4

votes

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

Answered on August 19, 2014
Created April 13, 2011 at 4:56 PM

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?

Da681d976130df15aac3984013aaad6d

(720)

on April 15, 2011
at 03:03 PM

thanks, I was wondering where I went...

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25482)

on April 14, 2011
at 12:15 PM

He does not have to because the data is overwhelming if you read it......if you don't it's survival of the fittest at it's finest

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25482)

on April 14, 2011
at 12:13 PM

P53 is not in and of itself carcinogenic.......I view it as the guardian of genome. Most pathways cross it and insulin and leptin resistance weaken it's fortress effect......

06d21b99c58283ce575e36c4ecd4a458

(9948)

on April 14, 2011
at 12:08 PM

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

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on April 14, 2011
at 03:03 AM

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*

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on April 14, 2011
at 02:07 AM

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.

47a42b6be94caf700fce9509e38bb6a4

(9647)

on April 14, 2011
at 02:06 AM

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.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25482)

on April 13, 2011
at 10:22 PM

There is no question insulin resistance is oncogenic via p53..... Clear cut

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on April 13, 2011
at 09:47 PM

Good point. He only provided a correlation. We should not seek to create the sugar equivalent of D.A.R.E. scaring people into accepting our TRUTH, using leger-de-main. Downside is that it's not good science of the caliber Taubes usually presents.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on April 13, 2011
at 09:39 PM

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.

A3e654929c08c0723607842656b57f8f

(834)

on April 13, 2011
at 09:32 PM

I think the article says that both HFCS and "Sugar" are equally bad. From the article "But marketing aside, the two sweeteners are effectively identical in their biological effects. “High-fructose corn syrup, sugar — no difference,” is how Lustig put it in a lecture that I attended in San Francisco last December. “The point is they’re each bad — equally bad, equally poisonous.”"

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on April 13, 2011
at 09:14 PM

whoops... just realized I didn't answer the dang question with my little rant... I ate my last beloved brownie just before reading GCBC in Nov, 2007. I've been a sugar free me since (pert near 100%)

34a367e60db77270bd7096dc04270fdc

(4171)

on April 13, 2011
at 08:44 PM

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.

Da681d976130df15aac3984013aaad6d

(720)

on April 13, 2011
at 08:12 PM

I did post it to FB but I assume my non-paleo friends (which is 99%) won't be convinced either.

06d21b99c58283ce575e36c4ecd4a458

(9948)

on April 13, 2011
at 05:37 PM

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.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on April 13, 2011
at 05:31 PM

Thanks for the link, but aren't you preaching to the choir here? :) +1 for preaching to the choir :)

  • 06d21b99c58283ce575e36c4ecd4a458

    asked by

    (9948)
  • Views
    1.9K
  • Last Activity
    1581D AGO
Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

7 Answers

2
Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25482)

on April 14, 2011
at 01:54 AM

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.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on April 14, 2011
at 03:03 AM

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*

1
Medium avatar

(12379)

on April 13, 2011
at 07:12 PM

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!

1
77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on April 13, 2011
at 06:49 PM

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.

06d21b99c58283ce575e36c4ecd4a458

(9948)

on April 14, 2011
at 12:08 PM

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

Da681d976130df15aac3984013aaad6d

(720)

on April 13, 2011
at 08:12 PM

I did post it to FB but I assume my non-paleo friends (which is 99%) won't be convinced either.

34a367e60db77270bd7096dc04270fdc

(4171)

on April 13, 2011
at 08:44 PM

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.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on April 14, 2011
at 02:07 AM

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.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25482)

on April 13, 2011
at 10:22 PM

There is no question insulin resistance is oncogenic via p53..... Clear cut

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25482)

on April 14, 2011
at 12:13 PM

P53 is not in and of itself carcinogenic.......I view it as the guardian of genome. Most pathways cross it and insulin and leptin resistance weaken it's fortress effect......

0
9fb6900af6e722fc80ab46782fa94e2c

on April 14, 2011
at 05:21 AM

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.

0
8f4ff12a53a98f3b5814cfe242de0daa

(1075)

on April 14, 2011
at 01:43 AM

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).

0
3b803506ca7d7b5796bc16ee5b9f11d3

on April 13, 2011
at 09:33 PM

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.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on April 13, 2011
at 09:47 PM

Good point. He only provided a correlation. We should not seek to create the sugar equivalent of D.A.R.E. scaring people into accepting our TRUTH, using leger-de-main. Downside is that it's not good science of the caliber Taubes usually presents.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25482)

on April 14, 2011
at 12:15 PM

He does not have to because the data is overwhelming if you read it......if you don't it's survival of the fittest at it's finest

0
77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on April 13, 2011
at 09:11 PM

Great link. I think Taubes getting another 9-page article in the nyt Sunday Magazine is a blow against the upholders of the SAD. He did it last in July, 2002 (What if It's All Been a Big Fat Lie?) and that was a watershed moment for low-carb believers. Let the peddlers of poison in its HFCS form take note... The battle is joined! (i.e., it's on, baby)

A3e654929c08c0723607842656b57f8f

(834)

on April 13, 2011
at 09:32 PM

I think the article says that both HFCS and "Sugar" are equally bad. From the article "But marketing aside, the two sweeteners are effectively identical in their biological effects. “High-fructose corn syrup, sugar — no difference,” is how Lustig put it in a lecture that I attended in San Francisco last December. “The point is they’re each bad — equally bad, equally poisonous.”"

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on April 13, 2011
at 09:14 PM

whoops... just realized I didn't answer the dang question with my little rant... I ate my last beloved brownie just before reading GCBC in Nov, 2007. I've been a sugar free me since (pert near 100%)

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!