Paleo Diet and Paleolithic Diet Questions & Answers

Question

6

1

Gary Taubes has written a piece for the New York Times Magazine titled Is Sugar Toxic?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&ref=magazine

In the article, Mr Taubes winds his way through sugar as being a major factor in Westernized diseases such as diabetes and ends up addressing the role sugar may play in the development of cancers.

After reading the article, will you give up all forms of sugar including honey, agave syrup and any other natural sweetner so you will not develop metabolic syndrome & cancer later in life?

edited Apr 13 2011 at 17:03

asked Apr 13 2011 at 16:56

Dexter
10.9k●1●12●31

1

Thanks for the link, but aren't you preaching to the choir here? :) +1 for preaching to the choir :) – Thomas Seay Apr 13 2011 at 17:31

We always have some new members to the choir coming along and asking about natural sweetners....as if sugar in its raw state or refined state is not natural. – Dexter Apr 13 2011 at 17:37

Yes, you are right. And, as the article points out, sugar is being touted as healthier than corn syrup. I've noticed many products at Whole Food now boast that they use sugar, not corn syrup. – Thomas Seay Apr 13 2011 at 21:39

Hi everyone, I just merged this question with the question that Lauren asked -- same link, same Taubes article in the NY Times. All the answers to her question are now answers to this question. – Paul Apr 14 2011 at 2:06

thanks, I was wondering where I went... – Lauren Apr 15 2011 at 15:03

Alfredo · Answer 1 · 2011-04-13 18:49:41Z UTC

1

Just read the article, about to watch the Youtube video he cites: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

I found it to be a bit long winded. Most of us already know that fructose is particularly insidious in large amounts, leading to diabetes and metabolic syndrome. Taubes goes on to say that he is frightened that it may cause cancer, but provides little evidence. I haven't posted it to Facebook, as I don't think it will be particularly convincing to my non-paleo friends.

answered Apr 13 2011 at 18:49

Alfredo

I did post it to FB but I assume my non-paleo friends (which is 99%) won't be convinced either. – Lauren Apr 13 2011 at 20:12

1

My husband drank probably a 6 pack per day of sugary soda for several years and ate lots of sugary snacks for probably most of his life. At 36 he ended up with stage 3 melanoma tumor in his neck and in the process of treating that, found out he's type 2 diabetic. He's not fat either, never has been. I believe sugar plays a part in causing cancer even if my experience is only anecdotal. – HeatherC Apr 13 2011 at 20:44

There is no question insulin resistance is oncogenic via p53..... Clear cut – The Quilt Apr 13 2011 at 22:22

I was just a little disappointed in Taubes, as he recently became a lot more readable in his second book. Despite reverting to GCBC style, he didn't cite p53 to my knowledge. It comes off a little as "it might be a carcinogen", rather than "prolonged overexposure leads to a disorder which is linked to cancer". I can, however, highly recommend the video. – Alfredo Apr 14 2011 at 2:07

p53 (also known as protein 53 or tumor protein 53), is a tumor suppressor protein that in humans is encoded by the TP53 gene. p53 is important in multicellular organisms, where it regulates the cell cycle and, thus, functions as a tumor suppressor that is involved in preventing cancer. As such, p53 has been described as "the guardian of the genome", the "guardian angel gene", and the "master watchman", referring to its role in conserving stability by preventing genome mutation. from WIKI – Dexter Apr 14 2011 at 12:08

show 1 more comment

Thumper · Answer 2 · 2011-04-13 19:12:47Z UTC

1

Awesome article - great video - love how many people are tuning in. Any way to get the info out to a large group is good in my books!

answered Apr 13 2011 at 19:12

Thumper
12.3k●2●10●48

The Quilt · Answer 3 · 2011-04-14 01:54:36Z UTC

1

Gary next step has to be against the sat fat story......its the whit elephant in the room left......And Lustig is totally correct about his isometabolic point.

answered Apr 14 2011 at 1:54

The Quilt
27.4k●1●13●82

I agree. It is probably important that people know that eating saturated fat won't kill them dead before they think that eating carbs will kill them dead. Without the former, the latter just confuses them and they end up on the chicken breast and salad diet. cringe – Stabby Apr 14 2011 at 3:03

tremendo · Answer 4 · 2011-04-13 21:33:58Z UTC

Hm, I already do not eat sugar. Actually about once a month I do take my kids out for gelato. Sue me. Oh, I eat some fruit too.

In these web-parts we already know the story about sugars, and fructose specifically, and Lustig's presentation. I do believe Taubes tried some scare tactics in this one, as he really didn't provide any fairly plausible link to cancer more than "what if". He's never addressed the possible and, I think more likey, role of PUFAs.

If the article manages to get some people off of sugar, then I guess that's a positive, that's the upside. Downside? some (more) others will accuse him of fear mongering and probably write him off as a quack.

Turnkey · Answer 5 · 2011-04-14 01:43:31Z UTC

I think the fructose issue that Taubes is mentioning there, and Robert Lustig's viewpoint, is 80% of poor health in the standard american diet. There may be a lot of ways to degrade the diet, but taking in large fructose seems to be the definite majority issue.

And I also appreciate how the mechanisms that make sugar bad are mitigated in fruit, and that the explanation for this behavior is chemically and physically explainable. There is no "magic" to why fructose is bad while fruit consumption seems to lead to greater longevity (beyond selection bias).

Pippin Fowler · Answer 6 · 2011-04-14 05:21:13Z UTC

I think Gary Taubes is getting better and better at communicating the science questions and research without apologizing for the possibility that the reader may have to think to understand the facts and hypotheses, as some Paleo writers seem to be fond of. It was "Good Calories, Bad Calories" that started my journey toward Paleo, though it took me a long time to get past the thought "Nothing good can come from a book that has such a goofy title." I'm currently reading his more recent book mentioned in the NY Times author footnote, so it was a fine coincidence to notice the link here to the article. I sent the link to all of my cake, doughnut, juice, smoothie, candy loving coworkers at the CA Dept of Public Health. Gary mentioned cigarettes and alcohol, so I used that hook to lure my tobacco control mates. Gary is my hero, seriously.

Have I stopped eating fructose? No. Do I limit fructose and think about how much I might have eaten as a hunter gatherer (before apples and strawberries were made huge and before Dole made pineapple so flocking sweet)? Yes, I'm thinking seasonal, local, and occasional, and I'm thinking what a sissie I am around bees--not likely I would ever get honey from a hive. I believe we're meant to get fatter from fruit when fruit is in season, AND we are meant to lose that fat over the winter when fruit and many vegetables are naturally gone.

Of course, if I extend the hive-raid logic to the likelihood that I'll ever kill the meat I eat, I will starve. I'm still quite far from having all of this recent learning sitting comfortably together in my thoughts.

Is there a relationship between Sugar, Obesity, Diabetes & Cancer?

6 Answers