The Case Against Sugar Quotes

“…Sugar has become an ingredient avoidable in prepared and packaged foods only by concerted and determined effort, effectively ubiquitous. Not just in the obvious sweet foods (candy bars, cookies, ice creams, chocolates, sodas, juices, sports and energy drinks, sweetened iced tea, jams, jellies, and breakfast cereals both cold and hot), but also in peanut butter, salad dressings, ketchup, BBQ sauces, canned soups, cold cuts, luncheon meats, bacon, hot dogs, pretzels, chips, roasted peanuts, spaghetti sauces, canned tomatoes, and breads. From the 1980's onward manufacturers of products advertised as uniquely healthy because they were low in fat…not to mention gluten free, no MSG, and zero grams trans fat per serving, took to replacing those fat calories with sugar to make them equally…palatable and often disguising the sugar under one or more of the fifty plus names, by which the fructose-glucose combination of sugar and high-fructose corn syrup might be found. Fat was removed from candy bars sugar added, or at least kept, so that they became health food bars. Fat was removed from yogurts and sugars added and these became heart healthy snacks, breakfasts, and lunches.”
― Gary Taubes, The Case Against Sugar

“No such ambiguity existed about sugar consumption. “We now eat in two weeks the amount of sugar our ancestors of 200 years ago ate in a whole year,” as the University of London nutritionist John Yudkin wrote in 1963 of the situation in England. “Sugar provides about 20 percent of our total intake of calories and nearly half of our carbohydrate.”
― Gary Taubes, The Case Against Sugar

“Medicine today, though, as with related fields such as nutrition, is taught mostly untethered from its history. Students are taught what to believe but not always the evidence on which these beliefs are based, and so oftentimes the beliefs cannot be questioned. And”
― Gary Taubes, The Case Against Sugar

“The conditions in the womb—in the intrauterine environment—influence the development of the fetus, so that subtly different conditions will lead, in effect, to the birth of newborns who respond differently to the environment they face outside the womb. In particular, the nutrients that the developing child receives in the womb—including the supply of glucose—pass across the placenta in proportion to the nutrient concentration in the mother’s circulation. The higher the mother’s blood sugar, the greater the supply of glucose to the fetus. The developing pancreas responds by overproducing insulin-secreting cells. “The baby is not diabetic,” says Boyd Metzger, who studies diabetes and pregnancy at Northwestern University, “but the insulin-producing cells in the pancreas are stimulated to function and grow in size and number by the environment they’re in. So they start overfunctioning. That in turn leads to a baby laying down more fat, which is why the baby of a diabetic mother is typified by being a fat baby.”
― Gary Taubes, The Case Against Sugar

“Rats given sweetened water in experiments find it significantly more pleasurable than cocaine, even when they’re addicted to the latter, and more than heroin as well (although the rats find this choice more difficult to make). Addict”
― Gary Taubes, The Case Against Sugar

“When blood-sugar (glucose) levels rise, the pancreas secretes insulin in response, which then signals the muscle cells to take up and burn more glucose. Insulin also signals the fat cells to take up fat and hold on to it. Only when the rising tide of blood sugar begins to ebb will insulin levels ebb as well, at which point the fat cells will release their stored fuel into the circulation (in the form of fatty acids); the cells of muscles and organs now burn this fat rather than glucose. Blood sugar is controlled within a healthy range, and fat flows in and out of fat cells as needed. The one biological factor necessary to get fat out of fat cells and have it used for fuel, as Yalow and Berson noted in 1965, is “the negative stimulus of insulin deficiency.” These revelations on the various actions of insulin led Yalow and Berson to call it the most “lipogenic” hormone, meaning fat-forming. And this lipogenic signal has to be turned down, muted significantly, for the fat cells to release their stored fat and the body to use it for fuel.”
― Gary Taubes, The Case Against Sugar

“The second development, in 1960, was the development of a new technology that allowed researchers for the first time ever to measure accurately the level of hormones circulating in the bloodstream. It was the invention of Rosalyn Yalow, a medical physicist, and Solomon Berson, a physician, and was called the radioimmunoassay. When Yalow won the Nobel Prize for the work in 1977 (Berson by then was not alive to share it), the Nobel Foundation would describe it aptly as bringing about “a revolution in biological and medical research.” Those interested in obesity could now finally answer the questions about which the pre–World War II European clinicians could only speculate: which hormones were regulating the storage of fat in fat cells and its use for fuel by the rest of the body? Answers began coming with the very first publications out of Yalow and Berson’s laboratory and were swiftly confirmed by others. As it turns out, virtually all hormones work to mobilize fat from fat cells so that it can then be used for fuel. Hormones are signaling our bodies to act—flee or fight, reproduce, grow—and they also signal the fat cells to make available the fuel necessary for these actions. The one dominant exception to this fuel-mobilization signaling is insulin, the same hormone that researchers still assumed in the early 1960s to be deficient in all cases of diabetes. Insulin, Yalow and Berson reported, can be thought of as orchestrating how the body uses or “partitions” the fuel it takes in.”
― Gary Taubes, The Case Against Sugar

“By 1952, the University of Minnesota nutritionist Ancel Keys was arguing that high blood levels of cholesterol caused heart disease, and that it was the fat in our diets that drove up cholesterol levels. Keys had a conflict of interest: his research had been funded by the sugar industry—the Sugar Research Foundation and then the Sugar Association—since 1944, if not earlier, and the K-rations he had famously developed for the military during the war (the “K” is said to have stood for “Keys”) were loaded with sugar. This might have naturally led him to perceive something other than sugar as the problem. We can only guess.”
― Gary Taubes, The Case Against Sugar

“So the real question for me as an educator is, if I go out and tell people that I think they are eating too much sugar, if I go out and tell mothers I think they should stop their kids from eating so much sugar because it is bad for them, am I going to get flak from the scientists? Or am I going to be allowed to make that statement without travail, on the grounds that even though we do not have hard evidence to link sugar with a specific disease, we do know that a dietary pattern containing considerably less sugar, in which sugar is replaced by a complex carbohydrate, would be a much healthier diet? JOAN GUSSOW, chairman, Columbia University nutrition department, 1975 I”
― Gary Taubes, The Case Against Sugar

“By specifying energy or caloric content as the instrument through which foods influence body weight, it implies that a calorie of sugar would be no more or less capable of causing obesity, and thus diabetes, than a calorie of broccoli or olive oil or eggs or any other food. By the 1960s, the phrase “a calorie is a calorie” had become a mantra of the nutrition-and-obesity research community, and it was invoked to make just this argument (as it still is).”
― Gary Taubes, The Case Against Sugar

“One danger here, of course, is that once we insist or pretend that we know the answer based on premature or incomplete evidence (even if we’re pushed against our will to take such stands), we’re likely to continue to insist we’re right, even when evidence accumulates to the contrary. This is a risk in any human endeavor. When Francis Bacon pioneered the scientific method almost four hundred years ago, he was hoping to create a methodology of critical or rational thinking that would minimize this all-too-human characteristic of avoiding evidence that disagrees with any preconceptions we might have formed.*1 Without rigorous tests, as many as necessary, beliefs and preconceptions will persevere because it’s always easier to believe that a single test has been flawed, or even a few of them, than it is to accept that our belief had been incorrect. The scientific method protects against this tendency; it does not eradicate it.”
― Gary Taubes, The Case Against Sugar

“By the 1830s, when the British emancipationists finally put an end to the slave trade, some twelve and a half million Africans had been shipped off as slaves to the New World; two-thirds of them worked and died growing and refining sugar.”
― Gary Taubes, The Case Against Sugar

“Sugar does induce the same responses in the region of the brain known as the “reward center”—technically, the nucleus accumbens—as do nicotine, cocaine, heroin, and alcohol. Addiction”
― Gary Taubes, The Case Against Sugar

“How long would it be before this drug, as the anthropologist Sidney W. Mintz said about sugar, demonstrated “a near invulnerability to moral attack,” before even writing a book such as this one was perceived as the nutritional equivalent of stealing Christmas?”
― Gary Taubes, The Case Against Sugar

“particularly among “Bengali gentlemen” whose “daily sustenance…is chiefly rice, flour, pulses, sugars.”
― Gary Taubes, The Case Against Sugar

“The more insulin and IGF in the circulation, the more cancer cells are driven to multiply and tumors to grow.”
― Gary Taubes, The Case Against Sugar

“The hypothesis addressed in this book, for instance, is that sugar is the dietary trigger of obesity and diabetes and, if so, the diseases such as heart disease that associate with them.”
― Gary Taubes, The Case Against Sugar

“what we now call type 2 diabetes is not a disease of insulin deficiency (as type 1 is)—at least not at first—but of insulin resistance.”
― Gary Taubes, The Case Against Sugar

“specifying energy or caloric content as the instrument through which foods influence body weight, it implies that a calorie of sugar would be no more or less capable of causing obesity, and thus diabetes, than a calorie of broccoli or olive oil or eggs or any other food. By the 1960s, the phrase “a calorie is a calorie” had become a mantra of the nutrition-and-obesity research community, and it was invoked to make just this argument (as it still is).”
― Gary Taubes, The Case Against Sugar

“In 1937, C. W. Barron, then the owner of The Wall Street Journal, made the pithy observation that if we want to make money in the stock market, we should invest in companies that provide us with our vices.”
― Gary Taubes, The Case Against Sugar

“In fact, anywhere populations begin eating Western diets and living Western lifestyles—whenever and wherever they’re acculturated or urbanized, as West noted in 1978—diabetes epidemics follow.”
― Gary Taubes, The Case Against Sugar

“Other researchers and clinicians questioned, as scientists are wont to do, the interpretation that sugar really was responsible, and discussed what studies were necessary to determine that.”
― Gary Taubes, The Case Against Sugar

“Ultimately and obviously, the question of how much is too much becomes a personal decision, just as we all decide as adults what level of alcohol, caffeine, or cigarettes we’ll ingest. I’ve argued here that enough evidence exists for us to consider sugar very likely to be a toxic substance, and to make an informed decision about how best to balance the likely risks with the benefits. To know what those benefits are, though, it helps to see how life feels without sugar. Former cigarette smokers (of which I am one) will tell you that it was impossible for them to grasp intellectually or emotionally what life would be like without cigarettes until they quit; that through weeks or months or even years, it was a constant struggle. Then, one day, they reached a point at which they couldn’t imagine smoking a cigarette and couldn’t imagine why they had ever smoked, let alone found it desirable. A similar experience is likely to be true of sugar—but until we try to live without it, until we try to sustain that effort for more than days, or just a few weeks, we’ll never know.”
― Gary Taubes, The Case Against Sugar

“Artificial sweeteners (noncaloric sweeteners, as the USDA calls them) as a replacement for sugar muddy these waters even more. Much of the anxiety about these sweeteners was generated in the 1960s and 1970s by the research, partly funded by the sugar industry, as we’ve seen, that led to the banning of cyclamates as a possible carcinogen, and the suggestion that saccharin could cause cancer (at least in rats, at extraordinarily high doses). Though this particular anxiety has tapered off with time, it has been replaced by the suggestion that maybe these artificial sweeteners can cause metabolic syndrome, and thus obesity and diabetes. This conjecture comes primarily from epidemiological studies that show an association between the use of artificial sweeteners and obesity and diabetes. But whether this means artificial sweeteners cause obesity and diabetes is, again, impossible to say.”
― Gary Taubes, The Case Against Sugar

“Since the 1950s, if not earlier, researchers have known that the foods we eat and the form in which they come—indigestible fiber, refined grains and sugar, and all the rest—will influence which species of gut bacteria thrive and which don’t. That in turn will affect the digestibility of the fat, protein, and carbohydrates in the rest of our food and the effect on blood levels of cholesterol and triglycerides,”
― Gary Taubes, The Case Against Sugar

“As we become ever more insulin-resistant and glucose-intolerant, as our blood sugar gets higher along with our insulin levels, as our blood pressure elevates and we get ever fatter, we are more likely to be diagnosed as diabetic and manifest the diseases and conditions that associate with diabetes. These include not just heart disease, gout, cancer, Alzheimer’s, and the cluster of Western diseases that Burkitt and Trowell included in their provisional list, but all the conditions typically perceived as complications of diabetes: blood-vessel (vascular) complications that lead to strokes, dementia, and kidney disease; retinopathy (blindness) and cataracts; neuropathies (nerve disorders); plaque deposits in the arteries of the heart (leading to heart attacks) or the legs and feet (leading to amputations); accumulation of advanced glycation end products, AGEs, in the collagen of our skin that can make diabetics look prematurely old, and that in joints, arteries, and the heart and lungs can cause the loss of elasticity as we age. It’s this premature aging of the skin, arteries, and joints that has led some diabetes researchers to think of the disease as a form of accelerated aging. But increasing our risk of contracting all these other chronic conditions means we’re also likely to get these ailments at ever-younger ages and thus, effectively, age faster.”
― Gary Taubes, The Case Against Sugar

“When we cross some threshold of damage, dementia begins to manifest itself. If we’re diabetic and hypertensive, which also means we’re insulin-resistant, we’re going to have more vascular damage and so reach that threshold of damage sooner.”
― Gary Taubes, The Case Against Sugar

“the other way to initiate the cancer process, according to these researchers, is to increase the levels of insulin and blood sugar in the circulation itself. Insulin resistance would do that. Thus whatever is causing insulin resistance would be promoting the transformation of healthy cells into malignant, metastatic cells by increasing insulin secretion and elevating blood sugar and telling the cells to take up increasingly more glucose for fuel. This leads those like Cantley and Thompson directly back to sugar. As Cantley has said, sugar “scares” him, for precisely this reason. If the sugars we consume—sucrose and HFCS specifically—cause insulin resistance, then they are prime suspects for causing cancer as well, or at the very least promoting its growth.”
― Gary Taubes, The Case Against Sugar

“From this perspective of cancer as a metabolic disease, insulin and IGF promote the cancer process through a series of steps. First, insulin resistance and elevated levels of insulin trigger an increased uptake of blood sugar (glucose) as fuel for precancerous cells. These cells then begin producing energy through a mechanism known as aerobic glycolysis that is similar to what bacteria do in oxygen-poor environments. (This phenomenon is known as the Warburg effect and was discovered in the 1920s by the German biochemist and later Nobel Laureate Otto Warburg, although its importance in the cancer process was not embraced until recently.) Once cancer cells make this conversion, they burn enormous amounts of glucose as fuel, providing them, apparently, with the necessary raw materials to proliferate. By metabolizing glucose at such a rapid rate, as Thompson suggests, these cancer cells generate relatively enormous amounts of compounds known technically as “reactive oxygen species” and less technically as “free radicals,” and these, in turn, have the ability to mutate the DNA in the cell nucleus. The more glucose a cell metabolizes and the faster it does so, the more free radicals are generated to damage DNA, explains Thompson. And the more DNA damage, the more mutations are generated, and the more likely it is that one of those mutations will bestow on the cells the ability to proliferate without being held in check by the cellular processes that work to prevent this pathological process in healthy cells. The result is a feed-forward acceleration of tumor growth. While this is happening, the insulin and IGF in the circulation both work to signal the cell to keep proliferating, and to inhibit the mechanism (technically known as apoptosis, or cell suicide) that would otherwise kick in to shut it down.”
― Gary Taubes, The Case Against Sugar

“The consensus among researchers studying the role of insulin and IGF in cancer is that these hormones supply both the fuel necessary for tumors to divide and multiply, and provide the signals necessary to the tumors to keep doing so. The more insulin and IGF in the circulation, the more cancer cells are driven to multiply and tumors to grow.”
― Gary Taubes, The Case Against Sugar