It is nutritionally bereft. By proposing it as a moral issue is absurd. The spike in the amount of sugar added to foods and the spike in obesity and diabetes is not happenstance. Sugar is an inflammatory. Inflammation causes illness.https://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletter_article/Inflammation_A_unifying_theory_of_disease …
-
-
-
BEREFT!
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Have you read the Gary Taubes books? If so, how do they hit you?
-
Respectfully, would counter that the evidence is not especially thin. According to this report published by your institution.https://www.health.harvard.edu/heart-health/the-sweet-danger-of-sugar …
-
Dear lord this guy is a cognitive scientist at Harvard and can't assess scientific research? Well there goes the last of my hope for the future
-
I am a fan of his work, and think Enlightenment Now is interesting, but the underlying thesis of his work is that quantitative data represents a truth counter intuitive to personal perception. This tweet about sugar was almost the complete opposite of that, just found it odd.
-
The thesis is closer to: represents a truth counter to popular perception. This post is in line with that. It is very fashionable to demonize sugar now. For ten years, "low carb" searches have been more popular than "low fat". And sugar consumption has been declining.
-
Is it fashionable, or is it supported by scientific study? I’ll grant you that nutrition and it’s effect on health has been a very inconsistent science. But my issue with this post is the notion that sugar is being demonized for psychological reasons as opposed to clinical ones.
-
Personally speaking, I LOVE sugar and bread. I find it very hard diminish my intake. When I have in any kind of consistent manner, my weight and blood work have always responded positively. So for me personally there is a direct correlation, despite my personal preferences.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Very dissapointing Steven. Classic case of interpreting everything through the lens you are familiar with, and from personal experience rather than from data. Sorry, it's biology here, not morality. The evidence is very strong.
-
You didn’t read the article did you?
-
All these comments and its clear that most people haven't read the article. They saw the word sugar and had to tweet the words Keto and Paleo
-
Yep. Spot on John. I found this meme yesterday which describes people like this guypic.twitter.com/Orwda9j0SD
-
Tweeted the wrong word... Now I have a new follower. Check the bio and guess the wordpic.twitter.com/gS0z3D1q6n
-
My favourite algorithm follows are from Jesus accounts
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The Relationship of Sugar to Population-Level Diabetes Prevalence: An Econometric Analysis of Repeated Cross-Sectional Datahttps://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0057873 …
-
This Econometric Analysis estimates that 25% of diabetes worldwide is explained by sugar and meets the Bradford Hill criteria for causal medical inference as explained by Robert Lustig in this video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceFyF9px20Y&feature=youtu.be&t=54m53s …
-
YouTube video isn’t evidence. Next?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
As a physician who has treated obesity for 30 years, the science is clear. Excess sugar is a chronic toxin. Insulin is the mediator. No moral valuation, just science. Genetics is the substrate that makes a single individual's experience meaningless.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.