Scientific papers -- ALWAYS READ TO THE END

So sugar doesn't seem to be such a bad thing in a paper recently published (yes, published) by the reputable-enough sounding European Journal of Nutrition:

It should also be noted that between 1970 and 2010 in the USA average total energy intake increased by 474 calories per person [51]. Virtually all of this increase in energy intake (approximately 94 %) can be attributed to an increase in flour and cereal products and added fats, while added sugars only contributed 7 % of the total increased caloric intake. Thus, data related to added sugar intake as a potential significant contributor to weight gain and obesity must be treated with great caution. Moreover, public policy attempts to limit sugar consumption as a mechanism for helping individuals control weight seem unlikely to succeed.

Interesting, but what's more interesting is at the very bottom, where the researchers' conflicts of interest are listed:

J. M. Rippe’s research laboratory has received unrestricted grants and Dr. Rippe has received consulting fees from ConAgra Foods, Kraft Foods, the Florida Department of Citrus, PepsiCo International, Coca Cola, the Corn Refiners Association, Weight Watchers International and various publishers.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00394-016-1257-2

Well, well, well.

eddie wrote:Well, well, well.

Certain things feed off sugar, Candida being one of them. Many people don't even know they have it, as it causes something called leaky gut. Where toxins breach the intestines and leak into the body and blood stream.

WHENEVER I hear the word "sugar" being used in articles purporting to be revealing some new "research" into health and nutrition, and various spurious claims as to the suspected deleterious effects of various nutrients, ingredients and additives in foods, I have to wonder about the qualifications, knowledge and intentions of the reporters/bloggers and the researchers themselves...

THE FACTS remain, that "sugars" are a group of nutrients that provide energy to the body, but there isn't any one compound known as sugar - but several sugars organised into sub groups, and then isomers and polymers of those various sugars.


Then, there's the salient fact that "sugar" isn't utilised directly by cells in the body, but first the various sugars are broken down into glucose, and then that glucose is converted into glycogen to be moved around through the blood..            

And then down on the mitochondrial level, it's actually the forming and breaking of phosphorous bonds during the Citric Acid Cycle, that traps and releases energy at a cellular level..

PUTTING THE LIE to such claims as "sugar causes cancer" and "fructose bad, sucrose good"...


CERTAINLY,  too much sugar isn't good for you, too much processed food is definitely bad for you, too much energy taken in/too little energy used will inevitably make you fatter, too much of any food group and/or too little fibre and water will upset your body's metabolic balance -- all contributing to poor health outcomes..

HOWEVER, that doesn't excuse the poor reporting of many so-called health and nutrition stories, nor the way that some biased or suspect claims are often misrepresented, nor the way that some propaganda pieces/creative advertising is regularly passed off as news stories.