mwg@petrus.UUCP (07/11/85)
++ > ...concerns nutrasweet and pregnant women. I was told that a physician > at Emory has stated that nutrasweet may be harmfull to the unborn > baby. My question is twofold: 1. Why wasn't this studied earlier? There was a longish article last year in Common Cause magazine about nutrasweet. The claim was that nutrasweet was pushed through the FDA very quickly (and not without substantial pressure from some chemical company which makes almost all of it), with a minimum of studys and testing. They failed to show, conclusively, any harmful side-effects. This was related to the fact that they failed to show *anything* conclusively. The product was raced through approval to demonstrate the Reagan administration's desire not to tie up 'progress' with too much red tape. The main interviewee of the article was an MD (from Emory if I remember) who said that nutrasweet was the type of thing that plays with a class of vital bodily fluids which exist and function in extremely small quantities (hormones or neurotransmitters or some such). Therefore a small quantity of neutrosweet may affect your mood, disposition or other psychological and neural brain functions in subtle, difficult-to-measure ways. I avoid the stuff like the plague. If you would like, I can dig up the article and post quotes or send you a hard copy. (Send mail.) -Mark
caf@omen.UUCP (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX) (07/13/85)
I vaguely recall reading something about a conflict of interest concerning the allegations concerning Nutrasweet. I also remember that it was the Sugar industry that sponsored the "research" that led to the banning of Cyclamates. Unfortunately, the laws are such that Sugar, which is a more damaging substance, is not regulated in any significant way as far as adulterating food with it is concerned. CAVEAT EMPTOR -- Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX ...!tektronix!reed!omen!caf CIS:70715,131 Omen Technology Inc 17505-V NW Sauvie Island Road Portland OR 97231 Voice: 503-621-3406 Modem: 503-621-3746 (Hit CR's for speed detect) Home of Professional-YAM, the most powerful COMM program for the IBM PC
claus@inuxd.UUCP (David Claus) (07/15/85)
> Unfortunately, the laws are such that Sugar, which is a more damaging > substance, is not regulated in any significant way as far as adulterating > food with it is concerned. Is there any proof to this allegation? As far as I have heard the only harm eating sugar has is an increase in dental caries. What else does sugar do to give it such a bad reputation. Dave Claus AT&T/Indy
caf@omen.UUCP (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX) (07/16/85)
In article <780@inuxd.UUCP> claus@inuxd.UUCP (David Claus) writes: >> Unfortunately, the laws are such that Sugar, which is a more damaging >> substance, is not regulated in any significant way as far as adulterating >> food with it is concerned. > >Is there any proof to this allegation? As far as I have heard >the only harm eating sugar has is an increase in dental caries. > >What else does sugar do to give it such a bad reputation. One who makes comments such as the above desperately needs some information about sugar, and not from the sugar industry or its apologists. One of the best references is "Sweet and Dangerous" by Dr. John Yudkin Ph.D.. This book is available at most larger bookstores, and contains its own bibliography. -- Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX ...!tektronix!reed!omen!caf CIS:70715,131 Omen Technology Inc 17505-V NW Sauvie Island Road Portland OR 97231 Voice: 503-621-3406 Modem: 503-621-3746 (Hit CR's for speed detect) Home of Professional-YAM, the most powerful COMM program for the IBM PC
pamelam@orca.UUCP (Pamela Morton) (07/16/85)
> > Unfortunately, the laws are such that Sugar, which is a more damaging > > substance, is not regulated in any significant way as far as adulterating > > food with it is concerned. > > Is there any proof to this allegation? As far as I have heard > the only harm eating sugar has is an increase in dental caries. > > What else does sugar do to give it such a bad reputation. > > Dave Claus > AT&T/Indy I tend to agree with Dave Claus -- despite the effects that sugar may have on SOME people, dental caries are the most significant long-term health risk attributable to eating sugar. This month's Atlantic has an excellent article on the potentially harmful effects of sugar and nutrasweet. The article points out that PKU syndrome occurs only when there are two defective genes. Some 4 million Americans have one PKU gene, and they are considered "carriers". Pregnant women who are PKU carriers are more likely to be carrying a baby with full-blown PKU syndrome, and putting that baby at greater risk when they drink Nutrasweet. And the big problem is that most carriers have never been screened -- they don't know who they are. As I recall when my children were born (2 years ago, and 6 months ago), they were screened for PKU syndrome at birth, then again at the one-week checkup. In Oregon, the state actually does the test, and I think that the test is required by law. Our pediatrician just put a blood smear on a card that was mailed to the state department of health.
nessus@nsc.UUCP (Kchula-Rrit) (07/17/85)
> > Unfortunately, the laws are such that Sugar, which is a more damaging > > substance, is not regulated in any significant way as far as adulterating > > food with it is concerned. > > Is there any proof to this allegation? As far as I have heard > the only harm eating sugar has is an increase in dental caries. > > What else does sugar do to give it such a bad reputation. > > Dave Claus > AT&T/Indy 0. Long-term consumption can cause diabetes by "burning-out" the pancreas. I had a roommate do this to himself by pigging-out on sugar-filled junk food for YEARS. He now has to take insulin every day. 1. I have hypoglycemia, which I am given to understand means that my body is "too efficient" at metabolizing sugar(sucrose). This may have happened as a result of having been given sucrose as a child. My case is mild; i.e. I don't faint, but feel LOUSY about half an hour after eating anything with much sucrose in it. A friend of mine fainted in a supermarket. They wanted to call the ambulance, but I poured orange juice into her and had to fend everyone off. My friend was O.K. after resting for an hour or so. After becomming accustomed to doing without sucrose, I that I don't miss it at all. I find that fructose makes a good substitute without nearly so much of a "sugar-fit". 2. I have heard that [lots of] sucrose can have a bad effect on the nervous system but have no evidence to back it up. From the alter ego of-- Kchula-Rrit
sdyer@bbnccv.UUCP (Steve Dyer) (07/18/85)
> 0. Long-term consumption can cause diabetes by "burning-out" the pancreas. > I had a roommate do this to himself by pigging-out on sugar-filled junk > food for YEARS. He now has to take insulin every day. Hoo, boy, more "science". Like it or not, there is no evidence that eating "sugar-filled junk" has any deleterious effects other than dental caries (and in people who have a calorie excess, obesity.) Let's move this to net.religion, huh? -- /Steve Dyer {decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer sdyer@bbnccv.ARPA
andrew@grkermi.UUCP (Andrew W. Rogers) (07/19/85)
In article <2991@nsc.UUCP> nessus@nsc.UUCP (Kchula-Rrit) writes: > 0. Long-term consumption can cause diabetes by "burning-out" the pancreas. > I had a roommate do this to himself by pigging-out on sugar-filled junk > food for YEARS. He now has to take insulin every day. Can you cite any medical research to back up this theory? If there's any correlation at all, it seems equally likely that the insulin deficiency caused the craving for "sugar-filled junk foods". Can you say "post hoc, ergo propter hoc"??? AWR
connolly@steinmetz.UUCP (C. Ian Connolly) (07/19/85)
When metabolized, Nutrasweet (aspartame) breaks down into (among other things) phenylalanine, which is an amino acid (biochemists correct me if I'm wrong). Most people can deal with phenylalanine, but there is a significant portion of the population (>10%?) which cannot. These are "phenylketonurics". There's even a warning on most things which use Nutrasweet which says: "Phenylketonurics: This product contains phenylalanine." Now, to most people, a phenylketonuric might as well be some kind of small amphibian. In any case, for such folk, phenylalanine can accumulate in the brain, leading to mood changes, lack of concentration, and even mental retardation. It has also been suspected of causing rashes, nausea, and headaches. An example: my sister teaches emotionally disturbed children in the Philadelphia area. She described one boy who was, up to a certain point, doing fine in school - he gradually lost his ability to concentrate and became a "problem" child, at which point he was enrolled in the Easter Seals program (where my sister works). After talking to his mother, they found out that she had recently started buying diet drinks. They agreed to take him off the diet drinks & see what happened. Within a week, he had improved tremendously. I shudder to think how popular this stuff is, and what it might be doing to a significant portion of the population! -- C. Ian Connolly, WA2IFI - USENET: ...edison!steinmetz!connolly , , ARPANET: connolly@ge-crd An rud a bhionn, bionn.
caf@omen.UUCP (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX) (07/20/85)
In article <273@bbnccv.UUCP> sdyer@bbnccv.UUCP (Steve Dyer) writes: >Hoo, boy, more "science". Like it or not, there is no evidence that >eating "sugar-filled junk" has any deleterious effects other than dental >caries (and in people who have a calorie excess, obesity.) > >Let's move this to net.religion, huh? ... Just like there's no positive proof concerning the evils and causes of acid rain, lung cancer (cigarettes), mouth cancer (snuff), etc. A good starting text on the subject is the book "Sweet and Dangerous" by Dr John Yudkin, Professor of Physiology at Queen Elizabeth College of London University, etc. A quote therefrom: "If only a fraction of what is already known about the effects of sugar were to be revealed in relation to any other material used as a food additive, that material would promptly be banned." -- Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX ...!tektronix!reed!omen!caf CIS:70715,131 Omen Technology Inc 17505-V NW Sauvie Island Road Portland OR 97231 Voice: 503-621-3406 Modem: 503-621-3746 (Hit CR's for speed detect) Home of Professional-YAM, the most powerful COMM program for the IBM PC
sdyer@bbncc5.UUCP (Steve Dyer) (07/22/85)
> In article <273@bbnccv.UUCP> sdyer@bbnccv.UUCP (Steve Dyer) writes: > >Hoo, boy, more "science". Like it or not, there is no evidence that > >eating "sugar-filled junk" has any deleterious effects other than dental > >caries (and in people who have a calorie excess, obesity.) > > > >Let's move this to net.religion, huh? > > ... Just like there's no positive proof concerning the evils and causes of > acid rain, lung cancer (cigarettes), mouth cancer (snuff), etc. This is a silly debating tactic. It is worth noting that the medical profession has firmly supported the findings against tobacco for more than 20 years. The same is NOT true for sugar, and the reason is simple: the extravagant claims made against sugar simply don't materialize when subjected to scientific scrutiny. -- /Steve Dyer {decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer sdyer@bbnccv.ARPA
mwg@petrus.UUCP (Mark Garrett) (07/22/85)
++ > > > > "There's a bad misconception that aspartame is the same thing as > > protein," [says Seymour Kaufman of the National Institutes of > > Mental Health] > I have a feeling that Kaufman > is either being misquoted or being misleading. What I believe to be the > case here is that administration of free phenylalanine is not quite the > same as administration of protein containing similar amounts of > phenylalanine, because of competition by amino acids for transport across > the blood-brain barrier.... > I'd like to hear from more informed medical and research sources who > might have more facts. > /Steve Dyer I would also like to hear from some medically trained types (of which I am not one, alas...) about the specifics involved here. What kind of doses are we talking about? Can someone explain the *basic* processes involved with these chemicals both in terms of digestion and brain chemistry? (Steve's comments were good, let's have some more elaboration.) The problem with these survey articles is that they quote all kinds of medical people but don't get into the guts of it because they are intended mainly to address the political issues rather than the medical ones. To wit, here is yet another summary of yet another Common Cause Magazine followup on NutraSweet: (From Common Cause Magazine, Vol 11, No 4, July/August 1985, pp 20-21) Congress' investigative arm, the General Accounting Office, begins a probe of how the government approved NutraSweet. ... The investigation is being conducted at the request of Sen. Howard Metzenbaum (D-Ohio). ... Consumer complaints to the FDA obtained by the magazine showed a number of people believe they have suffered a variety of symptoms after consuming NutraSweet, including headaches, rashes, dizziness, menstrual problems, heart palpitations, stomach problems and seizures. ... ...Dr. Richard Wurtman, professor of neuroendocrine regulation at MIT, reiterated his concerns about the safety of NutraSweet. "It is virtually certain that you can consume and that people do consume enough NutraSweet to affect the chemical composition of the brain, and the chemicals that are changing are chemicals that we know underlie very importatnt types of behavior." Dr. William Partridge, associated professor of medicine at UCLA, also voiced his concerns on the program, saying there are two major group potentially suceptible to the effects of the sweetener, seven to 12-year-old children and developing babies or fetuses. Dr Louis Elsas, director of medical genetics at Emory University Medical School said, "I'm concerned this could be a major health hazard that has been totally unexplored. I don't know what's going to happen, but nobody else does either. "No one can tell me it's not going to happen," he continued. "I think it's been a whitewashed scientific reveiw, most of which has been supported by the industry itself, which has an obvious conflict of interest." ... (Some of Elsas' findings [on phenylalanine] were reported in the January issued of the Journal of Clinical Investigation.) ... Elsas compared the effects of NutraSweet to a time bomb. "We may not be able to see the effects for a generation. And then we'll suddenly see a lot of kids with behavioral abnormalities, with IQs...[whose] mental function is not what we anticipated from their education or genetic input." ... How did [then FDA commisioner Arthur Hull] Hayes reconcile his decision to approve aspartame with the fact that three of the six scientists advising him said the brain tumor tests could not be relied on in establishing the safety of aspartame? ... The federal Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta reviewed 200 of the more than 600 complaints sent to the FDA by consumers in the first half of last year and recommended last November that further studies be conducted on humans. The senators also asked if the FDA would follow up a study by Dr. Keith Connors of Children's Hospital National Medical Center in Washington, D.C. "which documented a child's severe behavioral reaction to aspartame."... My two cents: I wonder if part of the phenylalanine/protein problem is that a protein molecule is broken down and metabolized slowly and the pure amino acids in aspartame are immediately absorbed into the bloodstream. This might explain the confusing and abbreviated comment I quoted last time (Kaufman). This is similar to the sugar problem: refined sucrose is "bad" because it is so pure that it causes a very sudden rise in blood sugar (glucose) levels ("sugar high"), whereas fructose takes time to be metabolized. Slow shifts in blood chemistry would seem to be much better for one's system. Any knowledgable comments? -Mark
ewj@hscfvax.UUCP (850039@P.Fuller) (07/23/85)
It may be true that there is NO scientific or medical evidence to support definite criticism of refined cane sugar. Yet it is difficult to deny the anecdotal evidence of many ex sugar addicts who claim to have had a remarkable changes once they discontinued eating any of this food/substance. It may be that some people have a strong sensitivity to highly refined carbohydrates (certainly many parents have observed this with their children of various ages) and that this is a personal issue not subject to empirical verification in control groups. In any case, those people who choose to avoid eating refined sugars should respect others who have no such predilection. And vice versa.
smh@rduxb.UUCP (henning) (07/23/85)
> Hoo, boy, more "science". Like it or not, there is no evidence that > eating "sugar-filled junk" has any deleterious effects other than dental > caries (and in people who have a calorie excess, obesity.) > > the extravagant claims made against sugar simply don't materialize when > subjected to scientific scrutiny. **** **** From the keys of Steve Henning, AT&T Bell Labs, Reading, PA rduxb!smh All I know is that if I eat a normal diet with sweats, I am diabetic. If I abstain from sugar my blood sugar is absolutely normal. I certainly cannot say that sugar caused this condition to occur, but it does occur.
sdyer@bbncc5.UUCP (Steve Dyer) (07/23/85)
> It may be that some people have a strong sensitivity to > highly refined carbohydrates (certainly many parents have observed > this with their children of various ages) and that this is a personal > issue not subject to empirical verification in control groups. In any > case, those people who choose to avoid eating refined sugars should > respect others who have no such predilection. And vice versa. Absolutely in agreement. A statement like "I felt bad when I ate lots of sugar" is outside of the realm of scientific verification. On the other hand, saying "sugar is poison, just look at how I felt" or some variant of this certainly can be tested. -- /Steve Dyer {decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer sdyer@bbnccv.ARPA
sdyer@bbncc5.UUCP (Steve Dyer) (07/24/85)
> Most people can deal with phenylalanine, but there is > a significant portion of the population (>10%?) which cannot. These are > "phenylketonurics". There's even a warning on most things which use > Nutrasweet which says: > "Phenylketonurics: This product contains phenylalanine." From the Merck Manual, 12th ed, p. 1111: "Phenylketonuria (PKU) is transmitted by an autosomal recessive gene; it is caused by a deficiency of phenylalanine hydroxylase. The condition occurs in 7:100,000 births in the general population of the USA, with the incidence being considerably lower among Negroes and Askenazi Jews." 7/100000 is many times lower than >10%? (unless this is a kind of notation I've never seen before!) -- /Steve Dyer {decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer sdyer@bbnccv.ARPA
caf@omen.UUCP (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX) (07/25/85)
In article <227@bbncc5.UUCP> sdyer@bbncc5.UUCP (Steve Dyer) writes: >> In article <273@bbnccv.UUCP> sdyer@bbnccv.UUCP (Steve Dyer) writes: >> >Hoo, boy, more "science". Like it or not, there is no evidence that >> >eating "sugar-filled junk" has any deleterious effects other than dental >> >caries (and in people who have a calorie excess, obesity.) >> > >> >Let's move this to net.religion, huh? >> >> ... Just like there's no positive proof concerning the evils and causes of >> acid rain, lung cancer (cigarettes), mouth cancer (snuff), etc. > >This is a silly debating tactic. It is worth noting that the medical >profession has firmly supported the findings against tobacco for more >than 20 years. The same is NOT true for sugar, and the reason is simple: >the extravagant claims made against sugar simply don't materialize when >subjected to scientific scrutiny. Q.E.D. Smoking has been around since Sir Walter Raleigh (17th century), and the medical community hasn't come down hard on it until now. If it takes as long for the medical community to react to the wholesale suarar loading of our diet, we still have a few hundred years to wait for the word to propagate. If the "defenders" of sugar would take the bother to acknowledge the references I've given, their debating style wouldn't sound so much like the Tobacco Institute. -- Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX ...!tektronix!reed!omen!caf CIS:70715,131 Omen Technology Inc 17505-V NW Sauvie Island Road Portland OR 97231 Voice: 503-621-3406 Modem: 503-621-3746 (Hit CR's for speed detect) Home of Professional-YAM, the most powerful COMM program for the IBM PC
connolly@steinmetz.UUCP (C. Ian Connolly) (07/27/85)
> > a significant portion of the population (>10%?) which cannot. These are > it is caused by a deficiency of phenylalanine hydroxylase. The condition > occurs in 7:100,000 births in the general population of the USA, with > 7/100000 is many times lower than >10%? (unless this is a kind of What can I say? I got the figure out of Science... I might be confusing Phenylketonuria with a more general condition involving phenylalanine. I am positive that more than .007% of the people I know are affected by Nutrasweet-sweetened soft drinks, so I am much more inclined to believe the 10% figure. -- C. Ian Connolly, WA2IFI - USENET: ...edison!steinmetz!connolly , , ARPANET: connolly@ge-crd An rud a bhionn, bionn.
sdyer@bbncc5.UUCP (Steve Dyer) (07/27/85)
> Smoking has been around since Sir Walter Raleigh (17th century), and the > medical community hasn't come down hard on it until now. > If it takes as long for the medical community to react to the wholesale > suarar loading of our diet, we still have a few hundred years to wait > for the word to propagate. > If the "defenders" of sugar would take the bother to acknowledge the > references I've given, their debating style wouldn't sound so much like > the Tobacco Institute. Ahem, I would be reluctant to cast aspersions on the "debating style" of others with ad-hominem slurs given the yawning holes in your reasoning. If you wish to be taken seriously, and I believe you do, then you must rely on facts, and not rhetorical flourishes. A couple of points: Medicine as it is practiced today is a late 19th-20th century phenomenon and bears little resemblence to the surgeons/barbers of the 17th century. It is patently ridiculous to assert that medicine has failed because the dangers of smoking weren't discovered until the 20th century. The branch of medical science known as epidemiology and one of its tools, multivariate statistics, have only matured in the last 70-odd years. Indeed, it is quite reassuring to note the unified position of the medical community against the dangers of smoking, even in the face of powerful political and economic pressures. It may come as a disappointment to the Truly Paranoid, but the "medical community" is not a monolithic entity subject to manipulation by "special interests." Medicine may be judged as inherently conservative, relying as it does on prudence, rationality and the application of the scientific method, but I tend to think of that as a virtue. On your comments about sugar, for every crackpot book that enumerates the dangers of sugar, there are studies which fail to demonstrate ANY exceptional deleterious effects other than dental caries and providing "empty" calories. This, of course, is consonant with the empirical findings of clinicians. Yeah, I know, all funded by the "sugar industry" and therefore suspect. It is interesting to reflect on what a charge like this says about the state of scientific research in our universities, where most of these studies are performed. It is also worth noting the reports of the Framingham study on diet and heart disease which clearly link saturated fat intake and cholesterol levels with heart disease. Where were the beef and dairy industries then? Probably not as "organized" as the sugar industry? Of course not. It is simply that the facts became self-evident, and no amount of "influence" real or imagined would have any effect on the results. -- /Steve Dyer {decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer sdyer@bbnccv.ARPA
sck@elsie.UUCP (Steve Kaufman) (07/30/85)
In article <208@steinmetz.UUCP>, connolly@steinmetz.UUCP (C. Ian Connolly) writes: > I am positive that more than .007% of the > people I know are affected by Nutrasweet-sweetened soft drinks, > so I am much more inclined to believe the 10% figure. 3-digit precision based solely on anecdotal evidence? This sugar/aspartame/honey/etc stuff is getting more & more ridiculous every day! By the way, PKU is "a common biochemical disorder [as such things go], occurring with an incidence of about 1 in 15,000 births." [Nadler & Burton, 1980, "Genetics", p. 99 in _Fetal_&_Maternal_Medicine, Quilligan & Kretchmer, eds., Wiley] "Incidence estimates, including the milder forms, are as high as 1 in 7000 births in the US and Canada." [David Poskanzer, 1981 "Neurological Disorders", p. 281 in _Preventive_&_Community_Medicine_, Clark & MacMahon, eds., Little]
doon@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Harry W. Reed) (07/30/85)
In article <208@steinmetz.UUCP> connolly@steinmetz.UUCP (C. Ian Connolly) writes: >> > a significant portion of the population (>10%?) which cannot. These are > >> it is caused by a deficiency of phenylalanine hydroxylase. The condition >> occurs in 7:100,000 births in the general population of the USA, with > >> 7/100000 is many times lower than >10%? (unless this is a kind of > >What can I say? I got the figure out of Science... >I might be confusing Phenylketonuria with a more general condition >involving phenylalanine. I am positive that more than .007% of the ^^^^^^^^ >people I know are affected by Nutrasweet-sweetened soft drinks, What makes you so sure ?????
caf@omen.UUCP (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX) (07/31/85)
In article <240@bbncc5.UUCP> sdyer@bbncc5.UUCP (Steve Dyer) writes: >On your comments about sugar, for every crackpot book that enumerates the >dangers of sugar, there are studies which fail to demonstrate ANY >exceptional deleterious effects other than dental caries and providing >"empty" calories. This, of course, is consonant with the empirical >findings of clinicians. I'm sorry that I don't have the time to do an extensive search of the literature, especially since they found might still be dismissed as crackpot. (What's makes a book crackpot, anyway?) The "empirical findings" that I am familiar with indicate that sugar consumption promotes obesity in many people (some are apparently resistant to this effect). To me personally, obesity is the main problem with sugar. I neither add sugar to the foods I eat nor eat sugar directly out of the box. But, it has become more and difficult to find prepared foods that are not loaded with sugar or other highly refined carbohydrates. I can't even find a brand of tartar sauce that doesn't contain sugar anymore. If sugar free versions of the popular foods were readily avaialble, there wouldn't be such need to debate this subject. Because the bad effects of smoking are widely known, we have no smoking areas available for those who need them. When and if the bad effects of sugar are widely known, there will be no sugar / low carbohydrate foods available for the people that need them. -- Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX ...!tektronix!reed!omen!caf CIS:70715,131 Omen Technology Inc 17505-V NW Sauvie Island Road Portland OR 97231 Voice: 503-621-3406 Modem: 503-621-3746 (Hit CR's for speed detect) Home of Professional-YAM, the most powerful COMM program for the IBM PC
sdyer@bbncc5.UUCP (Steve Dyer) (08/01/85)
> The "empirical findings" that I am familiar with indicate that sugar > consumption promotes obesity in many people (some are apparently resistant > to this effect). Chuck, your most recent comment seems a lot less controversial than your earlier allegations of cancer, or others' allusions to insanity or arteriosclerosis directly linked to sugar intake. Still, it must be emphasized that sugar is no more special in this regard than any other highly concentrated source of calories: it is simply that it is easier and more enjoyable to imbibe excess calories as sugar-laden sweets. Or, for that matter, raw-honey-laden sweets. Too many calories in: obesity, no matter where the calories came from. People DO differ in their levels of activity and metabolism, so one man's burden may be another's guilt-free delight. It's worth mentioning an obvious point that might have been obscured in the commotion: it is certainly no vice, and is probably a virtue, to decry the amount of sugar gratuitously added to prepared foods, and to attempt to reduce one's sugar intake. Not because sugar is intrinsically harmful, but because the calories are empty, and could be more profitably spent on a wider, more healthful selection of foods which provide other nutrients as well as calories. And, too, people have mentioned the better sensitivity to the subtlety of flavors they gain when "sweet" isn't a dominant theme in the taste of their food. I don't think anyone here, "defender of sugar" or not, could possibly argue with this at all. The controversy arises when zealots take what is essentially a reasonable position and stretch it way out of shape, and then surround themselves with unproved hypotheses in the guise of science. It's entirely reasonable for the scientific establishment to try to verify these claims, and what is one to conclude when it's found that they don't pan out? -- /Steve Dyer {decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer sdyer@bbnccv.ARPA
phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (08/04/85)
In article <207@omen.UUCP> caf@.UUCP (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX) writes: >To me personally, obesity is the main problem with sugar. I neither add >sugar to the foods I eat nor eat sugar directly out of the box. But, >it has become more and difficult to find prepared foods that are not loaded >with sugar or other highly refined carbohydrates. I can't even find a >brand of tartar sauce that doesn't contain sugar anymore. In my opinion, the major cause of obesity is laziness, not sugar. If people who complained about sugar would spend the same amount of time exercising, they wouldn't have an obesity problem. Hm, if I went by empirical evidence, I would say skinny people drink regular Coke and obese people drink diet Coke, therefore Nutrasweet causes obesity. (don't bother to respond to this paragraph, I know what is going on.) -- My sister told me "I filled up my shoe tree so I knew it was time to stop buying shoes. Then our parents gave me some shoes so I had to buy another shoe tree. And then..." Phil Ngai (408) 749-5720 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.ARPA
caf@omen.UUCP (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX) (08/05/85)
In article <2347@amdcad.UUCP> phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) writes: > >In my opinion, the major cause of obesity is laziness, not sugar. >If people who complained about sugar would spend the same amount of >time exercising, they wouldn't have an obesity problem. > >Hm, if I went by empirical evidence, I would say skinny people drink >regular Coke and obese people drink diet Coke, therefore Nutrasweet >causes obesity. (don't bother to respond to this paragraph, I know what >is going on.) > Aaaah. When one has lost the argument, get down the the tried and true ad hominem attack. Of course we know that fat people are fat because they are lazy. Something to do with Home, Mother, Apple Pie, and Rev. Falwell. Of course some of us have such highly refined powers of empirical observation that we notice that most atheletes are slim, and few if any obese people are successful atheletes. Therefore, the cause of obesity is laziness. Well, I've seen plenty of overweight construction workers, and I know many classmates who had the same amount of exercise as I, but were skinny. In my own life, I have tended to be more active when my weight was lower. Active sports are much more enjoyable when a modicum of success is possible, rather than merely running out of breath and frustration. I know, I've been on both ends of the stick. There has been a strong positive correlation between my intake of sugar and other carbohydrates and weight change. There has been no clear correlation between my level of physical activity and weight change. I have noticed that a diet sufficient for me to maintain or lose weight doesn't give me nearly enough energy for aerobic sports such as semi-competitive swimming 4 or 5 days a week. -- Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX ...!tektronix!reed!omen!caf CIS:70715,131 Omen Technology Inc 17505-V NW Sauvie Island Road Portland OR 97231 Voice: 503-621-3406 Modem: 503-621-3746 (Hit CR's for speed detect) Home of Professional-YAM, the most powerful COMM program for the IBM PC
stewart@ihlpl.UUCP (R. J. Stewart) (08/06/85)
>> In my opinion, the major cause of obesity is laziness, not sugar. >> If people who complained about sugar would spend the same amount of >> time exercising, they wouldn't have an obesity problem. > Aaaah. When one has lost the argument, get down the the tried and true > ad hominem attack. Of course we know that fat people are fat because > they are lazy. Something to do with Home, Mother, Apple Pie, and > Rev. Falwell. This is not an ad hominem attack. An example of argument ad hominem would be "don't listen to so-and-so about weight loss, he's a fatso anyway." See net.flame for more examples. Besides, why should it be any more insulting to say someone is fat because they're lazy than to say it's because they're a glutton? > There has been a strong positive correlation between my intake of sugar > and other carbohydrates and weight change. There has been no clear > correlation between my level of physical activity and weight change. Well, my case is quite different. For a long time I tried to keep my weight down by dieting; it was a losing battle. When I finally took up regular exercise, I lost my excess weight. I now eat A LOT more food than before, including more sugar than is probably good for me, and have no weight problem. I guess my case study cancels your case study. So there, too, also! I suppose this means that individual cases are not very valuable in making general conclusions. Perhaps we should wait before flaming people for their positions Bob Stewart ihlpl!stewart
ed@gargoyle.UUCP (Ed Friedman) (08/07/85)
References: Those of you concerned with the perils of Nutrasweet might want to read The Toxic Effects of Glutamate and Related Compounds in the Retina and the Brain, by John W. Olney (Retina 2: 341, 1982). In the article the author claims that oral administration of Asm to young mice induced hypothalamic lesions.
GMP@psuvm.BITNET (08/15/85)
A comment from the diabetics. There are some of us who simply can t eat sugar.
The issue is not obesity, it is death. I am intrigued with the argument, and
appalled by the insensitivity. Not only is there the contempt of vanity but
there is the intolerance of the divergent. Computing is no haven for the
humanist. Most of you are bigoted on behalf of your science that you have no
sense of life. I guess I should have put this on net.flame, but your rules are
so idiosyncratically rigid that frankly there's no real point to trying to figu
re them out. Reply if you can explain who on earth writes some of these tediou
s moralities. gmp@psuvm