Sugar Buzz Why in the world would American Diabetic Association (ADA) executives want you to believe that a steady daily intake of sugar is not potentially harmful to your health? Could it be because one of ADA's primary corporate sponsors is Cadbury-Schweppes, the world's largest candy maker? Or have they actually convinced themselves that sugar consumption doesn't promote type 2 diabetes? Whatever the case, the final 2006 issue of the journal Diabetes (published by ADA) contains research with "evidence" that an intake of 200 grams of sugar per day has no effect on insulin sensitivity. For some perspective, consider that a single Cadbury Crème Egg contains 25 grams of sugars. And if eight Crème Eggs per day, over extended time, doesn't affect insulin sensitivity, I'll happily eat my sugar-free hat. The long and the short of it Just for fun, let's take a closer look at this study, conducted at Royal Victoria Hospital and Queen's University in Belfast, Northern Ireland. In the introduction to the study, the Belfast team offers this observation: "Current guidelines for the healthy population advise restriction of sucrose intake." Good advice! But don't jump to the conclusion that they're about to embrace that wise guideline. STUDY ABSTRACT Researchers prepared two diets that contained the same amounts of vitamins, fiber and calories, but different amounts of sugar: 200 grams per day of sucrose in one diet and 80 grams per day in the other Thirteen healthy subjects with an average age of 33 were divided into two groups and consumed one of the two diets for six weeks After a four-week washout period, subjects switched diets for an additional six weeks Results showed no weight variation in either group, no changes in glycemic profiles, no changes in artery elasticity, and no detrimental effect on insulin sensitivity Did you catch the two key words in this study? "Six weeks" - that's how long each subject followed the sugar-loaded diet. Six weeks! It's absurd! Insulin insensitivity (the precursor of type 2 diabetes) typically develops over a period of years. Healthy people in their early 30s don't develop insulin insensitivity in just 42 days - although consuming the sugar equivalent of 336 Cadbury Crème Eggs would be an excellent way to get started. And for added laughs, the researchers actually lead off their study by acknowledging that the "long-term impact" of a high sucrose diet is not established. Besides the fact that just the opposite is true, why would they even bother with such an observation in a short-term study? It only highlights the fact that the long-term consumption of sugar is likely to promote insulin insensitivity, while the long-term AVOIDANCE of sugar and other simple, refined carbohydrates is far more likely to help prevent insulin insensitivity and type 2 diabetes. That familiar old whipping horse Steven Hunter, lead researcher for the Belfast team, told Food Navigator USA, "Sugar has traditionally been linked to the development of diabetes. These findings challenge that thinking." Well, if he means "challenge" like me challenging Lance Armstrong to a bicycle race through the French Alps, then sure, you could say it's a challenge. Mr. Hunter's comment reminds me of a quote I shared with you in the e-Alert "The Twilight Zone" (1/19/06). Here's Richard Kahn (chief scientific and medical officer for the ADA) in 2005, speaking to an interviewer for the Corporate Crime Reporter: "There is not a shred of evidence that sugar per se has anything to do with getting diabetes." I agree. There's not a shred of evidence. It's more like a mountain of evidence. This past November, a New York Times article noted that ADA executives have been navigating a slippery slope in trying to maintain public trust while seeking out lucrative and much needed corporate sponsorships from the likes of Cadbury-Schweppes. But the ADA recently decided to reject a profitable sponsorship of a Hershey chocolate candy product. And why was it rejected? Because of the high sugar content? Nope. In fact, the Hershey product was sugar-free. But the ADA decided it contained too much fat. That's right - too much fat. In the upside-down ADA World, fat intake promotes diabetes, but consuming sugar in wild excess is just fine. And, even if it's not, at least it's good for business. | 
