One Mom in the Middle…
of parenting… of her career… of life…

Sugar in the Spring

Published 3.21.2017
I had other plans for today's offering, but life intervened (again). What follows are sugar related items, some of which are a bit dated, however, the fact that sugar is not a toxin is timeless.

So where’s the sugar here? It isn’t sugar making us fat. Eating too much food like Jack in the Boxes’ taco is.

“I was like, ‘I must have more. This is vile and amazing,’” she said.

This woman when she first tried it threw it aside, but then ate the whole thing plus the other (2 for $1 you know) This is why we have an obesity problem. Not just sugar.

Mike Primavera believes when it comes to Jack in the Box tacos, there are two kinds of people: those who think they’re disgusting and those who agree they’re disgusting but are powerless to resist them.

His first was when he was drunk. And frankly, it sounds like “drunk” food— like deep fried snickers bars.

Every Jack in the Box taco is born at one of three plants in Texas and Kansas, where tortillas made from stone-ground white corn are cut, cooked and filled with the beef mixture. They are shrink-wrapped and frozen and eventually shipped to stores to be fried, topped and served in taco-sized bags. The company sells 554 million tacos a year, or about 1,055 a minute.

I have no words.

Jack in the Box tacos have 172 calories each, with about half the calories coming from fat, according to nutritional information on the chain’s website.

No Conspiracy

I have railed against lobbyist/former journalist Nina Teicholz previously, but it's plain that her disinformation campaign is gaining converts, and the Guardian article about The Sugar Conspiracy is one example. The point I would make about the Sugar Conspiracy (TSC) is that it’s another reason that Teicholz needs to be answered. Ian Leslie has clearly swallowed her Big Fat Lie hook, line, and sinker. That’s what none of these scholarly responses state— either because they think it beneath them or they haven’t read her book (or listened to any of her recent talks which outline the thesis of her book. Every. Single. Time.)

Teicholz slanders Keys and gives zero indication that she has anything but a surface understanding of the nutrition research she’s supposedly used to write her book. However, some have picked up the gauntlet and answered the call.

The response starts off with some facts about Eisenhower’s death. He died 14 years (at 78) after his first heart attack. That was eight years beyond the average male life span in 1969. And, as opposed to Teicholz or Leslie, she actually reads the seven country study.

There were valid reasons for Keys’ exclusion of some countries (avoiding areas where Nazi deprivation had been recent, etc) But she/he notes that TSC guy has a point in some respects, though he misstates the type of diet that French actually ate. Basically, she concludes that it’s not likely that Keys was a fraud— but the low carb high fat (LCHF) crowd has already decided this. It’s a shibboleth for them at this point.

Continuing with the Nutrition Wonk findings: Keys didn’t originate the diet heart idea. People ad already begun to note that people with heart (and kidney disease and diabetes) had high cholesterol. Then she goes through Keys results, which are complicated— which explains why hacks like Teicholz never read them.

Keys noted that people who ate a lot of sugar also ate a lot of saturated fat. She notes that Yudkin was based on correlations too, and Yudkin didn’t do the math that Keys did. Yudkin didn’t say sugar intake correlated with CVD, just that he didn’t think that dietary fat is a good explanation. Then she begins going through the errors in the TSC point by point.

The fact that saturated fat raises cholesterol is not debated today. It is a physiological fact. It happens. Saturated fat raises cholesterol.

This will hack off the LCHF crowd— and will cause them to dismiss the analysis.

Replacing saturated fat with poly unsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) with the exception of pure corn oil, has been shown to lower CVD rates.

My analysis: The “Sugar Conspiracy” guy’s evidence doesn’t hold up with further scrutiny because he’s cribbing Teicholz, who screwed up the data and the interpretation because she has a point of view to advocate.

Here is another take down of TSC. It's detailed, but covers a lot of the same ground.


Related writings:

Search this site: