I would like to publicly apologize to UC Berkeley psychology professor Seth Roberts for using an inappropriate word to characterize his self-created "Shangri-La" diet, which I wrote about in Sunday’s post.
(My comments were in response to a New York Times Magazine "Freakonomics" article from Stephen J. Dubner and Steven D. Levitt.)
In my zeal to get the word out about the dangers of over-consuming fructose — which isn’t made from fruit, but rather from corn — I unfortunately characterized Roberts’s diet plan as "perverted." I regret having used the word, because it conveyed a meaning I hadn’t intended.
Perhaps I should have described his diet as "inadequately researched" and "misguided."
Nonetheless, I still stand by my belief that Roberts’s diet — while an utterly fascinating study of self-experimentation and evidently a successful weight-loss regimen for him — could be dangerous if people consume large amounts of fructose and canola oil.
More about Roberts in a subsequent entry, because we actually had a very nice phone chat today, and I plan to examine his published study and then give a more informed opinion about it.
Interestingly, right before I was about to post this apology and clarification, I read Bill Quick’s intriguing take on Daily Pundit about my foolhardy word choice.
Unfairly or fairly — I’ll let you decide (let me know what you think) — Bill (may I call you by your first name?) lumped me among the "moonbats" who weighed in on Roberts’s diet.
Bill also characterized "anti-sugar true believers" as "nutsoid."
Hmm. Me nutsoid? Perhaps some do view me as that, but, I ask you, don’t my four years of research on a book about sugar and refined carbs count for anything?!
Besides, I only became anti-sugar after exhaustively researching the subject such as interviewing more than 250 experts and examining many research studies, as well as having my own horrific symptoms and being told by a doctor that my heavy-duty sugar habit was to blame for my 44 ailments. I suppose you could say that I, too, did considerable self-experimentation.
But back to my main point.
Unfortunately, Bill of Daily Pundit then jumped to the exact same erroneous conclusion that I daresay most Americans make when it comes to fructose.
First off, I’ll readily concede that Bill rightly condemned my poor use of the word "perverted."
But then he wrongly concluded that Roberts was merely drinking some fruit-sugar water. He wrote:
Anybody who calls a weight-loss program that consists of eating a few spoonfuls of canola or olive oil, and drinking a bit of fruit-sugar water a few times a day "perverted" has pretty much lost my attention right out of the box.
But, Bill, it was not fruit-sugar water that Roberts was drinking. If he’d been doing that, I wouldn’t have been as concerned.
You see, most Americans assume that fructose comes only from fruit. That’s just not the case, and it’s one of the biggest misconceptions people make.
As food scientist Russ Bianchi (head of the global food formulation firm Adept Solutions, Inc.) explains:
"Fruit consists of many sugars. Only one of them is fructose — technically known as levulose — and it’s only a small portion of the sugars found. Fruit also contains sucrose (which is half fructose), glucose, dextrose, maltose, galactose and other higher saccharides [sugars]."
You see, the fructose that many, if not most, Americans consume today in huge quantities is chemically derived from corn, though it can also be synthesized from wheat.
In fact, fructose and high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) — which account for some 40 to 56 percent of the market of caloric sweeteners added to food and beverages — are found in an astonishing array of processed goods, including soft drinks, fruit juices, condiments, breads, cookies, breakfast cereals, pasta sauces, frozen foods, jams and jellies.
You can even find fructose or HFCS in pharmaceuticals, flavors and dietary supplements.
And studies show that fructose, HFCS, and hydrolyzed high fructose inulin syrup (sometimes falsely labeled "inulin," "agave," or "crystalline fructose") chemically derived from corn — if consumed in abundance — is the most dangerous of all sugars.
People like to say that since fructose is low glycemic, that’s a good thing. But some scientists argue otherwise.
Research suggests that fructose is metabolized differently in our bodies and that it goes directly to the liver, where it’s more prone to being converted to fat.
In fact, ingesting large quantities of drinks or foods with fructose could lead to high triglycerides and insulin resistance and could even trigger obesity, cardiovascular disease and diabetes.
Bianchi explains: "There is NO safe form of commercial fructose available from any source, unless already existing in an unprocessed apple or other piece of fruit. The science is known and epidemiologically proven."
So this begs the question: What happens is a person ingests a few tablespoonfuls a day of fructose?
I just don’t know, but I sure wouldn’t try it.
If you don’t believe my fructose conclusions, then read Greg Critser’s well-researched Fatland, 
which highlights groundbreaking research about the dangers of fructose and its role in obesity.
And consider a warning from Nancy Appleton, Ph.D., author of Lick the Sugar Habit, says: "Even a teaspoon of refined sugars work to throw the body out of balance and compromise its health."
Gotta dash, but allow me to make one more clarification.
Upon reading about Roberts’s diet, I became worried that Americans — who often believe that bigger is better and more is better — might ingest lots of fructose.
This is what made me fret for their health. And that is why I called the diet dangerous.
So, please, people, before you start downing huge quantities of fructose, learn about its dangers first.
More later.
5 thoughts on “Is Lots of Fructose Water Foolhardy? Apology, Too”
“I plan to examine his published study and then give a more informed opinion about it.”
Gee that’s really big of you. Considering that the paper was linked in the original blog posts you were responding to, one might expect that you might have read it _before_ posting calling it “perverted”.
But now you call his work “inadequately researched” and “misguided” while admitting that you still haven’t read it. I think Bill was kind in only calling you “nutsoid”.
Perhaps you have a point. Perhaps not. I believe that I didn’t need to know the exact specifics about his diet before commenting on the dangers of over-consuming fructose, because I had already interviewed many experts and looked at a number of studies.
In the meantime, I’ve also been digging up more fructose info, talking to experts, and I felt that doing so was the best use of my time. Today, I had set aside some time to read even more info. Check back later.
Connie
http://www.SugarShockBlog.com
Ms. Bennett, while I can see your zeal in all this, the logic of your writing is hopelessly flawed. In response to a criticism chastising you for not reading the published study, you write “I believe that I didn’t need to know the exact specifics about his diet before commenting on the dangers of over-consuming fructose, because I had already interviewed many experts and looked at a number of studies.”
But you did far more than merely comment on the dangers of over-consuming fructose — you specifically said that Levitt and Dubner were promoting “an unscientific diet — from an unqualified psychology professor, no less — that could cause irreparable harm and even early death.” You clearly tied the over-consumption of fructose to Roberts’ weight control advice, without reading the study. I am sorry, but you simply had no grounds for making such a claim, which it turns out is utterly false. Will you apologize for that?
It appears that the vast majority of the criticisms you have written in your posts about Roberts are wholly irrelevant to his regimen. Consider all your comments about the dangers of fructose-laden products, their ubiquity in the marketplace and in the average person’s diet, etc.,(claims whose truth I won’t dispute). Had you read his work before commenting, you’d have seen that Roberts plainly says “The fructose-water results suggest that ingestion of a small fraction of one’s daily calorie intake this way may substantially reduce the set point.” Since he’s not advocating “ingesting large quantities of drinks or foods with fructose”, all your comments about the dangers of such actions are, again, irrelevant. Moreover, your worry that “Americans — who often believe that bigger is better and more is better — might ingest lots of fructose” is a reasonable one, but since Roberts doesn’t advocate that, why is he to blame if it happens? Worse yet, had I read only your posts on Roberts, I would have concluded that Roberts was advocating a “fructose-laden” diet. But having read his work, I can plainly see that it is you who have created this impression, and not Roberts. He’s terribly clear and restrained in his conclusions (which, again, would have been clear to you had you read them).
What is most disturbing is your admission that you have been (in your words) begging the question: “What happens is a person ingests a few tablespoonfuls a day of fructose? I just don’t know, but I sure wouldn’t try it.” Pull out any primer on logical reasoning, and look up “argumentum ad ignoratiam” — argument from ignorance. It occurs when someone claims that because something hasn’t been proven true, it must be false. You admit you don’t know what will happen if one consumes a few tablespoons of fructose, but then you clearly want us to infer that it IS dangerous, because “I sure wouldn’t try it.” I’m all for being safe and cautious, but in the absence of knowledge, you have no way of knowing if your actions are either safe or cautious.
I am in no way arguing for Roberts’ conclusions…I am only pointing out that the reasons you have offered are largely irrelevant to assessing Roberts’ claims. (Russ Bianchi’s claim about it being “epidemiologically proven” that there is no “safe” form of commercial fructose cannot be evaluated, because you cite no studies support it — save for Mr. Bianchi’s credential as a “food scientist,” (whatever that means). I confess that I cannot put much credence in what he says, since in an earlier post you attributed the following quote to him: “I predict that, like runner Jim Fixx, who ate lots of fructose-containing sports bars, Roberts will drop dead of an unexplained heart attack.” Now Mr. Fixx also had been a two pack a day smoker, had a family history of heart disease, ate poorly, and may have over-exercised. But Mr. Bianchi would have us believe that it was really fructose that killed him? How much of a stretch is that?
As a philosophy professor, I struggle daily to teach my students how to reason effectively and well. I urge you to take far more care in your writing.
I share your concern about ingesting a lot of refined sugar. Paradoxically on Seth’s diet I find I’m consuming a lot less of it because as his research predicts it’s now much easier to resist the sugary snacks I used to crave.
At the same time, I’m losing a little more than half a pound per day. When I reach my target weight, I’ll cut the dosage to a maintenance level, which will be a trivial amount at that point.
That’s my plan, anyway. I’m not disputing the idea that refined sugar may be bad for us, but for many people who can’t manage to give it up altogether, this may be a great solution, which allows them to ultimately eat less sugar and lose weight while doing so. That’s been my experience so far.
Comments are closed.