As they say: "The dose makes the poison". Stating that sugar is toxic, as Lustig and others do, (see his talk on YouTube or http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.htm...) to me does not make much sense in fighting against the super high levels of consumption: When you argue a position that's too far removed from most people's accepted positions, they tend to tune you out. Note that high-fructose corn syrup (water+glucose+fructose) is included in this generalized definition of "sugar", which, of course nobody would add to their coffee or tea (that would be sucrose or table sugar), but is now used ubiquitously in the food industry (http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/edible-innovatio...). A better option would be to single HFCS out and fight against its use.
While reading this the following question came to mind: If Yudkin's results were so groundbreaking and well backed up, why was he kind of shut off from the academic community. Stating that the "sugar lobby" ended his career sounds a bit too far fetched.
Note that high-fructose corn syrup (water+glucose+fructose) is included in this generalized definition of "sugar"
I cannot imagine a narrower definition of "sugar" than glucose+fructose. It's exactly what you add to your coffee and tea, just in the form of sucrose crystals.
There is no functional difference between HFCS and table sugar. If the regulators/activists force the food industry to replace HFCS with some other sugar, all they'll achieve is a minor increase in prices.
I think when you say that there "is no functional difference between HFCS and table sugar" you mean that sucrose is broken down to 50% glucose and 50% fructose during digestion, which is correct (although HFCS is not 50-50 but close).
The move to HFCS was for price reasons, so it won't be a "minor increase in prices", this may actually be more acceptable way to curb sugar use than taxing it.
I have no idea what you mean by "functional difference" here. But there are significant differences in both metabolic requirements and sugar structure between fructose and sucrose (that being one whole glucose moiety). The glycosidic bond of the disaccharide requires a specific enzyme sucrase.
Stating that sugar is toxic, as Lustig and others do...
No. Lustig explains that fructose is toxic, detailing its metabolic pathway.
A better option would be to single HFCS out and fight against its use.
Exactly. Just as Lustig and others have clearly, exhaustively, definitively, pointed out, ad nauseam.
If Yudkin's results were so groundbreaking and well backed up, why was he kind of shut off from the academic community.
As the article clearly explains, Yudkin had the data, but not the explanation. e.g. 3 of the 4 hormones needed to explain what was happening hadn't been discovered yet.
While reading this the following question came to mind: If Yudkin's results were so groundbreaking and well backed up, why was he kind of shut off from the academic community. Stating that the "sugar lobby" ended his career sounds a bit too far fetched.