – is that they are not objective observers “searching for the truth”. Both Dr Alan Barclay and Professor Jennie Brand-Miller have low-GI careers and oversee low-GI business revenues that ultimately depend on the general public continuing to believe that modern doses of consumption of added sugar – and so of once-hard-to-find-super-low-GI fructose – are yummy but basically harmless.

    To the extent that super-low GI fructose – the “sweet poison” half of added sugar, almost ubiquitous in the global food supply – increasingly is shown to be a disaster for public health, the University of Sydney’s low-GI careers and revenues probably will tend to decline or collapse.

    Clearly, the low-GI crew have a strong incentive to try to exonerate super-low-GI fructose – and so added sugar – as a key driver of global obesity and diabetes. And that is exactly what it has sought to do, on ACA last week and elsewhere (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/a-spoonful-of-sugar-is-not-so-bad/story-e6frg8y6-1226090126776 ).

    The sugar industry’s prospects also are at risk from the building anti-sugar momentum in Australia. So it was not that surprising when the Australian sugar industry late last year attempted – spectacularly unsuccessfully – to rescue its underperforming University of Sydney business partners and their shonky sugar study. What was amusing is that when three Sydney University scientists enthusiastically embraced the sugar industry “Dead Parrot” sugar series, their scientific credibility went to custard.

    Check out the chart at http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/JBM-AWB-AustralianParadox.pdf

    And check out the confused discussion on “The Role of Fructose” that the sugar industry commissioned and paid for, on page 7 of http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/New-nonsense-based-sugarreport.pdf . If I were the sugar industry, I’d be asking for my money back.

    At least we know, however, exactly where the sugar industry is coming from. Everyone knows that the sugar industry is not an objective observer. It exists to sell sugar and claim it is yummy and healthy, regardless of the facts. Indeed, “Big Sugar” globally has put in a fabulous and determined effort over the past half century or more to undermine any genuine scientific understanding about the adverse health effects of sugar consumption.

    David D, do you consider “Big Sugar” to have been as skillful as “Big Tobacco” at undermining the scientific assessment of its product? It looks to have had a red-hot go at being rather devious, don’t you think? (Scroll down below the lollypop lady at http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/New-nonsense-based-sugarreport.pdf ).

    Since we know clearly where the sugar industry is coming from, it would be good for everyone to know exactly where the University of Sydney is coming from. It would be good if the University of Sydney’s management insisted that its low-GI advocates – when they are marketing in the public debate – explicitly disclosed their serious conflict of interest regarding super-low-GI fructose and so added sugar.

    That is, when the University of Sydney’s low-GI advocates are publicly defending added sugar – half of which is super-low-GI fructose – as yummy but basically harmless, objective observers should be informed that the low-GI business revenues they oversee depend on added sugar being viewed by the general public as yummy but basically harmless.

    Finally, back to David D. As with the University of Sydney’s enthusiastic efforts, David D’s enthusiastic efforts across the web – to rescue us from our dumb-but-well-based belief that modern doses of sugar consumption are a serious health hazard – may also be serving a useful personal or financial purpose. It’s just hard to know what it is, or what it could be. I assume David D. doesn’t have any financial links to the food or beverage industries – as is the case with his pro-fructose/sugar friends at the University of Sydney – or he would have told us all about them upfront.

    [Reply]

    rory robertson (former fattie) Reply:

    Oops, here – http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/Howdevious.pdf – is the link that was supposed to sit beside “lollypop lady” in the fourth paragraph from the bottom of my previous post. A thousand apologies.

    rgds,
    rory

    [Reply]

    David Driscoll Reply:

    Australian Paradox – yawn! Ad hominem central !

    ” If I am reading David Driscoll and the Heart Foundation correctly, you can simply replace each of those unhealthy sugary items with bowls of healthy sugary breakfast cereal – make sure your chosen 30% sugary cereal has a Heart Foundation heart”

    No you aren’t reading correctly (again), dose matters outside of your black and white world – and I didn’t say I supported the Heart Foundation position, merely telling everyone that their position on drinks haven’t changed. If you read what I actually say vs reading into it, you wouldn’t make as many mistakes!

    “According to David D., the Heart Foundation still reckons eating a pile of sugar in breakfast cereals is not a problem.”

    Let me know when you want to discuss my actual thoughts and not your strawmen!

    “It’s only when the sugar is consumed as soft-drink that it’s a problem, please understand (http://www.heartfoundation.org.au/news-media/Media-Releases-2013/Pages/time-rethink-sugary-drinks.aspx ).”

    No Rory, read the data – liquid calories aren’t as filling and dose matters! Biggest contributor to sugar intake is drinks, so let’s (continue to) advocate minimising consumption!

    “So David D’s bottom line remains that people like Sarah and David Gillespie – who argue that eliminating or minimising all added fructose/sugar from your diet is a sensible “risk management” approach to health – clearly are know-nothings.”

    Again, that isn’t the objection – how many times do you need to be corrected on this? The objection is misrepresenting the data and demonising (including questioning the integrity of) people with actual evidence-based views. You love to ‘poison the well’ too, so you wouldn’t see it as a problem.

    “Just because many thousands of fatties here, there and everywhere have removed added sugar from their diet and dropped heaps of weight and reversed their trends to diabetes, you would have to be a goose to think that sugar had anything to do with the weight gain or the trends towards diabetes in the first place.”

    And the point you keep ignoring is groups who get similar success NOT following these strategies – go check out wheat belly or the Terry Ferguson group where people use fructose containing meal replacements! Your anecdote should be the most compelling, because it centres on your favourite topic – you!

    “That’s not how “the science” works, according to David D’s reading of the situation.”

    Finally, we agree! The plural of anecdote isn’t evidence, but since you claim to have all of the evidence and it supports your view, you shouldn’t need these appeals?

    ” look harder at all the stuff that David D. cuts out and pastes willy-nilly across the web……
    If you actually had a clue, you would have noticed that David D. on this blog already has cited dozens of tin-pot papers that prove added sugar is not a significant problem,”

    Doesn’t say that either Rory, you are now king of the strawmen – polarising every comment since it is the only way to make an argument based on your limited knowledge on the topic. Maybe you can explain why the papers quoted are tin-pot and selected willy nilly?

    You are as ridiculous as your position and exaggerations!

    [Reply]

    rory robertson (former fattie) Reply:

    David D.,

    My apologies on thinking the University of Sydney was your alma mater. That was a sloppy assumption on my part. I concede that – as you have written online – “David studied at the University of Wollongong and obtained a B.Sc. in Exercise Science and Nutrition as well as an M.Sc. Exercise Reahabilitation and Nutrition/Dietetics”. Given what I have seen of the University of Sydney’s highest-profile nutritionists, David, can understand why you chose Wollongong over Sydney.

    On the Heart Foundation’s latest position on added sugar/fructose, it seems to be saying that added sugar/fructose is unhealthy if consumed in sugary softdrinks but deserving of a heart-healthy “Tick” if consumed as sugary breakfast cereal with milk. Does anyone beside David D. not think that’s an inconsistent/unhelpful message?

    [Reply]

    David M Driscoll Reply:

    ” That was a sloppy assumption on my part.” Why start counting now?

    Heart Foundations position on sugar or sugar sweetened beverages hasn’t changed Rory! Look at their website! Not sure how to get through to you that “the dosage makes the poison” and that the sugar contained in soft drinks is in much higher quantities than breakfast cereal.

    Also if you cared to read the AHA paper, you would see the evidence suggesting that liquid calories affect appetite differently from solid (one study used drink vs jelly beans).

    Please do some research!

    Bridget Reply:

    Hey, Rory, thanks a million for the correction – I did mean to say glucose, believe it or not. My bad!

    The statement in question should have read:

    “Glucose is an essential part of one’s diet as it’s the body’s key source of energy but it’s also true that people are consuming far too much of simple carbohydrates/sugars these days in all its forms.”

    Other than that, I do believe that we’re actually in agreement with each other, at least with regard to my first comment, aren’t we? That added fructose such as High Fructose Corn Syrup is ubiquitous in everything and it’s a disaster to public health.

    [Reply]

  • Amanda

    Hello everyone – It is important to note that some people do indeed have severe reactions to sugar, Dr P. D’adamo, and many ayurvedic doctors already know this, we all have different genetic makeups/constitions and so sugar and other sweeteners react differently inside our gut and bodies, so do some fruits or an excess of fruit over many years, particulay if one has other imblances in diet or nutritional deficiencies which happened with me after I tried macrobiotic, vegan and vegetarian diets.
    I support Sarah fully, don’t worry Sarah and ignore the cricitism esp the people saying you should get a qualification in nutrition. I’ve been going to professionals for years about health issues, yet in the end always have to diagnose myself, and do my own research. Many qualified people don’t have a wide knowledge of nutrition and such people as Dr D’adamo’s work, ayurveda, etc. A qualification is not everything, as one needs to be obejctive and keep an open mind and remember we are all indiviudals, ‘one man’s super food is another man’s poison’. I can only have small amounts of fruit these days, fairly common in Blood type O, “hunter” genotypes who are non-secretors ie lacking in enzymes who’ve had way too much starch in sugar in the past. I am now doing better on a combination of the paleo diet, genotype diet, specific carb diet and GAPS diet, eliminated all foods causing inflammation & ssymptoms in my body ie grains, pseudo grains (the seeds like quinoa), sugar, high gi fruit, dairy foods apart from ghee, legumes. Dr L. Cordain is great too! Regards to all.

    [Reply]

    Sara Reply:

    Just to be clear I do not think a qualification is necessary but it would certainly assist her in getting across her message without her qualifications being questioned. That’s the first thing her critics jump on – “alifestyle blogger/ ex editor is trying to give nutrition advice? What would she know?” It would probably also be something she benefitted from personally and professionally given the probably unexpected turn her career has taken towards providing health info. Not meant as a criticism or questioning of her.

    [Reply]

  • Amanda

    I read, “if one wants something sweet, just eat fruit”. Since eating more paleo style and less often, my blood sugar is more stable, I don’t crave sweet foods as much, not sure why everyone needs to be or craving sweets or sweetened foods or needing energy from all the carbs?. I am satisfied with small amounts of fruit, variety every day, maybe rarely, I may have a tsp of honey but hardly ever now. Protein, fats, soups/broths and veggies are great these days (for me)!

    [Reply]

  • Anon

    I work for a diabetes organisation and was not aware of the conflict of interest so thank you for enlightening me although the double standard does not really shock nor surprise me anymore which saddens me!
    The amazing thing about your blog comments was that some of them were as uplifting & educational as your posts due to the educated, interesting and kind hearted people that read & reply.
    I myself, am struggling with the concept of sugar free because of the lack of support around me to do it and stick to it. There is sugar constantly in my face! So hearing people’s successes and journeys is really motivating!
    It is such a pity about the aggressive and disrespectful posts vehemently trolled on here. Polite debate is always welcomed but commenting on almost every comment? Maybe agreeing to disagree and moving on would be best?

    [Reply]

  • CS

    I have a 10 mth old baby and we are told to feed them one savoury and one sweet dish for all 3 meals in their day. Most baby cook books only have puréed fruit dishes as sweet food examples. What do you suggest we feed babies as a sweet dish if it is not fruit?
    Thanks for your help – I’d like to start my baby off in life without a sugar addiction!

    [Reply]

  • http://www.australianparadox.com rory robertson (former fattie)

    Good on you Bridget. Yes, I think we mostly are “peas in a pod” when it comes to our sense of the damage added fructose is doing to global public health. That doesn’t mean we are right, of course; David D. might soon be inclined to observe (again) that we simply do not have a clue what we are talking about. And there’s not much David doesn’t know with great authority.

    Those readers who have enjoyed David D’s insightful contributions in this discussion in recent days might enjoy seeing him in tangles with his friend Sue in a separate debate on sugar and heath, just across the road: https://theconversation.edu.au/silent-killer-or-occasional-treat-settling-the-debate-on-sugar-11615#comment_110076

    [Reply]

  • Pingback: Sarah Wilson, Hypocricy, Conflicts of Interest and Cheap Debating Tricks! | David Gillespie's "Big Fat Lies"

  • Pingback: Sarah Wilson, Hypocrisy, Conflicts of Interest and Cheap Debating Tricks! | David Gillespie's "Big Fat Lies"

  • Chris Wood

    Hi David Driscol,

    I would like to clarify in simple terms the arguments you have against David Gillespie & Sarah Wilson so we can get away from name calling and back to sensible debate.

    1) DG quotes studies that support his theory but ignores the studies that he disagrees with.
    2) Whilst yourself and other nutritionists agree that too much sugar is detrimental to ones well being, DG & SWs targets are unreasonably low.
    3) You feel AHA, Dr Alan Barclay & other nutritionists have been unfairly criticised.

    Is there any other ‘in a nutshell points’ that I have missed?

    [Reply]

    David Driscoll Reply:

    Re: David Gillespie (I’ll just list a few examples of each off the top of my head)
    1. Makes up facts
    eg Type II diabetes is entirely put down to over-consumption of sugar
    Australians and Americans don’t eat animal fat anymore

    2. Distorts facts
    Fructose is instantly turned into fat (sugar from fruit juice at breakfast)
    Omega 6 ‘research’
    polyunsaturated fats in cell membranes bad

    3. Misrepresents Research
    Sun doesn’t cause melonoma – (it says the opposite) http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/92/10/811.full.pdf+html
    Studies re exercise in Big Fat Lies

    4. Cherry Picks Findings
    Recent BMJ article, increase sugar increase weight, decrease sugar decrease weight – forgot to mention that different types of carbs made no difference
    AHA says max 6-9 tsp sugar – actually is added sugar and also applies to glucose/dextrose – forgotten in recipes
    Studies re fat type and dementia from blog

    5. Cherry Picks Research (against review studies and meta-analysis)
    Research says exercise doesn’t result in fat loss
    Research says exercise always increases appetite
    Almost every fructose study

    6. Misrepresents Professional Bodies
    AHA says that fructose is poison
    Heart Foundation and Diabetes Council have no position on sugar

    7. False Dichotomy
    If not anti-sugar must be pro sugar
    Studies with massive fructose intakes proves his position

    Thinks replacing sugar with glucose/dextrose etc solves issues
    Position on exercise
    Position on seed oils

    and after all of that suggests that those who don’t agree aren’t up to date on evidence or have conflicts of interest and thus won’t be totally truthful

    [Reply]

  • geraldine

    Table 5. Calorie Allowances for Discretionary and Added Sugars Based on a Variety of Age, Sex, and Physical Activity Levels
    Male Male Female Female
    Age 21–25 46–50 51–55 71–75
    Added sugars, teaspoons 18 9 5 3

    So it is 5 teaspoons of ADDED sugars a day (for females) and 18 for (males in the 21-25 age group) what the AHA recommends…Yep I can see what David Driscoll is saying, when Sarah says her quote re ‘6-9 teaspoons a day is all we can handle’ , it appears she isn’t interpreting the above correctly. We can actually handle more as the above is for Discretionary and Added Sugars. http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/120/11/1011.full.pdf

    I found this letter from Nutrition Australia to David Gillespie very interesting. You can read the whole letter here: http://www.nutritionaustralia.org/national/media-releases/response-david-gillespie-behalf-nut-net

    But highlighting two areas:

    “In addition to containing these errors (among others), Sweet Poison selectively refers to the scientific literature and, as explained above, occasionally grossly misinterprets the literature to develop an exaggerated case that fructose is the sole cause of obesity, type 2 diabetes and heart disease…..In summary, Sweet Poison does not reflect the current state of scientific knowledge with respect to the health effects of dietary fructose. As a result, the Nut-Net FAQ will continue to recommend against this book.”

    And this:

    v) On page 78 the claim is made that ‘every gram of fructose we eat is directly converted to fat’. This is not correct—fructose may go down the gluconeogenic pathway (leading to its conversion to glucose and subsequent storage in the liver as glycogen) or the fructolytic pathway (resulting in the production of fat). The available evidence suggests that fructose may be preferentially converted to glycogen until liver glycogen is replenished. It appears that only then will the fructolytic pathway predominate [Biochem. J. (1988) 251 (3): 795–802].

    I do find it a little mind boggling that this AHA paper is the only comprehensive research Sarah has read up on…Especially coming from a journalist. Really Sarah? I don’t understand how that could be possible. isnt it part of a journos nature to be inquisitve and dig and dig? From what I can see there are plnety of meta analsyes and reviews on frctose.

    This paper for one, Metabolic Effects of Fructose and the Worldwide Increase in Obesity I found gives a thorough explanation on how fructose is metabolized, one area I was particularly concerned with as I have heard from both Sarah and David that fructose turns to fat and have since learned this is not entirely true. You can read it here: http://physrev.physiology.org/content/90/1/23.long#ack-1

    I asked in a previous comment here if low sugar fruits act differently to high sugar ones in the body because in that ACA segment she says eating berries are ok but not grapes or bananas (the original one that her quotes were pulled from not the second one), but didn’t get a reply so I went hunting myself. Comment below from Alan Aragon’s blog also explains that fructose doesn’t always turn to fat.
    In this very interesting blog post which I highly recommend if you have the time! ( It has some 400 comments, but this link summarizes it:
    http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/02/19/a-retrospective-of-the-fructose-alarmism-debate/ )
    where he debated both Ludwig and David Gillespie, I found James Krieger, Masters in Nutrition, (he’s from http://weightology.net) explain to a previous commenter who wanted to know how can fructose lead to “undesirable end-products” under certain conditions and yet be beneficial in others…

    James Krieger, M.S., M.S., no B.S. permalink
    February 9, 2010
    “Basically, the energy status of the body. This can be partly reflected by liver glycogen content.
    I won’t go into the detailed biochemistry, but fructose will take different metabolic pathways in the liver depending upon liver glycogen status. In fact, liver glycogen status is a powerful mediator of fructose metabolism in that it regulates the enzymes which are involved in fructose metabolism.
    If you are in an energy deficit, liver glycogen is not full. In this case, fructose is directed towards gluconeogenesis (production of new glucose to be released into the blood) and replenishment of liver glycogen.
    If you are in an energy surplus, liver glycogen is full. In that case, fructose is directed towards triglyceride and VLDL formation (the “undesirable end products” you refer to).
    If you are in energy balance, there will be a balance between triglyceride formation from fructose, and triglyceride and fructose oxidation, and there won’t be any accumulation of visceral fat.
    Thus, fructose will only exert harmful effects if you’re overeating in the first place.”

    Simple and straight forward I thought and has put my mind to rest. So I don’t think its right that Sarah and David say ‘fructose turns to fat,’ ‘it’s all the same thing,’ “fructose=bad’ statements like this are extreme, do cause alarm for some people and simply put are very misleading. Even I at one point thought, as I was grabbing for my mango, this is turning to fat according to what I’ve been hearing! and that to me is counterproductive to teaching people about health and nutrition. That’s all.

    [Reply]

    Sara Reply:

    But isn’t David gs point that, while these three ways fructose is absorbed are true in theory, the vast majority of people have energy surplus so therefore for most people, most of the time the negative effects will be experienced? I don’t know if indeed we are typically in surplus but if we are than I don’t think his argument is misleading. He qualifies the idea that fructose ‘tuns to fat’ with the assumption that we are in surplus. If you’re in the minority who are not, you’re fine.

    I do take your point that the aha study does seem to be a bit taken out of context but I also think David gs stuff is ging quoted out of context.

    [Reply]

    David M Driscoll Reply:

    Even Dr Lustig says it is up to about 25% – Fat Chance “Rather, If your obese, insulin-resistant, fed and getting both fructose and glucose together (a sizeable percentage of the population), then fructose gets converted to fat at a much higher rate – approximating 25%” – sorry have ebook version so can’t give page number – is chapter 16 under Food Industry Argument 2

    [Reply]

    David M Driscoll Reply:

    David’s quote is about the first mouthful of fruit juice being turned into fat before you finish the glass. If there was ever a time it wouldn’t be turned into fat it would be in the morning with relative carbohydrate depletion from the overnight fast!

    His quote not mine.

    Also look at the Stanhope 2009 (One David likes to quote) study and not that massive glucose and fructose dosages resulted in the same amount of weight and fat gain (although the regions of the body were different!

    [Reply]

  • http://gillstannard.com.au Gill Stannard Naturopath

    The sugar debate has really heated up in the past six months or so. Why? I’m sure the New York State ban on large soft drinks (coming into law in March if the manufacturers appeal is unsuccessful) has driven much of the overseas coverage that has found it’s way to our shores and the Australian CSR ‘low GI” sugar launch added more fuel to the fire.

    When the first round of sugar is evil/fat is good ‘current affairs’ coverage picked up last year, I analysed the arguments http://gillstannard.com.au/2012/07/10/is-sugar-poison/ . There’s lots of references for those who’d like to read more (and yes I have a science background).

    I agree with you Sarah, that most people have an agenda to push. “Experts” are no different and Australia’s own peak body for dietitians has an interesting history when it comes to corporate sponsorship.

    Personally, I think our palate has become sugar-biased and this is something we need to retrain. I generally don’t advocate sugar-substitutes (including rice malt or stevia etc) no matter how it’s metabolised in the body because of this. When you look at the types of ‘treats’ they’re added to, they tend to be low nutrient. The mentality also encourages us to think of sweet as a treat/reward. And to associate food with “guilt”. An emotion that might just be just as ‘poisonous’ as sugar!

    =

    [Reply]

    David Driscoll Reply:

    Is it unfortunate that the first half of your article simply an ad hominem logical fallacy. Why critique Bill Shrapnel if he is presenting other’s people research? Why not just reply with the research he didn’t quote if you believe he has cherry-picked research.

    I agree with your opinion on humans looking for sweet taste (and thus question advice and recipes replacing fructose with dextrose!) – one researcher highlighted to Dr Lustig recently that rats actually preferred mannose to sucrose as they got twice as much glucose. (as most scientists at the conference questioned Dr Lutig’s extrapolation of data – youtube.com/watch?v=ypWe6npULUQ and youtube.com/watch?v=cnGhfX2yaU4)

    One recent article also missed the boat totally as the study actually looked at artifically sweetened water not sugar vs cocaine! Is it the sweet taste people chase or fructose/sucrose?
    http://www.health.msn.co.nz/healthnews/8582942/sugar-as-addictive-as-cocaine-nicotine

    I also note that you haven’t linked to a single research paper – let alone a review paper that would put it all into perspective (which I acknowledge may be appropriate for the audience you are targeting).

    For anyone interested, a pubmed search for fructose and reviews over the past few years got me the following articles (many of which are freely available). If people wish to critique them, no point in bagging me, go after the author or more specifically the authors of the papers being reviewed – unless of course you disagree with the selection criteria for the reviews – then maybe the review author could be questioned.

    Metabolic Effects of Fructose and the Worldwide Increase in Obesity

    physrev.physiology.org/content/90/1/23.long

    Health implications of fructose consumption: A review of recent data

    nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/pdf/1743-7075-7-82.pdf

    Effect of fructose on body weight in controlled feeding trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis

    ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22351714

    The Effects of Fructose Intake on Serum Uric Acid Vary among Controlled Dietary Trials

    ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3327749/pdf/nut14200916.pdf

    Effect of fructose on blood pressure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled feeding trials

    ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22331380

    Role of fructose-containing sugars in the epidemics of obesity and metabolic syndrome

    ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22034869

    Evidence-based review on the effect of normal dietary consumption of fructose on blood lipids and body weight of overweight and obese individuals

    ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21108071

    Fructose toxicity: is the science ready for public health actions

    ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22617566

    Review article: fructose in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease

    ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22469071

    ‘Catalytic’ doses of fructose may benefit glycaemic control without harming cardiometabolic risk factors: a small meta-analysis of randomised controlled feeding trials

    ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3411192/pdf/S000711451200013Xa.pdf

    Effect of fructose on glycemic control in diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled feeding trials.

    ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22723585

    For people who haven’t read a science paper before – look at the discussion section. Most researchers do a good job at critiquing their own work as well as comparing to other papers!

    [Reply]

  • Chris Wood

    Hi David Driscoll,

    OK so thats summed it up, David Gillespie lays it on a bit thick.

    From your experience at what level would you say that ingesting fructose becomes a problem for the human body?

    Thanks

    [Reply]

    David Driscoll Reply:

    Since science hasn’t shown us a level – I have no idea. Interesting to note what intakes were in the early 20th century when there wasn’t much diabetes or obesity – have a look at this graph
    davidgillespiesbigfatlies.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/sugar-intake-20th-century.jpg

    No doubt this is a reason David Gillespie likes to talk about sugar levels in the 1800s – looking from 1900-1950 would debunk his no sugar/fructose platform quickly!

    I personally haven’t seen a level where it is a problem. Anyone with a high sugar intake, I would advise them to reduce it (unless they were an athlete – interestingly another case where we see don’t see problems with high fructose intakes – ESPECIALLY re appetite!)

    I think more evidence will shows that as physically activity levels decrease, ‘tolerance’ for carbohydrates (and extra calories) also do – so hard to say what is cause and effect!

    I don’t think there is any convincing reason to set a limit on fructose (and especially to replace it with glucose/dextrose) but as the evidence changes, so will my practise!

    [Reply]

  • Geraldine

    Makes sense to me David Driscoll. Interesting Ive posted a comment, lengthy one about my findings on fructose metabolism ( does not convert to fat as Sarah and DG say) with 3 different links and plenty of others have posted after me and their comment has gone up immediately
    Not sure why mine is still waiting moderation?
    I also note some highlights from a letter by Nutrition Australia to Gillespie with a link
    Go to Alan Aragons site on his fructose debate with Ludwig and Gillespie that link too I added.. Very interesting.
    That’s if this post goes up, well see.

    [Reply]

    David Driscoll Reply:

    Just removed the http and the www part and it won’t set off the filter needing approval.

    I’ve followed Alan’s work for a while now – stickler for research – he’s awesome (and not a fan of Lustig for the same reason!)

    Not sure why these authors can;t just say I tried this and it work for me and a bunch of other people. Why claim research backs it, then worse still, people who don’t agree aren’t up to date or have been corrupted and are protecting their interests?

    Part of me thinks it is just to get publicity (David gets PLENTY this way)!

    [Reply]

    geraldine Reply:

    Thanks David, so I did that and it seemed to work.
    Yes I have been rather impressed by Alan Aragon. Defitely right about his research.

    [Reply]

  • Chez

    I have a question. I have just started the IQS journey yesterday. I never really ate a lot of sugar anyway, but was a big fan of fruit and had raw organic honey in me tea. So, these are the 2 main items I will be ousting. I like to make my own vege juices and usually put in a green apple or beetroot or carrot to add sweetness to the greens. Is this still o.k? Today, I made a vege juice of Cucumber, 2 carrots, 1 apple and parsley. It was yum, but I am kinda concerned I still have 2 much fructose in there. What about tomatoes..they are sweet. Are they o.k to add in or do I need to be cautious with them too? Other than that, I don’t think I will have a problem with not having sugar in my diet. Thanks xx

    [Reply]

  • Chris Wood

    I take from that chart that added sugar consumption has roughly doubled since 1909 and if we assume there was very little metabolic syndrome around at that time 80Ibs of added sugar per year could be considered a safe level. It would be interesting to see overlayed the rise of heart disease, diabetes and weight gain.

    [Reply]

    David Driscoll Reply:

    Physical activity is a major issue – as is energy intake!

    [Reply]

  • Geraldine

    Table 5. Calorie Allowances for Discretionary and Added Sugars Based on a Variety of Age, Sex, and Physical Activity Levels
    Male Male Female Female
    Age 21–25 46–50 51–55 71–75
    Added sugars, teaspoons 18 9 5 3

    So it is 5 teaspoons of ADDED sugars a day (for females) and 18 for (males in the 21-25 age group) what the AHA recommends…Yep I can see what David Driscoll is saying, when Sarah says her quote re ‘6-9 teaspoons a day is all we can handle’ , it appears she isn’t interpreting the above correctly. We can actually handle more as the above is for Discretionary and Added Sugars. I dont think we should be eating more, thats just my opinion, but I think the point trying to be made was read what AHA is actually saying.
    circ.ahajournals.org/content/120/11/1011.full.pdf

    this letter from Nutrition Australia to David Gillespie was very interesting. You can read the whole letter here: nutritionaustralia.org/national/media-releases/response-david-gillespie-behalf-nut-net

    “In addition to containing these errors (among others), Sweet Poison selectively refers to the scientific literature and, as explained above, occasionally grossly misinterprets the literature to develop an exaggerated case that fructose is the sole cause of obesity, type 2 diabetes and heart disease…..In summary, Sweet Poison does not reflect the current state of scientific knowledge with respect to the health effects of dietary fructose. As a result, the Nut-Net FAQ will continue to recommend against this book.”

    And this: ( I was particularly interested in knowing how its metabolized)
    v) On page 78 the claim is made that ‘every gram of fructose we eat is directly converted to fat’. This is not correct—fructose may go down the gluconeogenic pathway (leading to its conversion to glucose and subsequent storage in the liver as glycogen) or the fructolytic pathway (resulting in the production of fat). The available evidence suggests that fructose may be preferentially converted to glycogen until liver glycogen is replenished. It appears that only then will the fructolytic pathway predominate [Biochem. J. (1988) 251 (3): 795–802].

    I do find it a little mind boggling that this AHA paper is the only comprehensive research Sarah has read up on…Especially coming from a journalist. Really Sarah? I don’t understand how that could be possible esp. for a journo? From what I can see there are plenty of meta analsyes and reviews on fructose.

    This paper for one, Metabolic Effects of Fructose and the Worldwide Increase in Obesity I found gives a thorough explanation on how fructose is metabolized, one area I was concerned with as I have heard from both Sarah and David that fructose turns to fat and have since learned this is not entirely true. You can read it here: physrev.physiology.org/content/90/1/23.long#ack-1

    I asked in a previous comment here if low sugar fruits act differently to high sugar ones in the body because in that ACA segment she says eating berries are ok but not grapes or bananas (the original one that her quotes were pulled from not the second one), but didn’t get a reply so I went hunting myself. Comment below from Alan Aragon’s blog also explains that fructose doesn’t always turn to fat.

    In this very interesting blog post which I highly recommend if you have the time! ( It has some 400 comments, but this link summarizes it:
    alanaragonblog.com/2010/02/19/a-retrospective-of-the-fructose-alarmism-debate/ )
    where he debated both Ludwig and David Gillespie, I found this reply from James Krieger, Masters in Nutrition, (he’s from weightology.net) explain to a previous commenter who wanted to know “how can fructose lead to “undesirable end-products” under certain conditions and yet be beneficial in others…?”

    February 9, 2010
    “Basically, the energy status of the body. This can be partly reflected by liver glycogen content.
    I won’t go into the detailed biochemistry, but fructose will take different metabolic pathways in the liver depending upon liver glycogen status. In fact, liver glycogen status is a powerful mediator of fructose metabolism in that it regulates the enzymes which are involved in fructose metabolism.
    If you are in an energy deficit, liver glycogen is not full. In this case, fructose is directed towards gluconeogenesis (production of new glucose to be released into the blood) and replenishment of liver glycogen.
    If you are in an energy surplus, liver glycogen is full. In that case, fructose is directed towards triglyceride and VLDL formation (the “undesirable end products” you refer to).
    If you are in energy balance, there will be a balance between triglyceride formation from fructose, and triglyceride and fructose oxidation, and there won’t be any accumulation of visceral fat.
    Thus, fructose will only exert harmful effects if you’re overeating in the first place.”

    Simple and straight forward I thought and has put my mind to rest. So I don’t think its right that Sarah and David say ‘fructose turns to fat,’ ‘it’s all the same thing,’ “fructose=bad’ statements like this are extreme, do cause alarm for some people and simply put are very misleading. Even I at one point thought, as I was grabbing for my mango, this is turning to fat according to what I’ve been hearing! and that to me is counterproductive to teaching people about health and nutrition. That’s all.

    [Reply]

    rory robertson (former fattie) Reply:

    Geraldine, that letter from NutNet’s Chris Forbes-Ewan to David Gillespie is indeed very interesting. Back then in 2010 high-profile publicly funded nutritionist Chris Forbes-Ewan clearly had made it his mission to hammer David Gillespie’s views on the extent to which modern doses of sugar/fructose consumption are a health hazard (in that letter and across the web). And good luck to him, to the extent that he had his facts correct.

    Awkwardly, Chris was dragged into a deep, dark hole by Dr Barclay’s Australian Paradox paper that he (Chris) haplessly embraced – without properly checking his facts – on the mistaken assumption that the University of Sydney would have competent quality controls in place to ensure that incompetent papers on science would not find their way into science journals, not even obscure pay-as-you-publish E-journals (as discussed here earlier).

    In that letter, Chris wrote (in part):

    “…Alicia Sim and Alan Barclay presented a paper at the 2010 conference of the Dietitians Association of Australia in which they concluded that ‘total fructose consumption is inversely associated with overweight/obesity in Australia, the UK and Japan since the 1970s’. You [David Gillespie] have previously been made aware of this paper.” (http://www.nutritionaustralia.org/national/media-releases/response-david-gillespie-behalf-nut-net ).

    Does anyone have an actual copy of that 2010 DAA paper by Dr Barclay and Ms Sim? They now seem to be as scarce as hen’s teeth.

    In any case, what is interesting is that when I emailed Dr Alan Barclay in February 2012 and asked him for the data underlying those DAA results, he replied (in part): “Better still Rory, you can read the full paper here: http://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/3/4/491/ “.

    That is, I asked for the paper by Barclay and Sim and was given the link for the (later) paper by Barclay and Brand-Miller. Now that may have been a simple error – a mix-up about the paper I was asking for – but another possibility perhaps is that the lead author was upgraded to assist with publication?

    If the latter somehow occurred – and I am only speculating – that would make the pedigree of the Australian Paradox paper doubly fascinating. After all, in the “Acknowledgments” for Australian Paradox we are told that “This study was a Masters of Nutrition and Dietetic project conducted by Laura Owens and co-supervised by AWB and JBM” (on p. 502 of the PDF at http://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/3/4/491 ).

    Chris Forbes-Ewan also appears to have been misled/confused on the origins of the Australian Paradox paper. That is, in 2011 – back when Chris was as prolific in criticising David Gillespie’s views on David G’s website as David D. now is at criticising Sarah’s view’s on Sarah’s website – Chris produced this fascinating pair of observations:

    (i) “Some time ago I wrote in a comment: ‘The paper by Alicia Sim and Alan Barclay that was presented at DAA last year has been submitted for publication (I’m not sure where). If it passes the peer-review process and is published, then I would regard that as the best evidence available. Until better evidence comes along, I would then accept that consumption of added fructose has probably declined in Australia (while it has increased in the US) at the same time as obesity has reached epidemic proportions in both countries.’ ”

    (ii) “The paper [now] has been accepted for publication in the journal Nutrients. It was e-published late last month: http://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/3/4/491/ Alan Barclay and Jenni Brand Miller (sic) are cited as the co-authors. The conclusion includes: ‘The findings confirm an “Australian Paradox” — a substantial decline in refined sugars intake over the same timeframe that obesity has increased. The implication is that efforts to reduce sugar intake may reduce consumption but may not reduce the prevalence of obesity.’

    Until better evidence comes along, I [Chris] will accept that sugar (and therefore fructose) intake has decreased in Australia and the UK while the obesity epidemic has been surging ahead. This directly contradicts David’s [Gillespie] claims that fructose intake has increased in parallel with the obesity epidemic.” (May 6, 2011 9:08 PM http://www.raisin-hell.com/2010/01/attack-of-chocolatier.html )

    Well, well, well. So, what exactly are the origins of the now-infamous Australian Paradox paper. What are the arrangements that link the papers by Owen et al, Barclay and Sim, and Barclay and Brand-Miller? Any thoughts on this, anyone? David D.?

    I doubt that anything of great substance is involved there, but for outsiders the origins of authorship of the ultimately published paper are rather confusing, and that becomes fascinating when we recall that distinguished and influential Professor Brand-Miller ultimately turned up at the centre of things, operating as both the (new) lead author and the “Guest Editor” who oversaw publication of the deeply flawed paper.

    What is most important, however, is the belated but spectacular public backflip on the final Australian Paradox paper by David Gillespie’s formerly determined foe, publicly funded nutritionist Chris Forbes-Ewan.

    In August 2012, after being challenged for conspicuously not citing his favourite “best evidence” – in a public discussion he initiated on fructose and obesity – Chris Forbes-Ewan wrote: “I don’t know whether the consumption of added sugars has increased, decreased or remained the same in Australia in recent years. I don’t believe anyone else knows the answer to this question, either”.

    When challenged again for being disingenuous about his new view on the extraordinarily faulty Australian Paradox paper, he crankily repeated that response: “I responded to your question with a clear and unambiguous answer: Neither I nor anyone else can be sure whether sugar consumption has increased, decreased or remained steady in Australia in recent decades” (http://theconversation.edu.au/what-role-does-fructose-have-in-weight-gain-7424 ).

    Yes, what an impressive public back-flip, even if Chris so far unreasonably has failed to explicitly and properly correct his initial misinformation on the quality of the Australian Paradox paper, including the particular bit of misinformation he and Nutrition Australian distributed in that anti-Gillespie “Open Letter”, cited by Geraldine.

    In 2011, Chris Forbes-Ewan thought the Australian Paradox paper so profoundly important – and the facts correct – that he chased David Gillespie all over the Internet to poke him in the eye with it.

    In 2012, after having had the opportunity to see that Australian Paradox is dominated by a series of serious errors, Chris ran a mile to avoid even mentioning it by name. What “Australian Paradox”!?

    Amusingly, Chris got very cranky in that discussion when I put him on my list of observers – including Dr Rosemary Stanton – who think Australian paradox is an “academic disgrace”.

    In 2013, Chris (so far) has chosen not to provide any update on his thinking on Australian Paradox: https://theconversation.edu.au/silent-killer-or-occasional-treat-settling-the-debate-on-sugar-11615

    For a variety of other observers’ public assessments of the quality of the Australian Paradox paper – including by Rosemary Stanton, Bill Shrapnel and University of Sydney Vice Chancellor Dr Michael Spence – go to Slides 21-30 at http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/AUSTRALIAN-PARADOX-101-SLIDESHOW.pdf

    Readers, further information on the University of Sydney’s mistaken and somewhat dangerous “shonky sugar study” can be found on my revamped website, http://www.australianparadox.com Let me know if you see anything that is factually incorrect, or any statements that are unreasonable.

    [Reply]

    David M Driscoll Reply:

    Wow, so relevant to anything being discussed here – thanks Rory! Noticed you didn’t address a single issue Geraldine brought up, just performed your one trick to appear relevant, why?

    [Reply]

    rory robertson (former fattie) Reply:

    Sorry David D., that you (say you) are oblivious to the obvious relevance. Assuming you are not pretending, I will explain it again slowly so that you can catch up.

    (a) Geraldine highlighted a letter published by Nutrition Australia, a letter that slammed as uninformed David Gillespie’s tough stance against sugar. (Geraldine wrote: “…this letter from Nutrition Australia to David Gillespie was very interesting. You can read the whole letter here: nutritionaustralia.org/national/media-releases/response-david-gillespie-behalf-nut-net “.)

    (b) I responded by agreeing with Geraldine that Nutrition Australia’s letter is “very interesting”, focusing on the fact that the letter highlights the work of the University of Sydney’s Dr Alan Barclay, the same Dr Alan Barclay featured on the ACA program that sparked this post by Sarah, the comments section of which you – David D. – have chosen to park yourself.

    (c) The Nut-Net letter is important because it highlights Dr Barclay’s sloppy scholarship, by highlighting a paper that later became the spectacularly faulty Australian Paradox paper, the error-filled paper that Dr Barclay and co-author Professor Jennie Brand-Miller refuse to correct (http://www.smh.com.au/business/pesky-economist-wont-let-big-sugar-lie-20120725-22pru.html ).

    (d) The Nutrition Australia letter was written by a fellow called Chris Forbes-Ewan. As I documented above, Chris Forbes-Ewan initially loved the Australian Paradox paper – which falsely claimed to document “an inverse relationship” between sugar consumption and obesity – and haplessly used the faulty paper in several places across the web to try to slam David Gillespie for stating the obvious: modern rates of sugar consumption are a key driver of excess weight, obesity, diabetes, et al.

    (e) Awkwardly for Chris Forbes-Ewan and Nutrition Australia (not to mention for Dr Barclay and Professor Brand-Miller), Chris Forbes-Ewan later discovered that the Australian Paradox paper is based on an incompetent assessment of the underlying facts. Following his spectacular back-flip on Australian Paradox, Chris Forbes-Ewan now is on my list of people who consider the paper to be (more or less) an academic disgrace (see Slide 26 at http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/22Slideshowaustraliangoestoparadoxcanberrafinal.pdf ).

    (f) Indeed, Australia’s most-trusted nutritionist – Dr Rosemary Stanton – has said of Dr Alan Barclay and Professor Jennie Brand-Miller’s extraordinarily faulty paper: “And yes, I agree with you [Rory] that we have no evidence that sugar consumption in Australia has fallen. A walk around any supermarket shows that huge numbers of foods contains sugar. I argue this point frequently with colleagues”; “I have many objections to that particular paper and to the idea that sugar is not a problem”; and “I have expressed my opinion about the paper to the authors … I will almost certainly cite it at some stage as an example of something I consider to be incorrect” (Slides 18 and 19).

    (g) Despite doing a spectacular backflip on the veracity of the University of Sydney’s “shonky sugar study” – the sugary food-industry’s favourite sugar-and-obesity study (http://www.smh.com.au/national/health/research-causes-stir-over-sugars-role-in-obesity-20120330-1w3e5.html ) – Chris Forbes-Ewan has not yet done the right thing and written to readers of the Nut-Net letter to correct his earlier misinformation. Nor has Nutrition Australia corrected that false pro-sugar misinformation, misinformation it (still) promotes on its website, as was brought to our attention by Geraldine. Thanks Geraldine.

    Do you now understand the relevance, David D.? The bottom line is that everyday people looking for reliable facts on nutrition – especially regarding the link between modern sugar consumption and obesity – cannot trust the information provided by either Dr Alan Barclay – who featured on ACA despite the dark cloud over his scholarship – or Nutrition Australia.

    I assume Dr Barclay is kept on at the University of Sydney because he is better at selling sugar and sugary products as Healthy than he was at publishing a competent science paper on sugar (http://www.gisymbol.com/cmsAdmin/uploads/Glycemic-Index-Foundation-Healthy-Choices-Brochure.pdf ).

    I’m amazed that both the University of Sydney and the Australian Diabetes Council continue to tolerate Dr Barclay’s clownish and somewhat fraudulent defence of the obviously faulty Australian Paradox paper: http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/Update-AustralianParadox-Dec2012-27.pdf and http://www.smh.com.au/business/pesky-economist-wont-let-big-sugar-lie-20120725-22pru.html

    The ham-fisted nutritionists on ACA complaining that everyday people are paying them little attention and looking elsewhere for reliable nutrition advice might want to remove the high-profile false information from their industry’s website and to seek to rebuild trust in the community. It’s farcical for Dr Barclay to complain that David Gillespie and Sarah have “no science background” when he remains busy in the public debate promoting obviously incompetent science as fact: http://www.abc.net.au/health/features/stories/2012/08/30/3578541.htm#.UQytpVpetEI

    Since you are here, David D., and you claim you are trying to be helpful, please answer this question for Sarah’s readers:

    Who should we trust for competent nutrition advice: Dr Rosemary Stanton or the highly conflicted and somewhat unreliable Dr Alan Barclay, who falsely claimed that cars not humans consumed a big chunk of the available sugar (see Michael Pascoe’s SMH article), and whose day job includes promoting low-GI sugar and sugary foods as Healthy?

    David M Driscoll Reply:

    And as usual you ignored everything else in the statements that either doesn’t relate to Sydney Uni or things that you can’t answer and went back to your standard line!

    Yes Rory, you should trust the NUTRITION ADVICE of Dr Rosemary Stanton, what does she say about sugar intake and saturated fat?? Bluff called again Rory!

  • Cheryl Huckel

    I have lost 9 kilos in a year without counting calories or exercise programs. For the first time in 50 years my appetite is under some control. It was only by limiting all sugar and increasing healthy fats. Thanks and also for the no food waste campaign, I’m saving money as well.

    [Reply]

  • Chris Wood

    Geraldine,

    A couple of questions came to me regarding the Feburary 9 2010 quotation about how the liver metabolizes fructose.

    Would it be possible that with the abundance of food these days the majority of people spend most of their time in energy surplus?

    Even if we are in energy deficit or in energy balance when a food that contains a lot of sugar is eaten very little of that glucose/fructose combination is needed to bring us into energy surplus and the balance of fructose gets turned to fat?

    [Reply]

    Geraldine Reply:

    Hi Chris,
    Good point raised. What I think and this is coming from a non scientific background so perhaps someone else would be better to answer, but if people are spending their time in energy surplus all the time then would that mean they’re overeating anyway (?) and so this goes back to James Kreiger’s final point in the piece that “fructose will only exert harmful effects if you’re overeating in the first place.” And as for the 2nd part of your question, I don’t know as I don’t have the biochemistry education to answer if it is possible that a small amount of high sugar can bring a body that is in balance or deficit into surplus. Maybe I should email Mr Kreiger and ask him. I’d certainly like to know.

    [Reply]

  • http://mymezzaluna.com Edwina

    I’m with you all the way! I’ll definitely continue to spread the word…

    [Reply]

  • Chris Wood

    If I may I’d like to expand on the idea that nowadays we spend most of our time in energy surplus.

    In an earlier post David Driscoll supplied a link to a graph that showed in 1909 Americans were eating 80lbs of sugar per year (half todays level), a time when diabetes, heart disease and obesity were rare. I surmised that 80lbs per year could therefore be considered an acceptable level. However…

    1909
    After waking up, eating breakfast puts us into energy surplus but we then walk/cycle/run for the bus to get to work or school. Meanwhile mum gets out the wash board/scrubs the floor/kneads the bread. In short we use up the quick energy sources we have consumed at breakfast i.e. the sugars. I don’t know what Dad does after eating lunch but the kids are charging around in the playground and mum is running the clothes through the mangle, hanging the washing, making pastry and cakes (without the help of a food mixer). Mums been on the go all day, and prior to dinner the kids and dad have walked or cycled home from work, plus the kids have been playing outside. Everyone is energy deficient. Dinner brings us into energy surplus, the kids go out to play again, adults wash up, get in the coal and dig the vegetable patch. We have enough energy surplus to last through 10 hours fasting until breakfast.

    Today
    After waking up, eating breakfast puts us into energy surplus. We then get in the car and drive to work, dropping the kids off at school on the way. Our quick energy sources from sugar have not been used up so our liver converts it partly to fat. Mid morning we have a sugary snack to see us through to lunch. Probably we spend our lunchtime surfing the internet but the kids are charging around the playground – if the school hasn’t laid on a movie. A mid afternoon snack then drive home from work/school. Prior to dinner the kids are in front of the TV/computer. Everyone is in energy balance or even still in energy surplus. Dinner moves us into an energy surplus over and above that which will see us through to breakfast. About the only after dinner activity we partake in is loading the dish washer.

    Mum and dad also find time during the day to go to the gym or jogging to compensate for the lack of walking/household chores. However since we rarely exercise immediately after eating by the time we’ve let our food go down and drive to the gym, the under utilized fructose has already turned to fat. Since we are still in energy surplus from dinner our body may not get into ‘fat burning mode’ during the workout.

    I guess all that is a long winded way to say that when we consume fructose it needs to be used up immediately otherwise it gets turned into fat by the liver. If this is true I would conclude that even 1909 levels of sugar are too high for todays life style.

    [Reply]

    David Driscoll Reply:

    You are sort of on the right track but not quite. Glycogen stored in muscles can only really be used by that muscle. Glycogen stored in the liver is what keeps blood sugar levels normal, so activity will deplete both muscle and liver glycogen and then the liver ‘liberates it’ to go wherever it need to go (glucose released from food can also do this). So between meals, liver glycogen it topping up stores. First thing in the morning the liver is significantly depleted – making David’s breakfast fruit juice turning to fat before you finish it – the most illogical outcome!

    If you ate lots of carbs constantly all day didn’t move – this may be the case, but hasn’t been demonstrated in research. Some studies suggest that the glucose from fructose is preferentially used over ingested glucose.

    At least Robert Lustig strongly encourages exercise for it’s beneficial effects on fructose among other things, although he still misses the boat re weight loss! David Gillespie just seems to make a joke about how little exercise he does.

    The fact that current research suggests that you are better off to be fit and fat vs lean and sedentary – again highlights David’s lack of understanding of research!

    [Reply]

  • http://davidgillespiesbigfatlies.com/ David Driscoll

    How funny that people claimed hat it was my tone that prevented them reading my thoughts, yet Geraldine and Chris have been polite and still not received any response?

    Seems like it was just a dishonest ploy to avoid any information that wasn’t towing the party line!

    [Reply]

  • Annie

    Oh for goodness sake David – give it a rest!!!!!!!!! I subscribed to the comments section for this blog (mistakenly thinking I would only be notified if someone replied to my comments alone – my error) and all I have had in my inbox all week is about a billion emails and most of them have been either about you or by you. Funnily enough, I thought to myself if this was the school playground in the fifties you’d be pulling Sarah’s pigtails and we all know what feelings those really hide :) This is obviously the internet, it’s a blog, it’s a comments section and you can post whatever. And you’ve stuck to the topic, so that’s great. But at some point . . . enough already!!! If you are really, really that passionate and concerned about this issue (which is awesome – I love it when people are about something positive) then post more on your blog about it, produce an e-book, pitch a newspaper article, create a newsletter, make it a bigger part of your business mission . whatever. No doubt Sarah will be posting again and there will be plenty more opportunities for you to share your thoughts, but for now, please . .. for the sake of my inbox and this post just let it go for now . .. OK? I would really appreciate it. And no, I am not ‘toeing the party line’ nor am I a friend of Sarah’s. Just someone who has had a long week :)

    [Reply]

    KM Reply:

    Oh Annie I agree, lol.

    The playground analogy is funny! I had been thinking of school too- where Sarah works solidly to build a tower that lots of people come over to look at and take interest in, and she gets quite an audience…and then David comes over and has a tantrum, waving some textbooks and yelling that she hasn’t done it properly, rather than putting that time and energy into building his own ‘proper’ tower, to demonstrate how it should be done.

    [Reply]

    David M Driscoll Reply:

    All we need now to complete the analogy is a group of bitchy girls who don’t like anyone outside of their group and are horrified when someone treats them or their leader the same as they have treating others (still no one thinks accusing anyone with a different opinion as being bought off or having a vested interest is rude or a problem?? They can’t honestly disagree, they must be putting their commercial interests ahead of helping others). We’ll need people who are into name calling and can’t offer much else? Any takers?

    Anyone had a go at Rory for his tone? Or others for continuing the thread? No just the person not towing the party line.

    [Reply]

    Annie Reply:

    Oh for goodness sake Seriously??? – GIVE IT A REST!!!!! Obviously you haven’t heeded any of the friendly brand advice I have been passing along to you, out of concern for your business (for which you have openly provided a link, and anyone can Google to find out more about you). I’ll repeat: this is an open forum, you have the right to your opinion and to debate others. But at what point do you just accept that certain people just aren’t going to get with you on this issue? At the point where you resort to the phrase ‘bitchy girls? Where you harken back to your love of the sentence, ‘toeing the party line’?’ Said before, saying again: really believe in what you are saying? You obviously have facts to back it up? Put it on your blog, write an e-book, pitch a column . . do something, anything, that doesn’t continually poison your own character.

    And no, I am not a friend of Sarah’s, I’m not toeing the party line, – just someone who is trying to enjoy a blog post, one that doesn’t resort to a trench-like war between both sides (not just you – OK?). Settle petal – and please go outside and enjoy your Sunday.

    Cheers!

  • Geraldine

    Apologies everyone if my message comes thru repeatedly.
    At my end it looked like it had disappeared into cyberspace. ‘ Waiting for moderation’ and actual post was not appearing on my screen at all at one point. Hence I reposted it. Annoying I know.

    [Reply]

  • Trish

    I think it would be nice if Mr Driscoll could keep his vitriol to himself and remember that he is making comment on Sarah’s blog. If you disagree with her, fine. However, reading through these comments, you are losing your audience with your nasty behaviour. It is tantamount to coming into her home and yelling abuse at her. Please, if you need to be nasty about it – post it on your own blog, don’t dump on hers. Didn’t you ever hear ‘if you can’t say anything nice…’? It is a measure of what is wrong with society if we think that this type of bullying is ‘debate’.

    [Reply]

  • http://inspiredmood.wordpress.com Kate

    I just watched the ACA report – GRRRRRRrrrrrrrrrrr…. Manufactured, tabloid “reporting” makes me wild!
    Keep doing what you’re doing Sarah, there are thousands of us who appreciate it!

    [Reply]

  • Chris Wood

    Hi David,

    Thank you, I follow what you say in your earlier post about the liver acting as a glycogen store.

    I assume you agree with the science behind “If you are in an energy surplus, liver glycogen is full. In that case, fructose is directed towards triglyceride and VLDL formation”

    So the crucial question is what does it take for the liver to become glycogen replete.

    I can appreciate that a very active persons liver glycogen would rarely become satiated, but for a sedentary individual who may only work out a couple of times a week there are large gaps between the times their body is needing to call on the liver for fuel. Not forgetting of course that during those inactive periods energy dense foods are being consumed 3, 4 or 5 times a day.

    Does that make sense?

    [Reply]

  • http://www.mediscreen.net.au/ Onsite Drug & Alcohol Testing

    I agree with you and we know the diabetes is a horrible dieseas.

    [Reply]

  • Pingback: Sarah Wilson’s “I Quit Sugar” | HerCanberra

  • http://www.theaspirer.com Ursula (The Aspirer)

    It was an interesting show – and it was obvious they presented your beliefs in a different way then how you intended.

    [Reply]

  • Chris Wood

    Hi David,

    For clarity I’d just like to paraphrase the last paragraph of your post: “Following the co-ingestion of fructose and glucose (i.e. sucrose & HFCS), fructose is a significant contributor to glycogen synthesis.” Can I take it that glycogen synthesis is a mechanism by which the liver could become glycogen full. It would then follow that any excess fructose would be “directed towards triglyceride and VLDL formation.”

    There was a study conducted by a Dr Kimber Stanhope in 2009 which concluded that fructose “increased lipid levels, decreased insulin sensitivity and increased levels of the fat that surrounds visceral organs, and they exhibited increased de novo lipogenesis – the process by which the liver turns sugar into fat.” But to quote again from the study in your last post “when ingested alone, fructose [and galactose] contribute little to glycogen synthesis” On the surface two rather contradictory studies.

    It looks a lot like science knows a much less than it thinks it does, your own words David admirably sum up the situation ‘lots of unknowns’ and the arguments between the ‘anti sugar’ and the ‘sugar is fine’ factions boil down to ‘my studies are better than your studies’. Unfortunately while our scientists continue to argue of the minutiae of human metabolism, people continue getting sick.

    What I find most disconcerting is that sections of the scientific community appear less than open to the idea that just maybe there is something to the idea that a highly refined substance which yields no nutritive value and is added to our food supply in unnaturally large quantities just might be causing negative effects.

    [Reply]

    David M Driscoll Reply:

    “ Can I take it that glycogen synthesis is a mechanism by which the liver could become glycogen full. “

    From what I’ve seen it is unlikely, fructose gets first go and as the ’93 study suggested, fructose seems to spare glucose (maybe contributing to high blood glucose levels as a result). But it is possible.

    “It would then follow that any excess fructose would be “directed towards triglyceride and VLDL formation.”

    Yes, but no one has reported levels anywhere near David Gillespie’s (and hence Sarah’s) suggestion that it is 100%.

    “There was a study conducted by a Dr Kimber Stanhope in 2009 which concluded that fructose “increased lipid levels, decreased insulin sensitivity and increased levels of the fat that surrounds visceral organs, and they exhibited increased de novo lipogenesis – the process by which the liver turns sugar into fat.”

    Yes, we just need to quantify that concept of increased. From what to what? Do you have a link to the study? (post without the http or www so it doesn’t get held up waiting for a moderator to approve it). All I could find was a press release and that seems to be from studies using 25% of daily calories from fructose (which would require 50% from sucrose HFCS), hardly a realistic dosage. Anyone even approaching this level, would be covered by the standard dietary advice to ‘reduce sugar intake’ irrespective of the type. Only the most hardcore fructophobe would think that swapping this level of fructose out for glucose would fix this person’s problem!

    “But to quote again from the study in your last post “when ingested alone, fructose [and galactose] contribute little to glycogen synthesis” On the surface two rather contradictory studies.”

    No, one spoke about mixing carbohydrates and thus questioning the validity of studies that use one sugar vs another i.e. glucose or fructose. Which is what some of the most recent studies have done (as well as using massive dosages).

    “It looks a lot like science knows a much less than it thinks it does, your own words David admirably sum up the situation ‘lots of unknowns’ and the arguments between the ‘anti sugar’ and the ‘sugar is fine’ factions boil down to ‘my studies are better than your studies’. “

    I’m not sure what you think science ‘thinks’ it knows. All we have is the data that is available and at this point only studies using massive dosages of single sugars are showing anything different. So it is hardly tit for tat or an amount of research that is split down the middle.

    “What I find most disconcerting is that sections of the scientific community appear less than open to the idea that just maybe there is something to the idea that a highly refined substance which yields no nutritive value and is added to our food supply in unnaturally large quantities just might be causing negative effects.”

    Again. Who is suggesting this? It sounds like you may be buying into David and Sarah’s False Dichotomy logical fallacy that if you aren’t against sugar, you must be for it. Health bodies have been telling people to cut sugar intakes and avoid soft drinks for decades. The fruit juice message is also at least a decade old too. Only when people as dishonest as Sarah, David Gillespie and Rory jump in and suggest that it is a new position, does it come up on some people’s radars, thus they tend to believe it. What health professional doesn’t suggest people cut down on sugar, east less processed foods, shop around the outside of the supermarket, get more exercise, eat more fruits and vegetables etc Common sense advice though doesn’t sell too many books or get you on too many TV and radio shows – extreme messages like sugar is poison, dairy will kill you, meat causes cancer – do though!

    At the end of the day realise that almost everyone is saying to reduce sugar intake. Many health professionals draw the line at saying one nutrient is a poison and that eliminating it will solve many of the world’s health woes, let alone replacing it with another sugar (or sweet sugar substitute).

    Getting people to follow dietary advice (and physical activity) is a whole other can of worms. Often messages have to be diluted in order to get people to make changes. The pass/fail all or nothing approach rarely works for the majority long term and only the most dedicated can follow it, who then sometimes become its most staunch defenders (not to mention attackers of any other approach).

    [Reply]

    Chris Wood Reply:

    I am afraid I don’t have any link to Dr Stanhopes studies.

    OK so Science doesn’t think it knows everything. I would suggest anyone here to read Michael Pollans “In defense of Food”

    “Health bodies have been telling people to cut sugar intakes and avoid soft drinks for decades” quite so, but those messages haven’t been getting through. If we could step back from the ideology and see that this media attention is helping people realize a better diet. I can’t help thinking that an opportunity is being missed, instead of bickering about the details, common ground and goals could be sought and pushed out to the public.

    Thank you David for replying to my comments over the last few days. I shall not be posting here again.

    [Reply]

    David M Driscoll Reply:

    I was just thinking that ANOTHER piece of evidence is those studies that used MASSIVE fructose dosages 25% of calories from fructose, which would require half of your calories come from sucrose (and that David Gillespie likes to claim support his recommendations to (almost) totally eliminate fructose).
    Check out these studies and look at weight gain (same, just in different regions which is relevant) and de novo lipogenesis (making fat from other sources). Even in these studies, the levels are increased but not even close to 100% jci.org/articles/view/37385/pdf eg postprandial DNL was significantly increased (11.4% ± 1.3% vs. 16.9% ± 1.4%; P = 0.021)

    I would disagree that media attention is helping since an all or nothing proposition on sugar (or fructose since glucose is ok???) not to mention a being ANOTEHR different and extreme message that also directly or indirectly comes with a message to distrust authorities in the area.

    Since the message to reduce sugar intake has been around for a while, I would like to see everyone agree on the common ground – but moderation is a word that many fructophobes won’t accept as reasonable, usually based on their own experience (and thus discounting the experiences of those who it has worked for)>

    Sara Reply:

    Well said Chris. You echo my thoughts. It’s almost like a bit of sour grapes. “Hey, we said it first? Where’s our glory?”. Perhaps sarah and dgs message is a bit too simplistic but when talking to the Masses you nee to start with a simple message or they’ll tune out. Simple marketing 101.

    David d, you seem to be in marketing too so ‘know your audience’ should be perhaps part of your mantra. Or are you only interested in the few who’ll read reams of research papers and, in chriss elqouent words fuss over the and be damned the rest of us lazy sods? Which is probably 90% of the population. Who cares who gets the principles of message out if its at least on the right track and not diametrically opposed to where science is headed? I get its not perfect science but I’m afraid when it comes to the broad picture I’m afraid ear enough might ave to be good enough for now. And in fairness Sarah’s message has always been a far more holistic approach then just ‘eliminate fructose’. That’s just the one she’s become known for. Plus it has always been ‘don’t take my word for it. Look into it for yourself’. And is it really so far off the mark?

    David M Driscoll Reply:

    >It’s almost like a bit of sour grapes. “Hey, we said it first? Where’s our glory?”. <

    Well that's another reason to explain the difference, not incompetence or corruption, but now jealousy!

    "Perhaps sarah and dgs message is a bit too simplistic but when talking to the Masses you nee to start with a simple message or they’ll tune out. Simple marketing 101."

    You also need to start with a realistic goal, for many this isn't realistic – setting up an all or nothing scenario is just as problematic in my opinion.

    As I've said numerous times, my problem isn't with what they are saying. Do whatever you like – I think the line has been crossed when you claim that research supports your position and from that you either suggest or directly state that people who don't agree are incompetent (not up with the latest research, living in the past etc) or corrupted (because the only reason they oppose is because they are being paid to disagree).

    I think the research does matter, that is why David Gillespie constantly claims that his position is based on research and evidence (and likes to cherry pick and misrepresent it to maintain his position) – and so many of his disciples repeat that line, knowing full well that they have never read a study, let alone looked at a representative sample of it.

    "And in fairness Sarah’s message has always been a far more holistic approach then just ‘eliminate fructose’."

    I'm simply responding to what was written above!

    Sara Reply:

    Sorry David, let me clarify. I’m not suggesting the science community is jealous so making up things. I realise that is absurd. I mean the reason you are so zealous about this and ‘winning’ this debate (though I’m loathe to use that word as the way I see it both sides have merit and are actually to a large extent on the same side!!) is because you are frustrated that it has taken a couple of media-savvy laypeople to bring to attention a message that has been around for a while. I know it has been around for a while. I’ve dabbled in low sugar most of my life due to blood sugar issues since I was 2. I actually do understand where you are coming from, I just think your delivery is not going to win anyone over. But the longer this has gone on the more I can’t help but feel that there’s some ego stuff going on and there’s a little bit of annoyance that what the scientific community have been saying for quite some time, albeit on a lesser scale and in a less (pardon the pun) digestible way, about reducing sugar consumption has been brought to public attention by a couple of laymen? You’ve said countless times ‘but we’ve been saying this for years!’ I even get this frustration. I just feel that you’re now starting to argue semantics. Perhaps Sarah and David should not be so conclusive in their statements but I hate to say it – the message have to be clear to cut through.

    Sarah did not introduce me to the idea of sugar free (or low sugar), but she certainly spelled it out in the most compelling manner that allowed not just me but members of my family who had ignored my warnings about sugar to understand some of the theories (and I do state theories). My Dad for example would not believe juice was not good for him and he has immense trouble with sugar. It was Sarah’s book that made him ‘get it’. Sometimes the full scientific background is just too cumbersome for the general public, myself included. Scientists are simply not known for their persuasive and engaging language (generalising, I know, but posting loads of links to research is going to lose you your audience fast).I know that’s frustrating, I really do get that, but you are not going to reach the masses without being a little ‘layman’ friendly. You can be frustrated all you like that people aren’t going to read all those articles or apply true scientific evaluation but unless you only want to reach a very small audience (and what’s the point of that?) it’s the compromise you have to make. And I hate to say it but public interest and media attention in a topic does encourage further research. Perhaps not the most comfortable of relationships but nonetheless…

    From what I can tell you are not at all diametrically opposed to Sarah and David G. and in fact quite similar but just a more moderate version (though I think you’d find Sarah’s own approach pretty moderate which is exactly why it HAS struck a chord with many people). The frustration here seems to have stems from the way the science is being used and the fructose argument which may or may not be disproven (I don’t know the answer to that yet!). Problem is this is not an academic site. If Sarah posted full studies she would not have an audience. She has to take snippets (or as you see it cherry pick depending on whether you feel she is distorting the truth or simply just using the key messages).

    I have no idea how much of Sarah’s blog you’ve read that is not specifically about the sugar debate or if you’ve read her IQS book. This is without a doubt sustainable, realistic and easy. It is not extreme, she does not even suggest cold turkey on fruits (and if they’re not addictive why wouldn’t it be easy to eliminate them anyway?) It’s far less extreme than many, many other ‘diets’ like Tony Ferguson which, while full of fructose has very strict guidelines for the amount of calories and works not because of the quality of food but because people are consuming a VLCD of only 800 calories a day! I know you’re not endorsing them but you’re suggesting that the fructose in these diets would make people fat by David and Sarah’s theories. But if they’re in such deficit than they wouldn’t be by their theories.

    I have not read David’s book so I cannot really comment widely but my basic understanding (and I concede it is basic but probably average for what the majority of people would be willing to research in their otherwise busy lives) is that David’s theories do rely on the assumption that most people today are not in glycogen deficit. If they are than fructose is fine but if they’re not then fructose becomes a problem. It’s real world application to theories. I don’t see him disagreeing with the theories so much as the application to what is actually happening in people’s everyday diets. I know it is far more comlpex than that but I see that as being the crux of it. And the ultimate goal of Sarah’s way of eating is to reintroduce fruits and sugars anyway so the end result is remarkably close to the reduce sugar message out there already. I just don’t think you’ve got the Sarah Wilson philosophy. It is far more gentle than you have possibly looked at. It is also very much in line with the advice I’ve received from 3 naturopaths (2 of whom were also qualified nutritionists, one who works for Golden Door, the other well respected within the sports industry). They all advised I needed to cut sugar entirely for a period of time to regulate my blood sugar levels, including fruit.

    And I have to say the conflict of interest for Dr Barclay is not insignificant, far more so than any Sarah might have. It is huge, in fact. And something that SHOULD be disclosed precisely because he IS supposed to be an expert. People will take what he says 1000 times more seriously than a layman, Sarah included. Sarah has NEVER purported to be an expert, merely a layman with an interest in health and she shares her experiences. Surely you can see why the two differ? In addition Sarah’s only conflict of interest directly related to this debate is that she sell’s her book. This is blatantly obvious. No one could miss this. Dr Barclay’s is a far more twisty connection. I’m not suggesting he does let this taint his science. He very well may not. But the point is we should be aware of it. I mentioned above it is quite possible that he did disclose this on ACA and they did a hatchet job on him too. But it seems doubtful. This is absolutely directly relevant to what he was talking on.

    I do respect your research and understanding of evaluating science (and I have to agree that it is still our best asset is truly evaluating any theory).

    Here’s how I approach it though and I think you’ll find this is how most people on this site approach this. There’s a big difference between an unproven theory and a disproven theory (there is no such thing as a proven theory in science from what I recall?). From what I can tell David G and Sarah’s sugar and fructose arguments are very possibly unproven but I don’t think they are disproven? In the absence of science disproving a theory I’m open to it. I’m off sugar because it works for me and I cannot see any harm in being off it (I’m not eliminating any nutrients as far as I’m aware) and from my limited knowledge from what I can tell, while perhaps there is not yet enough evidence for the elimination of sugar (at least for a detox period) I’m also not sure if there is enough evidence to disprove these theories either, in which case they are still potentially valid. I do appreciate that my anecdotal evidence does not a scientific study make but in the absence of one that is definitive (and from what I can tell your won position is that science simply doesn’t know yet) I’m happy to do a bit of unscientifically-proven testing, so long as it is not damaging (it’s not) and it’s easy (despite your assertions, it is).

    You are obviously versed in the research. I can see that and I do respect science immensely and agree. I’ve also stated above I do agree there are some discrepancies but Sarah has not represented herself as an expert, just someone who is trying it out for herself and that alone is enough for me to take her experiences as just an example of one person’s experience who has read up on the matter (perhaps not to the extent you have but again, she has never said she is an expert) and something to explore more, not as gospel truths. I myself do not agree with her on everything and I suspect she is just fine with that. If people choose to follow her advice unquestioningly that is not her fault. She goes to great pains to push people to look into it for themselves. I think the very fact she has not shut down this rather lengthy debate is testament to the idea she is open to debate. This is after all her blog.

    David M Driscoll Reply:

    Chris just came across this – Even Dr Lustig says it is up to about 25% in Fat Chance. “Rather, If your obese, insulin-resistant, fed and getting both fructose and glucose together (a sizeable percentage of the population), then fructose gets converted to fat at a much higher rate – approximating 25%” – sorry have ebook version so can’t give page number – is chapter 16 under Food Industry Argument 2

    David M Driscoll Reply:

    ” I mean the reason you are so zealous about this and ‘winning’ this debate (though I’m loathe to use that word as the way I see it both sides have merit and are actually to a large extent on the same side!!) is because you are frustrated that it has taken a couple of media-savvy laypeople to bring to attention a message that has been around for a while. I know it has been around for a while.”

    Not at all, frustrated by them misquoting science and then denigrating the scientists who oppose them – exactly as happened above. As I’ve also said multiple times, if the message was just try this, it worked for me and a bunch of other people, hey, no problem. But when you start quoting science (as Sarah did above), suggesting that your (references) are the best (thus that you’ve read a lot) and then gotten it wrong – sorry, but credibility falls.

    ” You’ve said countless times ‘but we’ve been saying this for years!’”

    I’ve also said lots of other things multiple times, this isn’t the main thrust of the disagreement! I disagree more with replacing glucose and other sweet stuff than this line of rebuttal.

    “The frustration here seems to have stems from the way the science is being used and the fructose argument which may or may not be disproven (I don’t know the answer to that yet!). Problem is this is not an academic site.”

    The frustration is also the suggestion that opposing views are ignorant (not up to date) or being bought off!

    “If Sarah posted full studies she would not have an audience. She has to take snippets (or as you see it cherry pick depending on whether you feel she is distorting the truth or simply just using the key messages).”

    You can judge whether suggesting that paper says fructose is bad, provides evidence against large fruit intakes or says it is okay to replace sucrose with other sugars – is ok. My point is why even refer to it (especially if you are going to ignore most of it and get it wrong!)
    ” Tony Ferguson which, while full of fructose has very strict guidelines for the amount of calories and works not because of the quality of food but because people are consuming a VLCD of only 800 calories a day! I know you’re not endorsing them but you’re suggesting that the fructose in these diets would make people fat by David and Sarah’s theories. But if they’re in such deficit than they wouldn’t be by their theories.”

    No, they should be unable to sustain those diets because the mere taste of fructose would make them ravenous and unable to stop eating – the ‘addiction’ line.

    “David’s theories do rely on the assumption that most people today are not in glycogen deficit. If they are than fructose is fine but if they’re not then fructose becomes a problem.”

    As stated here and elsewhere, evidence doesn’t support that either – almost any extra calories would have the same result (not exactly but fairly close) – sucrose isn’t that unique in the dosages most people get it in.

    I don’t see him disagreeing with the theories so much as the application to what is actually happening in people’s everyday diets.”

    Go to his website and watch him call out every health agency that disagrees – even states about the sun not being the major cause of skin cancer (its bad fats – his next book!)

    “And I have to say the conflict of interest for Dr Barclay is not insignificant, far more so than any Sarah might have.”

    How many books has she sold? David Gillespie I read is over 200,000 (plus his membership site) etc etc

    ” It is huge, in fact. And something that SHOULD be disclosed precisely because he IS supposed to be an expert. ”

    I agree, but as I’ve tried to highlight, just because it doesn’t appear in every interview doesn’t mean he hasn’t disclosed it.

    “Sarah has NEVER purported to be an expert, merely a layman with an interest in health and she shares her experiences. ”

    Then on what grounds do you dismiss experts and their evidence?

    ” From what I can tell David G and Sarah’s sugar and fructose arguments are very possibly unproven but I don’t think they are disproven? ”

    In the first chapter of David Gillespie’s book he states “Diets and exercise won’t help us lose weight. Vitamins and minerals are a waste of money and sometimes downright dangerous. Sugar makes us fat and sick. And polyunsaturated fat gives us cancer and works with sugar to give us heart disease. The evidence for all of these statements is abundant and unequivocal, but you won’t hear anyone in the food and diet industries tell you so.”

    Either way disproven or unproven – don’t overstate the evidence – just say this has worked for me and a bunch of other people and leave it at that!

    “Sarah has not represented herself as an expert,”

    I would disagree – especially in this post!

    “I think the very fact she has not shut down this rather lengthy debate is testament to the idea she is open to debate. ”

    I think the fact that she hasn’t engaged in it (either re science< health bodies positions or sponsorship) – even when I mentioned that her MLA affiliation WASN'T listed in the About Me Section (it just appeared a few days later without acknowledgment), is a different testament!

    Sara Reply:

    Fine David. You’re right and everybody else is wrong. You have the best evidence. Clearly that is the only thing you will tolerate hearing (ironically, give your criticism against those who oppose your views). You’re a pretty darn good cherry picker yourself.

    By the way, if you didn’t pick it I was in the middle of the two arguments. I DO NOT dismiss experts. But as this debate clearly demonstrates experts do not agree or at least there not always arguing two sides of the same coin. I’m open to both sides of the debate and as I said I do NOT agree wholeheartedly with everything Sarah (or David) says, including about sugar as I’m still exploring the issues and waiting for further evidence. You may have a decent understanding of science but you sure ain’t a people person.

    And to quote Sarah’s own words, because you seem to ignore her approach so well, I thought I’d add this.

    “If you’ve read my ebook I Quit Sugar: A Sweet 8-Week Program, you’ll know that my approach to food is always that of an experiment. A gentle, “let’s just see what happens” experiment.” This is the kind of language peppered HEAVILY throughout Sarah’s books. She even states ‘I’m no white-coat expert’ in her intro. Honestly how much more bloody blatant does she need to be?

    David M Driscoll Reply:

    ” You’re right and everybody else is wrong.”

    Being overly dramatic now aren’t we? Doesn’t everyone think that they are right. Or are some people saying things that they know are wrong – that’s right those professionals with vested interests being paid off!

    “You have the best evidence.”

    Of course I think it is the best, if there was better, I would use it! Not suggesting you have to though!

    “You’re a pretty darn good cherry picker yourself.”

    I did ask for examples before, but anyway.

    “By the way, if you didn’t pick it I was in the middle of the two arguments. ”

    And if you didn’t pick it, I’m suggesting why I believe what I do, not saying you have to. Stated numerous times more than happy to hear people say ‘this worked for me and many others, give it a try” Just would like people to stop there if they don’t honestly read and understand the research. Not sure how many more ways I can state this?

    “I DO NOT dismiss experts. ”

    And my statements weren’t aimed at YOU!

    “But as this debate clearly demonstrates experts do not agree or at least there not always arguing two sides of the same coin.”

    So now we are back to ‘experts’ not agreeing?

    ” I’m still exploring the issues and waiting for further evidence. ”

    We’re all waiting for further evidence – that is my point exactly. At this stage the evidence doesn’t support this. If you don’t care about the evidence, good luck to you.

    “And to quote Sarah’s own words, because you seem to ignore her approach so well”

    You seem to ignore the fact that I am addressing this post specifically and not everything Sarah says!

    “‘I’m no white-coat expert’”

    But above you referred to experts not agreeing?

    “Honestly how much more bloody blatant does she need to be?”

    Doesn’t need to be, not sure how much more blatant I need to be in stating that I am referring to this post and its content!

    Sara Reply:

    Righto, I’m the dramatic one. At least I’m trying to get both sides. You have some valid points I just don’t like your approach (and as someone who use to train businesses in marketing you have a thing or two to learn)

    David, you cherry pick mine and many other people’s posts, picking only the points you feel you can counter. You seem hell bent on not even considering an alternative, that the Low GI crew can’t possibly be questioned (or any experts for that matter – but isn’t questioning what science is about??) You also twist arguments and take bits and pieces to suit your counter argument.

    You also inferred things I never said.

    “If you don’t care about the evidence, good luck to you.” I say I’m happy to experiment in the absence of proof against a theory. This is not the same thing.

    “So now we are back to ‘experts’ not agreeing?” Um…what??? I don’t know what you’re saying here? Is David Lustig not an expert given his credentials? (his own research may be flawed in your opinion but so it seems is the research on the other side of the debate by experts.)

    “But above you referred to experts not agreeing?” These comments have nothing to do with one another. One refers to experts not having conclusive evidence one way or another to solidly back up their theories. The second comment refers to who the public will implicitly trust and Sarah is clear she is not an expert and merely going off her own (un-expert) research and experiences. One comment does not cancel out the other.

    You manipulate people’s comments and oversimplify statements other people have made, excluding conditional assumptions where it suits you. I do agree some of them are a little childish but even the valuable ones you pick to pieces and reconstruct seemingly without consideration and I think you either know it or you have no grasp on the nuances of language – I suspect a little of both. You have the manner of a high school debater as opposed to engaging in a real world discussion. Find the flaw in the argument and rebut. Point won! Tick! It’s incredibly odd.

    I think Annie is right though and there is not much point continuing this as we’ve all made our points and you haven’t really brought up anything new for a while and nor have I to be fair! (nor who has the time! I’ve wasted too much energy on this already. Shame on me) So I’ll leave it with the jury is still out in my book from a scientific perspective. But while it’s not hurting me or anyone else (and I feel fabulous so of course I’ll keep going!) I’m staying away from sugar. Oh, and like the subject of the post says. Yes, I eat fruit.

    I’ll watch this space (well, not this one literally but the sugar debate) and please excuse me for not responding to your comment which is no doubt coming. I really must get some work done!

    David M Driscoll Reply:

    “At least I’m trying to get both sides.”

    I’ve gotten both sides too, I’ve read Gillespie’s books, that’s why I comment on them. Finishing the Lustig one currently.

    “David, you cherry pick mine and many other people’s posts, picking only the points you feel you can counter.”

    Happy to talk about any that I have missed if you think they are important.

    “You seem hell bent on not even considering an alternative, that the Low GI crew can’t possibly be questioned (or any experts for that matter – but isn’t questioning what science is about??) ”

    Based on what? – question everything. Just don’t ignore them based on a perceived conflict of interest or because your disagree with their position on one paper (as Rory does). Judge them on the evidence.

    “You also twist arguments and take bits and pieces to suit your counter argument.

    You also inferred things I never said.

    “If you don’t care about the evidence, good luck to you.” I say I’m happy to experiment in the absence of proof against a theory. This is not the same thing.”

    I was talking to people who don’t care what the research says and happy with their own experience (as many here have stated). As stated numerous times, there are anecdotes for everything.

    “So now we are back to ‘experts’ not agreeing?” Um…what??? I don’t know what you’re saying here? Is David Lustig not an expert given his credentials? (his own research may be flawed in your opinion but so it seems is the research on the other side of the debate by experts.)

    Sorry, didn’t know we were talking about Robert Lustig. He actually hasn’t published any research in this area re fructose – but here are my thoughts on him.

    While Dr Lustig’s theories and evidence may seem convincing to the general public and reporters, the real test is how well he performs with his fellow scientists!

    He was certainly called out for overstating the evidence and poorly extrapolating rat research at a conference he spoke at earlier in the year – check out the Q and A video in the attached article by David Despain (as well as the other lectures)!

    evolvinghealthscience.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/sugar-showdown-science-responds-to.html for a full review and links to all lectures – if not just watch the Q and A at youtube.com/watch?v=ypWe6npULUQ and youtube.com/watch?v=cnGhfX2yaU4

    What research shows that it is fructose that causes addiction? At the Q and A at the Sugar Symposium, Dr Lustig was called out on this and one researcher showed that rats liked glucose based carbohydrates over sucrose, and another questioned the applicability of rat research to be extrapolated to humans!

    Also a recent rat studied suggests that it might be the sweet taste and NOT the fructose (as they used an artificial sweetener) although the article title gets it wrong also!
    health.msn.co.nz/healthnews/8582942/sugar-as-addictive-as-cocaine-nicotine (from a PLOS ONe article I can’t find the link to at the moment).

    The major issue with Dr Lustig’s theory is looking at US Sugar intake over history – levels were still high in the early 20th century (and one reason why Gillespie quotes data from the 1800s)- so saying it is sugar is either an oversimplification or there is a threshold value that we have recently crossed. Methinks that it is a perfect storm of more sugar and less burning it up with physical activity!

    davidgillespiesbigfatlies.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/sugar-intake-20th-century.jpg

    I must admit after reading his book (haven’t finished it yet), he does seem more conservative than his media bytes suggest (or people that like to quote him). I’m actually writing an article showing where he and David Gillespie don’t agree. For example 25% vs 100% excess fructose turned to fat, Lustig sees Glycaemic Index as useful but not perfect, doesn’t say eliminate sugar, says is weakly addictive etc etc

    ““But above you referred to experts not agreeing?” These comments have nothing to do with one another. One refers to experts not having conclusive evidence one way or another to solidly back up their theories. The second comment refers to who the public will implicitly trust and Sarah is clear she is not an expert and merely going off her own (un-expert) research and experiences. One comment does not cancel out the other.”

    Understand that now, my bad. Just don’t remember Lustig being part of the conversation. On that line, I don’t think false balance justifies an alternative position nor a middle ground. Lustig is pretty much out on his own with his opinions, just as anti-vaccination Drs are and Anti-climate change researchers. You can always find ‘experts’ to oppose a consensus – doesn’t automatically mean that their is controversy, nor that the truth is in the middle.

    “You manipulate people’s comments and oversimplify statements other people have made, excluding conditional assumptions where it suits you. I do agree some of them are a little childish but even the valuable ones you pick to pieces and reconstruct seemingly without consideration and I think you either know it or you have no grasp on the nuances of language”

    Or it could just not be an ideal method of communication and things get missed?

    “I suspect a little of both. You have the manner of a high school debater as opposed to engaging in a real world discussion. Find the flaw in the argument and rebut. Point won! Tick! It’s incredibly odd.”

    I find it the easiest way to follow a long discussion and ENSURE that that things aren’t misquoted. Take the statement and respond directly below it. Again more than happy to address things that are important that you think I have missed.

    “I think Annie is right though and there is not much point continuing this as we’ve all made our points and you haven’t really brought up anything new for a while and nor have I to be fair! ”

    Then please look at the Stanhope study of 2009 from Journal of Clinical Investigations (I think you (or someone else) may have also asked for the AHA link too. Excess fructose and glucose, dame weigth gain, no difference in energy intake – just a difference in where the fat was stored (which is very interesting).

    Sara Reply:

    I’m a bit hesitant to respond again here as I think this topic should be closed and I don’t want to keep flooding peoples inboxes but my query is relevant to the study you mentioned David. As you know I am not an expect so perhaps my reading is incorrect but my understanding of that study is that fructose was metabolised differently to glucose and increased the ‘bad’ fat in the abdominal region. Is this correct? Maybe this is where we differ. You’ll wait until conclusive evidence shows conclusively that fructose is damaging or what a safe level is and until then just estimate and throw caution to the wind. I’d rather err on the side of caution. If we don’t know a ‘safe’ level than I’ll keep it as low as possible until we do as it’s no skin off my nose. Maybe we’re just applying the evidence (or lack thereof) in a different manner to our real life.

    By your own admission there is no established safe limit for fructose, or sugar for that matter. The jury is still out and from what I can tell from the other research you’ve posted is that there are more questions than answers at this stage (though I do think the evidence is veering towards fructose being problematic). But the consequences of assuming it is higher than it actually is are far more devastating than assuming it is lower than it actually is.

    And the reason I brought up David Lustig was because I thought you were insinuating the experts DO agree. My point begin that if you consider David Lustig an expert (and while you do think his science is called into question I think you have to say he is at least an expert) than they do not agree. Sorry if this was confusing.

    [Reply]

    David M Driscoll Reply:

    Yes, that is what I suggested, depsoited into different areas. Yet despite the massive dosages both fructose didn’t result in more calories being eaten (which is commonly claimed) despite the MASSIVE amount and both groups gained an equal amount of fat – ie.e fructose wasn’t automatically turned into fat.

    Look back at this table and look at levels in the first half of the 20th century and considered disease rates – that would be a first vague hint at ‘safe’ levels (with appropriate activity)

    davidgillespiesbigfatlies.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/sugar-intake-20th-century.jpg

    I wouldn’t say Robert Lustig is an expert (high profile yes) since he hasn’t published ANY research in the area of fructose and extrapolates (poorly) from animal data. As stated above, his position is also different from David Gillespie’s and some of Sarah’s (eg sugar is weakly addictive) amongst other things. As I suggested, finding qualified people who don’t agree doesn’t represent an area of research that is under contention as it doesn’t for vaccination and climate change amongst many things

    Sara Reply:

    I actually think I’d probably agree with your views on vaccination and climate change. But I’m not going to open that can of worms here. Perhaps we should leave this now and if I feel like asking further questions I’ll contact you on your blog.

    Annie Reply:

    Sara – you are wasting your time trying to argue with David M Driscoll. I actually was reading what he said, but then he referred to users on this board as ‘bitchy girls’. Instantly lost any credible argument for me. I eat fruit. But I also like some of the ideas that Sarah puts forward and enjoy some of the recipes from her book. And guess what? She hasn’t come on this forum and badgered (and badgered) anyone for that. Wait – this is the part where David M Drsicoll argues that Sarah doesn’t come on here at all! This man clearly has too much time on his hands (and I suspect a massive crush on Ms Wilson) and I have made some suggestions as to ways he could get more of his side of the argument out in a positive way, but he is clearly obsessed with this forum. How do I know? Because I get emails every time someone comments here and his are right up there.

    [Reply]

    David M Driscoll Reply:

    “he referred to users on this board as ‘bitchy girls’. Instantly lost any credible argument for me”

    Maybe re-read what I said?

    Not surprised that you weren’t upset at the names and accusations flying the other way though!

    “this is the part where David M Drsicoll argues that Sarah doesn’t come on here at all! ”

    Keep polarising and exaggerating my position if it the only way you feel you can contribute!

    [Reply]

    Annie Reply:

    Hi David – I did re-read. My apologies – you didn’t come out and call people that. However you certainly implied it. Given the amount of negative energy you use to put your points forward here, one wouldn’t have to stretch too much to see it as an implication. Once again, I was reading you for awhile and thought what you had to say was interesting, but if you really believe and are so passionate about your cause, then you need to find another way of putting it forward that doesn’t speak down to people. I don’t think your pal Rory has done a good job of putting his case forward either (the two of you really like to go at it .. and not just on this forum either), so I don’t particularly care for either side of the argument – you just seem to not be able to know when to move to the next thing. Again you are obviously passionate about this – find a way to make your point happen in a positive way. That’s all.

  • http://www.australianparadox.com rory robertson (former fattie)

    On this Fructose/liver action, my current sense is that Fructose is absorbed and taken directly to the liver where much of it is slowly converted to glucose. Does that sound right, or am I in tangles on that simple point?

    [Reply]

    David M Driscoll Reply:

    On what do you base this Rory? Not GI studies surely? Aren’t we not mean to ever trust anything from the University of Sydney ever again?

    What do you base this on Rory (please try to stick to THIS topic and not another Paradox rant)

    [Reply]

    rory robertson (former fattie) Reply:

    David,

    It makes sense not to trust an institution that clearly has no overall quality control. That is, if one shonky paper with an obviously false conclusion can be published and then defended by the highest levels of the university, then we cannot trust that any particular paper published under the University of Sydney’s tainted banner. http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/SydneyUniVC%20LETTER070612.pd

    David D., your claim that “the message to reduce sugar intake has been around for a while” is rather a stretch if we are talking about the University of Sydney’s influential low-GI-crew, the pro-authors who went out of their way to exonerate sugar as a health hazard with their “shony sugar study”.

    More generally, David D., it appears that US and global “heart healthy” nutrition advice took an incompetent “wrong turn” in the low-fat, high-carb, pro-sugar direction in the 1970s. Australia’s nutrition profession jumped on that global bandwagon, apparently to the detriment of everyday Australians. And has never turned back.

    That is, the nutrition profession’s highest-profile advice over the past 30 years has been to go “Low fat”. How? By replacing particularly evil animal and other fats with carbohydrates, including refined sugar (itself 100% carbohydrate).

    Let’s have a look at some of that dietary advice, of the low-fat, high carb, pro-sugar variety. David D., following are quotes from a best-selling Australian diet book, written by very influential local nutritionists. (Readers, note that many/most “low fat” processed foods include added sugar to make them yummy.) Here we go (in no particular order):

    x “The modern diet is too high in fat and therefore not high enough in carbohydrate”. (p. 6); “So, our first message is to reduce the amount of fat you eat.” (p. 7); Use a low-fat cheese slice OR ham OR egg for lunch, not cheese AND egg. (p.18); “Give up the peanuts! Substitute low-fat yoghurt instead, or canned fruit, or low-fat ice cream with fruit salad.” (p.18);

    x “Ensure that your meals contain mainly carbohydrate and only a little fat.” (p. 71); “Eat low-carbohydrate foods such as carrots, broccoli and salads freely, but don’t eat them instead of the high carbohydrate foods.” (p. 71)

    x Various sources of carbohydrate (grams per 100 grams of food): refined sugar (sucrose) 100%; rice 79%; sultanas 75%; pasta 70%; bread 47%; ice cream 22%; banana 21%; apple 12%; baked beans 11%; peas 8%; plum 6% (p. 11)

    x “…if you are looking at ways to improve your own diet there are two important things to remember: 1. Identify the sources of fat and look at the ways you can reduce it. Don’t go overboard – the body needs SOME fat in the diet. 2. Check whether you need to add more carbohydrate to your diet and eat more. Most people don’t eat enough.” (p. 13)

    x “A low sugar (and high fat) diet has more proven disadvantages than a high sugar (and low-fat) diet.” (p.41);

    x “A low carbohydrate diet will make you feel headachy and unwell and cause loss of lean muscle tissue and water – two things you need to hang on to! It [the low carb diet] will not help you lose weight because the body’s fat stores cannot be converted to glucose. (p.9);

    x “There is absolute consensus that sugar [in food] does not cause diabetes (p. 43); “Sugar is not just empty kilojoules, but a source of pleasure and reward and it helps to limit the intake of fatty foods…” (p. 49); This particular diet is a winner “…because foods containing sugar are not unduly restricted” (p. 50).

    x “What research has shown is that people with diabetes can eat the same amount of sugar as the average person, without compromising diabetes control”. (p.41) Low-fat eating is best for everyone, especially those with diabetes”. (p. 47)

    x “Are naturally occurring sugars in fruit better for us than refined sugars? [No.] …new studies which have studied high sugar and low sugar diets have clearly shown that they contain similar amounts of micronutrients. People who eat lots of refined sugars, tend to eat lots of food. Hence they eat more minerals and vitamins too.” (pp. 42-43).

    x “Overconsumption of food is unlikely to occur on a high carbohydrate and low-fat diet (15); “The message is simply this: if you believe you are at risk of being overweight, you should think seriously about minimising fat and eating more carbohydrates [including added sugar]. (p. 60);

    x “Current thinking is that there is little evidence to condemn sugar or starchy foods as the cause of people becoming overweight”. (p. 61); “People who consume a high-fat diet automatically eat a high kilojoule diet because there are more kilojoules per gram in fatty foods. This is why eating low-fat foods makes weight loss much easier.” (p. 62)

    x “In our experience of looking at the diets of people who want to lose weight, the change required is often to eat more” (p. 73); “In the 1920s doctors began recommending high fat diets for their [diabetic] patients. Ignorant of the dangers of a high fat diet… We now know that high fat diets only hastened the development of heart disease, the most-frequent cause of death among people with diabetes. (p. 98)

    x “In fact, the more carbohydrates you eat the better because it automatically reduces the proportion of kilojoules you get from fat.” (p. 99); “…Helen’s diet was in fact poorly balanced. It was dominated by protein and fat foods and contained insufficient carbohydrates” (p.100).

    x Some healthy desserts: “1. Low-fat ice cream and strawberries”…(p. 135); “Sustaining snacks: Try a muffin… ,…Low-fat ice cream in a cone…”. (p. 137)

    x “EGGS Be conscious of eggs in a recipe because they add fat”. (p. 142); “ICE CREAM A source of carbohydrate, calcium, riboflavin, retinol and protein [and low-fat varieties are better still] – definitely a nutritious and icy treat” (pp. 142-143).

    I may have no idea David D., but I reckon many readers might mistake all that to be A BIG GREEN LIGHT to get stuck into the sweet stuff. Yes, yes, caution against too much sugar was urged, in the same way that one might urge caution to a teenager to stay below the speed limit as he takes from you the keys to the new V8.

    Yes, sugar is fine in “moderate” doses. Mostly, we just need to eat less fat, and more carbs. Eat the carbs in “carrots, broccoli and salads freely, but don’t eat them instead of the high carbohydrate foods”. Like sugar, which is 100% carbohydrate. “A low sugar (and high fat) diet has more proven disadvantages than a high sugar (and low-fat) diet.” (p.41);

    David D., if Gary Taubes’s reading of the scientific evidence is correct – and like many others, I find it compelling – then the nutrition advice published by the University of Sydney’s nutritionists – especially in the best-selling “the G.I. factor” and its sister books – may have been unhelpful to say the least.

    To recap, Taubes in “Good Calories, Bad Calories” (aka, Good Science, Bad Science) concluded (p. 454):

    “1. Dietary fat, whether saturated or not, is not a cause of obesity, heart disease, or any other chronic disease of civilisation.

    2. The problem is the carbohydrates in the diet…

    3. Sugars – sucrose and and high-fructose corn syrup specifically – are particularly harmful”…[http://www.australianparadox.com/part-2 ]”

    If Gary Taubes is right, the University of Sydney’s low-fat, low GI, high-carb and pro-sugar advice would have pushed Australian public health – including the risk of obesity, diabetes, heart disease and cancer – in the wrong direction.

    Gary Taubes is particularly disturbed by the unnaturally high amounts of refined sugar in modern diets. In a widely read piece in The New York Times in 2011, he observed:

    ” ‘I [New York-based scientist Thompson] have eliminated refined sugar from my diet and eat as little as I possibly can,’ Thompson told me, ‘because I believe ultimately it’s something I can do to decrease my risk of cancer.’

    [Harvard scientist] Cantley put it this way: ‘Sugar scares me.’

    Sugar scares me [Taubes] too, obviously. I’d like to eat it in moderation. I’d certainly like my two sons to be able to eat it in moderation, to not overconsume it, but I don’t actually know what that means, and I’ve been reporting on this subject and studying it for more than a decade. If sugar just makes us fatter, that’s one thing. We start gaining weight, we eat less of it. But we are also talking about things we can’t see — fatty liver, insulin resistance and all that follows. Officially I’m not supposed to worry because the evidence isn’t conclusive, but I do.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 ).

    David D., I don’t know about you, but I would like to see some sort of detailed response to Taubes’s conclusions from the local nutrition profession. In particular, let’s hear an explanation about why Taubes is wrong from the University of Sydney. After all, influential nutritionists at the University of Sydney not only write low-fat, high-carb, low-GI, pro-sugar popular books, but also:

    x operate a low-GI business stamping preferred brands of sugar and sugary foods as Healthy: http://www.gisymbol.com/cmsAdmin/uploads/Glycemic-Index-Foundation-Healthy-Choices-Brochure.pdf )

    x have rubbished the NHMRC for its assessment that added sugar is a menace to public health: http://www.smh.com.au/business/economist-v-nutritionists-big-sugar-and-lowgi-brigade-lose-20120307-1uj6u.html

    x have published a spectacularly faulty “peer reviewed” paper exonerating sugar as a driver of obesity (and so diabetes and heart disease) in a pay-as-you-publish E-journal, while the lead author operated as “Guest Editor”: http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/22Slideshowaustraliangoestoparadoxcanberrafinal.pdf

    David D., are you getting a stronger sense of why I think the obviously faulty Australian Paradox paper – my interest in which you rubbish as delusional – is rather important from a public-health perspective? (http://www.smh.com.au/national/health/research-causes-stir-over-sugars-role-in-obesity-20120330-1w3e5.html )

    Sorry, I can’t make it any clearer for you at this time, David D., but I’m heading to the beach to make sure the kids get some good exercise and sunshine.

    [Reply]

    David M Driscoll Reply:

    Wow, what a massive response! And surprisingly (not) you missed the question, what is the information based on re turning to glucose slowly?

    [Reply]

    rory robertson (former fattie) Reply:

    David D., as stated clearly, I responded to your claim that “the message to reduce sugar intake has been around for a while”. I explained that the influential low-GI crew – which published a faulty formal paper with the false conclusion exonerating sugar as a health-hazard – fundamentally is pro-sugar, at a time when there is growing evidence that added sugar is a serious menace to public health.

    As you are aware, the “Australian Paradox” has been solved: it’s not a “paradox”, it’s not even a puzzle – it’s just an incompetent assessment of the available data on sugar consumption.

    On the other issue, you were going to tell me – and didn’t – whether the observation – Fructose is absorbed and taken directly to the liver where much of it is slowly converted to glucose – is right or wrong. It’s not like you to not have a view.

    David M Driscoll Reply:

    Missing response – how about you share your ‘resource’ first – I’m sure it is your turn to answer questions vs constantly asking and then ducking?

  • Jillybean

    All this debate about scientific studies!
    I don’t need to research statistics, I can simply look at my personal experience as proof enough for me that we have too much sugar (mostly hidden!) in our diet, and need to reduce it.
    I heard David Gillespie on the radio last year and what he said made sense to me. Later on I bought Sarah’s IQS book. I reduced my sugar intake and have lost enough weight to bring me within my healthy BMI, without any effort or feeling of deprivation.
    Many of my friends have had the same results.

    I have recently have my blood checked and my cholesterol etc have all improved.
    My husband and daughter have both lost some weight, as a result of no longer drinking fruit juice, and no other modification to theirs diets/exercise routine at all.
    I am not fanatical about it, and eat a couple of pieces of fruit a day and maybe an occasional small piece of birthday cake, but generally follow the healthy eating guidelines as recommended by David Gillespie and Sarah.

    I think the most important aspect is that rather than being “just another diet”, it has become a new way of eating for me. Having reduced my sugar intake, I rarely consume cakes or sugary foods or drinks now, because I no longer enjoy them. And that is a plus!

    Perhaps David Driscoll should give it a genuine try and see if he doesn’t feel healthier too, rather than just quoting statistics.

    [Reply]

    David M Driscoll Reply:

    “I don’t need to research statistics, I can simply look at my personal experience as proof enough for me that we have too much sugar (mostly hidden!) in our diet, and need to reduce it.”

    Well unfortunately we can’t base public policy on what works for you! I understand that your experience and that of like minded people is compelling, but at the same time you disregard others who have had different experiences for the same result.

    “My husband and daughter have both lost some weight, as a result of no longer drinking fruit juice, and no other modification to theirs diets/exercise routine at all.”

    Great, hardly supports a no- or minimal fructose position then does it. Now that you have collected data that DOESN’T support your premise, will this be considered?

    “Perhaps David Driscoll should give it a genuine try and see if he doesn’t feel healthier too, rather than just quoting statistics.”

    Yes everyone wants people to try their way of eating (same goes for vegetarians, fructarians, paleo people, atkins etc). If I don’t feel healthier, then what – are you wrong? Does this method only work if it confirms your experience? Head over to the Tony Ferguson site (no an endorsement) and find thousands who have lost weight using meal replacement drinks with fructose added.

    Now what advice should we give to people?

    [Reply]

  • http://www.australianparadox.com rory robertson (former fattie)

    David D., the chart in the following link shows clearly that as the developing world becomes more affluent – as it shifts from being poor to somewhat less poor (think China and India) – it is eating much more meat and much more sugar, on the way to getting fat and diabetic: http://www.australianparadox.com/part-2

    To halt or reverse that disastrous trend to obesity and diabetes, should the developed would stop eating that extra meat, stop eating that extra sugar, or what, and why?

    [Reply]

    David M Driscoll Reply:

    WHy the false dichotomy Rory, you know what is being said and you want to take the extreme position. YOu know full well that almost everyone recommends decreasing sugar intake – but for some reason continue to debate dishonestly.

    Why do you keep disappearing from discussions when the questions get to hard (like raisn-hell or the conversation) and then try to start them up somewhere else? Are you just playing to the crowd?

    [Reply]

  • Jan

    Arguing makes you fat.

    [Reply]

  • Pingback: Sugar, fruit, depression, and debt Life [Comma] Etc

  • http://www.australianparadox.com rory robertson (former fattie)

    hi readers…(i’m rushing)…in my long post responding to David D. above, please delete a “that” in the first para and substitute “pro-sugar authors” for “pro-authors” in the second para. beyond that, David D. no doubt will see many mistakes that require highlighting.

    rgds,
    rory

    [Reply]

  • http://www.australianparadox.com rory robertson (former fattie)

    Thanks, David D., for asking earlier today about the detail of Dr Rosemary Stanton’s nutrition advice.

    Well, David, for starters, Dr Stanton does NOT advocate replacing fats with added sugar in the diets of everyday Australians, a stark contrast to the low-fat, hi-carb, low-GI, pro-sugar advice promoted by the University of Sydney’s influential but unreliable low-GI crew (as documented in detail above).

    Actually, when I was dropping weight in 2011, Dr Stanton’s “The Diet Dilemma” (1991) reminded me that back when we were kids, sweets were a “once-a-week treat”, now daily. In 2011, for me it seemed so unrealistic to cut back from maybe 20 sugary treats a week just to one! (A 95% reduction!)

    In that book, Dr Stanton advised readers to “Try to keep your sugar intake to a minimum”, and cautioned against softdrinks, fruit juices, sugary breakfast cereals, ice cream, lollies, (other) confectionery, biscuits, cakes, jams, dried fruits (and probably others too). That book for me strongly reinforced the particular message – reduce sugary foods – I’d embraced from David Gillespie’s “Sweet Poison”.

    David D., “minimising” added sugar is not a long way from “eliminating” added sugar. In my case, it was a 95% reduction. Hard at first, but persistence paid huge health dividends. (Apparently many of Sarah’s readers are having similar success.)

    And I cheered when Dr Stanton joined David Gillespie in attacking the Heart Foundation for putting its marketing “Tick” on (unhealthy) breakfast cereals containing 30% added sugar (amongst a longer list of products and problems).

    Since you asked, David D., here are some further observations by Dr Stanton on refined sugar:

    • “Sugar may taste nice but there is no nutritional reason why anyone should eat it.”

    • “…sugar can create problems when it is eaten in excessive amounts, and consumption in countries like Australia is alarmingly high.”

    • “…there is plenty of evidence that anyone who has diabetes will find it easier to control their condition if sugar is cut to a minimum. The role of sugar in causing diabetes may be its contribution to excess weight”

    • “You don’t really need to eat any sugar at all.”

    • “Sugar was not always a ‘natural part of life’….By the eighteenth century, sugar consumption had increased to two kilograms per year. [RR says maybe it's 50kg per year now in Australia - there are no hard data).] …Honey was also popular but, like sugar, it was expensive.”

    • “In evolutionary terms, sugar is a very recent arrival to the human diet. If we imagine the whole of human existence being condensed into a 24-hour time span, the period of high human consumption represents only a few seconds. It may be that insufficient time has elapsed for the human body to become accustomed to being bombarded with so much sugar.”

    Those selected quotes are from Dr Stanton’s “Eating for Peak Performance” (1988, 1994). In short, there is no nutritional reason why anyone should eat added sugar/fructose, yet consumption is alarmingly high – indeed, multiples of what our bodies probably can cope with (“bombarded”) – and this excessive consumption is promoting health problems including overweight and diabetes.

    Impressively, Dr Stanton seems to have been exactly right all those years ago. After all, recent decades have delivered strong trends towards global obesity and diabetes – “diabesity”! – as well as increasingly clear evidence that fructose – the “sweet poison” half of added sugar – is uniquely harmful because of its unique “metabolic pathway” via the liver (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html?pagewanted=all ).

    David D., I think we can agree that Dr Stanton is anti-sugar, a stark contrast to the pro-sugar low-GI crew at the University of Sydney. In particular, I doubt Dr Stanton is a big fan of the low-GI crew’s business operation that stamps low-GI sugar and other sugar products as Healthy: pp. 10-11 http://www.gisymbol.com/cmsAdmin/uploads/Glycemic-Index-Foundation-Healthy-Choices-Brochure.pdf

    Given that recent decades have proved Dr Stanton and Professor Yudkin correct in advising that Australians should minimise added sugar in our diets, David D., why are you not applauding David Gillespie and Sarah Wilson for now also fighting the good fight against added sugar, the single-most important driver of global diabesity?

    And since you asked about Dr Stanton’s views, I can’t resist reminding you what she said about the “shonky sugar study” published by your friends at the University of Sydney:

    “And yes, I agree with you [Rory] that we have no evidence that sugar consumption in Australia has fallen [so the Australian Paradox conclusion of a "consistent and substantial decline" is hopelessly wrong]. A walk around any supermarket shows that huge numbers of foods contain sugar. I argue this point frequently with colleagues”; “I have many objections to that particular paper and to the idea that sugar is not a problem”; and”I have expressed my opinion about the paper to the authors [Dr Alan Barclay and Professor Jennie Brand Miller]… I will almost certainly cite it at some stage as an example of something I consider to be incorrect” (Slide 18 at http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/22Slideshowaustraliangoestoparadoxcanberrafinal.pdf ).

    David D., why is Dr Rosemary Stanton wrong on added sugar being a menace to public health, and why is she wrong on the academic disgrace that is the Australian Paradox paper? (Hint: she’s not, and she’s not.)

    [Reply]

    David M Driscoll Reply:

    Keep cherry picking Dr Stanton’s quotes and avoid her actual position on David Gillespie’s work – something that you will struggle with since everything is so black and white to you!

    http://diabetesaustraliavic.wordpress.com/2012/05/02/extremism/

    http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/bigideas/stanton-interview/4179890

    “David D., why are you not applauding David Gillespie and Sarah Wilson for now also fighting the good fight against added sugar”

    Do you need this explained to you AGAIN?

    [Reply]

    David M Driscoll Reply:

    Keep cherry picking Dr Stanton’s quotes and avoid her actual position on David Gillespie’s work – something that you will struggle with since everything is so black and white to you!

    diabetesaustraliavic.wordpress.com/2012/05/02/extremism/

    abc.net.au/radionational/programs/bigideas/stanton-interview/4179890

    “David D., why are you not applauding David Gillespie and Sarah Wilson for now also fighting the good fight against added sugar”

    Do you need this explained to you AGAIN?

    [Reply]

  • Christine

    I found this link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9_Xik-ps94 to be a very interesting. Dr Robert Lustig, Dr Andrew Weil & Michael Pollen discuss many of the issues touched on in these comments. None of these guys argues for the total elimination of sugar though they come up with interesting ideas on why sugar is an issue today and what we can do to reduce consumption.

    For those of you who disagree with Dr lustigs science just listen to the other two.

    [Reply]

  • http://www.alldayheels.com.au Sara

    Very interesting Christine! Thanks for that.

    [Reply]

  • Jillybean

    While I agree that it is impossible, (and not necessary) to eliminate all sugar from our diet, 100% of my sample of overweight people who have reduced their sugar intake, have lost weight, and maintained that loss.
    Why does David D have a problem with reducing sugar and continually feel the need to find a statistic to support his viewpoint??? Just try it!!

    [Reply]

    David M Driscoll Reply:

    That’s great! Why would you think that I have a problem with reducing sugar? I advise it to most people?

    I agree it isn’t necessary to eliminate it or “quit it” and don’t think the evidence supports the need to do it – that is all.

    As stated numerous times before (which could easily get lost here), why would my personal experience override someone else’s? Consider a vegetarian and a person following Paleo eating (opposites in so many was except for less processed and junk foods – the carb/protein/fat ratios may be irrelevant at that point)- which should you believe? What about fructarians (who mainly eat fruit)?

    I can drop weight and still eat thousands of calories per day, but I don’t recommend it to people based on my personal experience.

    We use research to cut through the personal stories and try to see what is really causing the changes.

    [Reply]

    Sara Reply:

    In fairness to David I don’t think that is his message? He’s just a bit too aggressive in his manner so it’s easy to assume his viewpoint is the opposite to Sarah’s. But I agree there’s nothing wrong with giving it a shot as you’re not cutting out anything real nutrients in doing so. It really is easy too!

    [Reply]

  • http://www.australianparadox.com rory robertson (former fattie)

    Perhaps we should thank David D. for his valuable insights in this conversation but leave the last word to the NHMRC’s CEO Professor Warwick Anderson, who has explained very clearly on ABC TV the scientific evidence for Canberra’s new, tougher official dietary advice against added sugar/fructose: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-02-19/sugar-re-think-an-evidence-based-decision/4527312?section=business

    It’s game set and match to David Gillespie and Sarah Wilson, don’t you agree David D.?

    [Reply]

    David M Driscoll Reply:

    Where is the all or nothing statement you support Rory? People have to minimise soft drinks and cut down sugar intake? Watch the whole thing and try to get all of the messages, not just the one line yo want to hear.

    Did he mention glucose too – oops! Hard to follow you across all of the various forums as you keep ducking questions! Would love to see the evidence that supports yours or David Gillespie’s position to (almost) eliminate fructose – not even Lustig says that. Keep cherry picking Rory – you are clueless and dishonest to the end!

    [Reply]

  • Michelle

    HI,
    I tend to juice daily – 2 carrots, 1 beetroot, 1/4 lemon, 1x granny smith apple.
    I have an issue with hypoglycemic sydnrome.
    Now I am thinking that I should avoid juicing due to the natural sugars in these ingredients.
    Wondering how I would know how many tsp of sugar this juice would provide.
    recently bougth a thermomix so have done a few in that. use half the qty and dilute with water as it keeps all the pith etc with the juice.
    Or should I just can juices altogether.
    I dont eat fruit, other than a few pears each week.

    [Reply]

  • http://www.australianparadox.com rory robertson (former fattie)

    It would be interesting to know if David Driscoll’s “fake avatars of attractive young women” that stalked Sarah were better mannered or more convincing than the real thing. Of course, that’s a pretty low bar to be cleared. Sorry David, you earned that.

    [Reply]

  • http://30bananasaday.com nick

    just want to say…

    have you stopped fawning over yourselves yet?

    and

    do you want to know the turth about fruit? 4-5 pieces of fruit is nothing!! where do you get your calories from as vegetables are very low in calories.

    and lastly, why don’t you argue with 30bad – if you think you’re cut out for it? No, they don’t get money for promoting fruit, they give people’s health back…

    and

    please, explain to me, as fruit is such a wonderful ”treat” you know that it is our natural and salads as well, our natural diet??

    argue with me on 30bad and then start to fawn over yourself.

    fawning=deception!

    [Reply]

  • http://flavors.me/buyzithromaxcha8239 web page

    Hey I know this is off topic but I was wondering if you knew of
    any widgets I could add to my blog that automatically tweet my newest twitter
    updates. I’ve been looking for a plug-in like this for quite some time and was hoping maybe you would have some experience with something like this. Please let me know if you run into anything. I truly enjoy reading your blog and I look forward to your new updates.

    [Reply]

  • http://www.australianparadox.com rory robertson (former fattie)

    Readers,

    Good evening and Happy National Diabetes Week (Australia), 14–20 July. In an effort to counter the disturbing Australian and global trends to obesity and type 2 diabetes – together the greatest public-health challenge of our times – I am calling for a ban on all sugary drinks in all schools globally: http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/Sugary-Drinks-Ban.pdf

    Let me know what you think. If after assessing the facts you think this proposal has merit, please forward the link to parents, students, teachers, principals and heads of schools, nurses, doctors, dentists and others involved in public health and education.

    [Reply]

    Jan Reply:

    I am totally with this!! It’s ridiculous how money determines how the big brands (pushing sugar) are allowed to pimp their venomous products to kids at schools. A disgrace.

    A little story for ya: at the Steiner School in my little town (Mullumbimby) the tuck shop only serves whole foods. Organic, local, freshly made. They offer gluten free options, nut-free, you name it.

    In the Public High School, some years back, a young lad was killed in a fight during the lunch break. There were many fights between the different youth groups and this one was fatal for one lad, who was actually just a bystander.

    The school decided to change the tuck shop and copy what the Steiner school did. They actually hired the same people who ran the tuck shop at the Steiner School ( Shearwater) and the principal of the public school later declared that since the kids only had wholesome options (no more sugar, fizzy drinks, deep fried stuff, processed foods) the level of aggressiveness and the fights had diminished SIGNIFICANTLY.

    i totally support your actions!!

    [Reply]

  • Stevo

    ACA is renowned for both disinformation and misinformation.

    In terms of the “quitting sugar” thing, I am not convinced. I think our own bodies are the best ‘compass’. Listening intuitively to how your body feels to a particular food lifestyle is the most important thing.

    I am not a massive “foodie” to changing my diet is not as big a deal for me as it is for others, such as my partner.

    Personally, I adhered to a Paleo diet over 12 months, eating strictly nuts, whole grains, organic breads, eggs, fish, veggies, only organic meat, no alcohol, very little sugars … I detoxed for about 2 weeks, after which I felt ok, but I did notice my energy levels fluctuated from day to day.

    My type 1. diabetes that was still persistent. I also had a lot of bloating if and whenever I ate fruit – which was really irritating. I was diagnosed with a “fructose intolerance”. But the advice didn’t make sense to me.

    However…when I cut gluten out of my diet – this was the first most profound change I made. Going gluten free took me to a new level in terms of energy. Most exciting was the bloating and stomach issues I had disappeared with 48 hours – never to return. I have been gluten-free ever since.

    The second most profound change to my health was when I began eating primarily fruits and vegetables in my diet – cutting out all dairy and red meat. This was 2 years ago. I now eat between 40-60 pieces of fruit a week and TBH, I feel like am 21 again!

    I can’t say my diet regimen will work for everyone, but I also don’t believe the “quitting sugar” philosophy is going to work for everyone either. Certainly artificial and refined sugars should not be consumed.

    In my experience, eating naturally form sugars contained in whole organic food, such as juicy sweet fruits, has been only beneficial to my health.

    [Reply]

  • Pingback: How to make a healthy smoothie that actually tastes good

  • RN

    Lauren-
    Weary about studying for 4 years? Excuse me but I would not want someone giving me nutritional advise who has not had proper formal tertiary education? Would you like a doctor giving you medical advise if they have not undertaken the appropriate amount of study and training? Or a lawyer giving you legal advise if they too have not undertaken the appropriate amount of study and training.

    Lauren do not worry if you are passionate and have a true interest in nutrition and dietetics the time will fly buy.

    David-
    As a registered nurse myself, and after working with dieticians in the clinical setting the key is moderation. If your body does not get what it needs you will find yourself binging on foods.

    I personally would not advise anyone to completely cut out fruits from their diet, as fruit acts as a natural laxative. Fruit and vegetables complimented with adequate physical activity (that is physical activity that the person is able to manage-tolerate) helps facilitate a healthy regular bowel habit- reducing your risk of potential bowel/GI problems.

    The key is moderation.

    [Reply]

  • RN

    At the moment this has been thrown into the idiopathic/auto-immune basket.

    Its only discussing lifestyle factors as a potential cause/or risk due to the decrease in insulin sensitivity. I would be asking the question of how many children in this or these studies are obese? over weight? Have a family history of diabetes? diet high in sugar? For it to result to the premise of cutting out fruit from ones diet?

    In ED sucrose is used on infants – for pain relief from minor procedures.

    Your body needs sugar- an example is your brain; your brains primary source of energy is glucose it really does not use anything else.

    It is about maintaining a steady GI- dips in blood glucose levels can cause you to binge- further dips can cause you faint- extreme dips can result in loss of consciousness until glucose is administered.

    Highs in blood glucose is unhealthy and can prolonged highs can have your body secreting a large amount of insulin- over time this can result in reduced insulin sensitivity; predisposing you to diabetes type 2.

    In nut shell have some sugar but not too much!
    But I do not think sugar is causing paed’s to have non-alcoholic fatty liver disease! Especially a population that is so young- from the scientific knowledge I have learnt and my clinical experience there definitely is genetic, immunological and endocrine factors contributing to the cause of this illness- its just about figuring out how?

    How is fructose consumption causing this? In someone so young is it fructose or is it something going wrong in the body? The fructose may exacerbate symptoms but is it the cause?

    [Reply]

  • Pingback: DAY THREE // | Quit Sugar For Good

  • Pingback: Why I’m not eating much fruit | Day 28 | Quit Sugar For Good

  • Pingback: How we eat our fruit - I Quit Sugar