My comments in answer to Jonny Bowden’s Huffington Post take on the sugar tax where he suggested that despite it’s flaws, “it’s all we’ve got.” I insisted that It’s not all we’ve got. We have the science and, in one afternoon, Bloomberg could convene a panel of scientists to evaluate presentations by all the players including me who believe that sugar is a smokescreen for not facing the importance of total carbohydrate restriction which you [Jonny Bowden], among others, have explained. Everybody should be heard. What I see is another rush to judgement like the low fat fiasco which we still have with us.
That you “have to do something” comes right out of Senator McGovern’s mouth as in Fat Head. And “deadly white substance that literally creates hormonal havoc and appetite dysregulation … promoting metabolic syndrome, diabetes, obesity and heart disease” is way outside of the bounds of science. I am not the only one to point out that Lustig’s population study represented the return of Ancel Keys.
We go with science or we don’t.
One has to point to the rather remarkable disconnect between a near absolute refusal to accept the therapeutic value in reducing carbohydrate across the board and the rush to judgement on the proposed need to reduce specifically fructose. Low-carbohydrate diets have demonstrated their therapeutic value, in numerous studies. They have met every challenge from nutritionists and continue to outperform other diets for as long as comparisons are made. Nonetheless, they are generally ignored by government and private agencies. In distinction, there appears to be a rush to restrict availability of sugar — if necessary by coercive government means — without any substantial prospective study showing benefits. It is hard to think of any experimental study at all that has shown the benefits of reducing fructose alone that meets the results found for total carbohydrate reduction and replacement by fat, although there may be some.
Which study would you point to where only removing sugar has improved things? Which trial was long enough and sufficiently well controlled to rush to judgement? Which RCT met high standards?