The s*** storm is incoming, I can feel it. Let’s preemptively address some of the comments: “Are you saying sugar is okay to consume?” Not in excess. “Sugar is clearly the cause of all that is evil in this world, you’re an idiot!” Doth thou even Logic? “When I consume sugar, I experience X (X = arm falls off, gain 90 kilos, get abducted by UFOs, etc.), so you’re wrong.” Watch my “Science is Wrong” video. “Are you really sponsored by Hershey’s, you shill?” Yes, they pay me no less than 100 million a month to release content to my *massive* audience to influence them to buy the rich, chocolaty goodness that will inevitably cast them into obesity purgatory. "Are you saying sugar is good for me?" No, unless you're an anaerobic bacterium.
Maybe would be better a graphic showing the consumption of sugar plus HCFS, since both are almost the same Personally, I would prefer a graphic of total fructose consumption, including bananas, orange juice and even tomatoes
It’s the over feeding epidemic! Food is everywhere-- hardware stores, car washes, gas stations, everywhere, and people see it, buy it, and eat it! We have to retrain our appetites, and stop eating every single hour of the day!
One of my ex colleagues retired to Italy several years ago. He came back to our school for a visit and had noticeably dropped some weight. He said he wasn’t trying, but that the fact that food isn’t available at multiple locations play the part. I was a little surprised because he didn’t strike me as somebody, who would pick up snack foods along the way. I ate lunch with him many times and I never saw any packaged food. A mathematician who partnered with an obesity researcher developed a model that showed that just about all the obesity in the United States, can be accounted for by the increase of exposure to more calories.
The problem is not that it is everywhere, the problem is that people eat it, so they are paying to die 😢 then when it's too late they want a miracle medicine 💊 that help them😅
@@MyChilepepper Each one of those is really bad by themselves. When you put it all together it is easy to see why Americans are approaching 50% obesity.
In conclusion sugar is still the bad guy this video just circles around. The thing with sugar is its like a drug so its a downward spiral if you consume it. If you eat just meat and vegies you wouldnt have to worry about cravings for dopamine - sugar. Another main problem is the unhappiness/stress of the world which lead to dopamine consuption - sugar, drugs, alcohol, sex, entertainment. So in short its sugar and unhappiness and omega 6 oils.
We as humans like to oversimplify things and blame one thing for everything. It's just easier like that. Obesity is a combination of factors - sugar, sedentary lifestyles, over processed food, overeating, combining high fat and high sugar foods at one sitting. Might be more factors. To me is clear that focusing on a single factor will never give us all the answers.
In my experience, I couldn't lose excess fat with exercise alone, I was IR at the time. I needed to change my diet, exclude processed foods and cook at home. Eating high fat, animal based, low carb combined with exercise has given great results. It's not the high fat high sugar food, but high seed oil fatty acids within that food in combination with high sugar. McDonald's stopped using beef tallow to fry the french fries and started using seed oils, whereas Belgium and France kept the original recipe to cook in butter and beef tallow and thus we got the french paradox, eating saturated fats and remain skinny.
@@l00neyville exercise is notoriously poorly associated with weight loss, and Herman Pontzer’s hypothesis seems to explain this. He claims that sedentary people of the same build as more active people burn the same number of calories per day. People who expend more calories in exercise tend to expend less on other processes in the body. I think he said that in hunter gatherers who burn a lot of calories in exercise do not burn a lot of calories fostering their immune system so they have a lot of parasites. But his work shows that people of the same size and weight tend to burn almost exactly the same number of calories per day no matter what their activity level is.
@@l00neyville I am french, and worked a few days at Mc Donald. Everyone everywhere use seed oils (sunflower oil) for fries. Only a few restaurant will use animal fat to cook fries anymore. Those fries tast great. The taste and appearance of fries fried in animal fat is totally different from standard fries fried with seed oils, not the same taste, not the same appearence at all.
Interesting video, but you're making some logical shortcuts. If for example the population is divided between obese and non-obese, the obese group may very well eat more sugar on average than they did before, even if the population as a whole eats less. My personal suspicion is that the underlying cause of obesity is malnutrition, which makes people eat more to get what their bodies crave. Unfortunately the foodstuffs they eat don't meet their needs.
I think you are right. The more I tweek my diet, the less food I seem to need overall. I still get hungry, but it's not driving me to eat in the same way. I eat less but my weight remains pretty stable, I am not becoming skinny or sick. In fact I almost never get sick. Maybe most of my life I had malnutrition. Maybe I still do... But very minor compared to what it once was. How would we even know if that has become our baseline?
Yeah, watch a televised sporting event. Alcohol, sugar, fast food, snack food, it's ridiculous. As the good doctor said, broccoli doesn't advertise. I flippin love broccoli.
1. Title (most important part) is misleading. If sugar is one of the causes, you can't exclude it based on correlation between one cause and effect. 2. The scale of the chart is misleading. It looks like there's significant drop in sugar intake like 40%, while the the real drop is about 15%. 3. There's assumption that all ppl reduced their intake of sugar, while it might be that most aware and conscious percentage dropped it almost entirely, while majority enjoys it and indulging themselves. That would change expectation about obesity. 4. In biology it's often a threshold "thing". An organism can manage to maintain balance to some threshold of pressure, when harm goes beyond that threshold pathology (disease) starts. More or less destructive influence above and beyond such threshold does not make important difference. The bottom line: Your claim "Sugar isn't the cause of Obesity..." is not proven at all. And your claim that it is proven is false.
The mid 70s is when Neoclassical Economics started to be enforced by the government (Carter administration ). Critics rarely correlates obesity with financial stress, something that neoclassical economics has put on lower & middle class America for nearly 50 years.
In the late '60's I made three decisions that (I didn't know at the time) would be major influencers on my longterm health: 1. I quit smoking. 2. I cut out all fast food. 3. I banned advertising (including corporate news) from my life. In hindsight I believe that I may have the order of importance reversed. Limiting the mental influence of advertising was key. Plus, when I see advertising now it shocks my system rather than just being something in the background. [Yes, I know, I'm a real whacko.] A 1,600 calorie lunch or 450 calorie daily coffee treat or an endless plate of pasta only hits me as a glancing blow and does not cause permanent brain damage. On the other hand, I know that the bakery cookie that I bought at a play last night will tip my weight equilibrium. [ I actually calculate how far I would have to walk to "walk off those calories"] Half-time at the Super Bowl makes me puke. While I have paid a lot of attention to your videos [I love them all...I've become a mitochondriac], I come from the counseling world (high school guidance). I have found that thoughts, per se, are the focal point of behavior. Our brains will filter out 90% of the world (bandwidth problem) to focus on what's important. Where "important" come from is a great topic. I support this habit with my studies of intellectual history, what people were thinking. This works on so many levels from my Hypocrite Diet (screwing with my own mind) to the Israeli-Palestine conflict. GIGO.
I wonder if this "one picture" include these: Dextrose Galactose Maltose Cane Juice Crystals Cane Sugar Castor Sugar Coconut Sugar Crystalline Fructose Date Sugar HFCS Dextrin Diastatic Malt Ethyl Maltol Grape Sugar Maltodextrin Sucanat Barley Malt Blackstrap molasses Brown Rice Syrup Caramel Malt Syrup Maple Syrup Treacle And my favorite -> Honey! as in "no added sugar" 🙂
@@hyperTorless "A timeline of the increase in contribution of refined sugar and high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) to U.S. diet, together with the increase in U.S. obesity rate. The data for sugar, dairy and HFCS consumption per capita are from USDA Economic Research Service (Johnson et al., 2009) except for sugar consumption before 1967, which are historical estimates (Guyenet et al., 2017). " So i am not so sure, if it would not be better to measure all these substances and not just sugar and HFCS. Since the awareness of risk from sugar intake rose, the food industray produced more replacement products. So it is a valid point to ask about that replacements.
I have seen products with four or five kinds of sweeteners and this study did mention a rise in hfcs but not all the sugars you listed and no one uses maple syrup. Most of these sugars are for people who don’t care for themselves.
This graph is interesting. I admit, I am quite skeptical. Even given the assumption that the data is relatively accurate, a question I must ask is, how is "sugar" defined in this analysis?
eating too many calories makes you fat. not macronutrients. i lost weight and didnt cut carbs or sugar, i just cut calories. this isnt complicated, fat is excess energy, blaming macros is assinine since, anything high calorie dense has potential to make you fat
fructose has glucose in it you are never eating pure fructose, therefore the argument that fructose is digested differently than glucose is bunk.@@ClassicJukeboxBand
@@veryaware @porkpork2169 glucose and fructose are two completely different sugar units called monsaccharides. Sucrose is a disaccharide as it contains equal amounts of glucose and fructose. Fructose is of course the primary sugar in fruits and honey. Glucose is the primary sugar molecule found in grains and starchy vegetables. These two sugars are metabolized by the body very differently. Fructose would appear to be the big enemy here but the reality is that when consumed in whole foods with the fibre, antioxidants, water, polyphenols, etc the end result is a healthy food, but possibly less so for diabetics. Glucose is less sweet than fructose therefore sucrose falls right in the middle in regards to sweetness. Finally, glucose rarely occurs as a monosaccharide as it is usually bound to other sugar molecules making it a strong carbohydrate builder.
I was in elementary school in the 70's when fat was demonized and we suddenly started using margarine,vegetable oil,fake cheese,low fat foods etc. All of the crap causes inflammation which can lead to weight gain. In addition,low fat foods are higher in sugar. All of these things contributed to the obesity epidemic imo.
It's not at all clear from your graphs whether HFCS is included in the sugar data. If it's not, then the graph is seriously flawed. But I also have to note that obesity is a cumulative phenomenon--so it makes sense that the rise in obesity would lag behind the increase in sugar/HFCS consumption. It also makes sense, for the same reasons, that removing sugar/HFCS would not lead to an immediate reduction in obesity, particularly in an aging population. There's plenty of research to indicate that damage already done, particularly to insulin sensitivity, would cause continued weight gain. Plus, even though sugar/HFCS consumption may have declined in the 90s, it's still well above the 1980 baseline (if that even is a legitimate baseline). If that amount was sufficient to cause obesity in 1990, barring some dramatic evolutionary change, it should still be sufficient to cause obesity now. I don't believe that sugar is the only cause. But the sugar industry has lied to us before--we should not let them get away with it again.
I am a year late to this video, but here are some important factors. 1. When folks are discussing the Obesity and sugar correlation, that includes all forms of sugar being Fructose and Sucrose. 2. The reason Sugar consumption declined is because its use was being replace by Fructose in the food supply as Federal farm subsidies for the production of corn grew making significantly less expensive to produce Sugar (Sucrose) from sugar cane. Combined their consumption result in the rise of obesity through 2000 and beyond. 3. About that same 2000 time period the adverse effect of these products became more well know and more "sugar substitutes" came into the market. Additionally, the market for corn crops for the use of making ethanol as a fuel additive came into play resulting in tighter market for corn. However, even with a decline in Sugar (inclusive) consumption there was still sufficient sugar in our diets to cause the glucose, insulin spike response cycle to cause folks to eat more of other "carbohydrates." 4. As studies have shown, sugar substitutes also cause insulin spike responses. 5. All of that new marketing was advertisement for sugar and carbohydrate food products like Doritos and Potato Chips which are more than capable of satisfying the urge to eat and spike insulin on their own. -- Yes, Sucrose and Fructose are not the only culprit to the Obesity epidemic, but they are the primary factor with other carbs coming in 2nd place. -- 6. As to the advertising, folks are not going to eat if they don't have that urge to eat. Children's diets tend to be filled with a lot more sugar than adult foods. These children started eating and drinking more sugary foods in the 80's. By the 2000 their eating habit, cycle of glucose and insulin spike start becoming more a problem resulting in more younger folks in their 20's to become overweight and obese. They had spent many years seeing all this advertisement directing their urges to foods that satisfied and reinforced those urges. -- Your analysis was logical and correct; however, it was not based on all the relevant information needed to come up with the correct conclusions.
As an animal-based low-carb proponent myself (so I have a bias at the moment), I would point out two other important data points. The obesity rise also coincides with the adoption of the food pyramid and the recommendation to eat lots of carbs/breads/grains (all of which turn into sugar inside the body, correct?) AND the emphasis to reduce red meat consumption. If you were to overlay a chart of per-capita red meat consumption you would also see a 30% reduction during that same time period.
@@toddapplegate3988 yeah love the irony when people blame the food pyramid on obesity when many other nations have the same or very similar guidelines yet don't have nearly the obesity issues we have in countries like the US. Also I'm pretty sure they've done studies and found just about nearly everyone doesn't even follow these food guidelines/pyramid, which also states don't use too much fats and oils, don't eat too many calories, etc. And also in these studies they show ironically people that follow more closely to the guidelines tend to have better health outcomes than those that don't.
When did McD and Coke enter the pyramid? Anyway ... The pyramid looks fat. As in wide, which visually could suggest large quantities. I mean, until recently, the actual pyramids was the largest man made structures in the World. Our meals should match that. Right?
no, many ancient civilizations have been consuming grains as a staple. I think it has more to do with over-processed food cooked in seed oils. Then eating less veggies that have probiotics and balanced nutrition in them because of modern farming practices.
That was done for a number of the IT organizations or departments that I worked for as a young kid in the '80s and '90s. Back then that was a group that didn't exercise much due to the stress of work. That has changed pretty significantly since I've moved into managing and can see where staff are spending their free time. Also, the snacks and food provided are becoming healthier "whole foods" and more "keto friendly" then just plain sugar and bread.
Well I didn't see this video until now. I don't think sugar itself is the cause, it's the overall carb intake. Carbs=obesity. So, sugar is a carb but not the only one. Which is why that chart isn't encompassing the whole problem. I would rather look at a chart that lists typical carb intake and the obesity rate.
I noticed in the graphs that sugar consumption supposed decreased in the late 1990's to early 2000's. But this was when the consumption of high fructose corn syrup started to be pushed big time on the consumer. We all know high fructose corn syrup is a sugar substitute, and it is in fact worse for your health than sugar consumption. If you were to count the consumption of high fructose corn syrup as being that of sugar, then would the consumption of sugar in fact decline in the late 1990's to early 2000's. I think not. There are just so many problems with this silly video. I hope people don't consider it to be worth treating as a reputable source.
Is there a correlation between less activity starting at the same time and obesity increase? Example, as a kid through college, I had no car, so I would walk/take public transportation. My increased standard of living made no need for the simpler activities, so now I’m obese.
Unfortunately, levels of physical activity have greatly increased over the last 2 decades with little efficacy in decreasing the obesity epidemic. There is more going on that just physical movement and exertion
@@rayzerot I would bet that the increases in physical activity are not among the obese. Besides, the constrained model of calorie expenditure shows us that most exercise has very little effect on weight loss, because the body simply shifts its use of calories, rather than expanding more to do the work. Herman Pontzer has showed that hunter gatherers who walk multiple miles a day do not expend any more energy than a sedentary person of the same stature in the developed world. They are not obese because it’s too hard to get enough food to over eat consistently. One group gets a fair percentage of their calories from honey, and they’re not overweight. They can’t find a honey in appreciable amounts often enough for it to become an issue.
At what point were there so many women in the workforce that no one was left at home to cook regular meals and families started eating out on a regular basis?
That's a pretty damning statement. I don't want to get into gender based role assignment, but I think maybe some personal analytics need to occur. I don't think it's fair to place the blame of obesity at the feet of the working woman. Our current societal requirement for income almost demands a two person income to get anywhere. With a society made up of almost all middle to lower middle class, how would you expect any grown adult to stay home and do anything and maintain a reasonable living situation?
@@JustinOverdorf when women entered the workforce, the supply of labor increased without an increase in demand. That drove down the price (paychecks). As a result, men were paid less so women who had wanted to stay home had to work. It was a feedback loop causing almost every family to need both parents working. That left no one to cook, clean house, and the raise the next generation. That produced the obesity epidemic and the feral aspect of society today.
@@JustinOverdorfI should have observed that there’s nothing that dictates that the woman should stay home but someone should. I think the root issue is that work outside the home has been propagandized to be more important when the reality is that no job is more important than homemaker. Work outside the home only exists to enable the homemaker to do the important work.
Thanks. Great graph! Processed foods sold in supermarkets. No one or governments can stop the corporates selling them and not many people can resist them.
Man i had the worst diet growing up as a kid, i was eating loads of candies and sugar was a staple of my diet but since i was an extremely active kid i used to be skinny... my honest opinion blaming sugar or junk food for the current obesity epidemic is oversimplifying. It's definitely a combination of many factors
The increase in ad spending, rising obesity rates, and a decrease in sugar consumption can also be correlated with the rise of the internet, which coincides perfectly with the pivotal year of 2000. As people dedicate more time to online activities, advertising spending rises, physical activity tends to decrease, and the negative impacts of sugar consumption are disseminated through online channels.
Seems like you need to include all carbohydrates, not just sugar. The 1970s marked the onset of low-fat craze and fat was replaced by carbs. It's a lot easier (and addictive) to overconsume and exceed our energy needs on a high-carbohydrate diet.
Sugar is a carbohydrate!! A lot of it is due to the purity of sugars (ie processed sugars). The more pure the worse since it floods the blood very quickly. Most fruit need a lot of digestion before sugars are release, hence they are less harmful. OJ etc is bad as it's had all the fibre removed and is a high purity sugary liquid. Eating an orange causes satiation due to build being present whereas liquid sugary drinks don't.
I think it’s due to consumption of highly calorific foods that are highly processed. Think about how fibre fills you up and satiates you. The energy density is lower. Your body is expecting larger volumes with less calories and the satiety alarm bells go off when that happens (hence limiting your intake). Dump highly refined foods in your body and your body sets the alarm bells off too late. Same concept of putting nitrox in your car. Will burn out the engine before you have chance to react.
There are hidden sugars that dont count as a sugar in the US and are put in without having a limit... it isnt shown on the added sugar because the company doesnt need to worry about it...
I know right. I just bought some "sugar free" Jelly Belly jellybeans thinking they were zero calorie. WRONG. They use a sugar alcohol and are only about 25% fewer calories than regular. I guess they think we're idiots, and I guess I was.
@@glenneric1Yeah that one is entirely on you for thinking sugar free means zero calorie. And unless you're slamming those candies by the bag every few hours, it's highly unlikely those calories are going to affect your weight very much. You'd end up with a very uncomfortable trip to the toilet before that would ever happen.
@@glenneric1 And lots of things aren't. Steaks are sugar free and aren't zero calorie. Marketing as sugar free or zero calorie are very different things, and in pretty much the only case that these coincide is sugar free beverages.
I am not 100% convinced that the consumption of sugars have decreased as drastically as that chart would suggest. Sugars which include those derived from high fructose corn are present in high amounts in every fast 'food' meal, every soft drink and fruit juice that is consumed and every highly processed 'food' product sold in every supermarket that comes packaged in a box, plastic bag or can. So it is difficult to imagine how overall sugar consumption has decreased when it is present in high amounts in all of the 'foods' consumed by the vast majority of the population. If you are young and metabolically healthy, you can get away with the consumption of these highly processed junk 'foods' for a while. But at some point, after a few decades perhaps, it will catch up with you, and you will find yourself in an insulin resistant state of obesity and poor metabolic health. And that rate of obesity is not slowing down. In fact, obesity even in children has become more obviously apparent now than it has ever been in world history! That is the number one problem, we as members of the human race should be addressing above everything else! Solving that problem should be our number one priority, that is unless our goal is to create a 'new normal' where the intentional destiny of 90 something percent of the population is to be type 2 diabetic. Because that is the precise trajectory we seem to be on.
How do you know that it's in "high amounts"? The majority of labels don't show the percentages. They may add a little bit for the taste, and it still will match the overall decline in sugar and syrup consumption. Plus, you're only looking at the current situation. Sugar was started to be added quite some time ago, and it may be the case that before it was added in larger quantities. Today's consumers are more health conscious, companies know it and they make more products with artificial sweeteners to reduce calories and use it in marketing.
@@elhant4994 We have been witnessing an obesity epidemic that began more than four decades ago, and has been exponentially growing as time goes on. If you just look at the statistics during the past four decades to present, you will see a steady increase in obesity - even in children that did not exist in the 1970s and before. And with obesity comes increased cases of fatty liver conditions, type two diabetes, heart disease, cancers, dementia related diseases and every other chronic health problem. There is a direct correlation connecting excessive sugar consumption with the root cause of everything - obesity. It is possible to lose significant weight and reverse all of those chronic health conditions, as i have done. But you need to stop consuming highly processed 'food' products manufactured by the biggest mainstream food manufacturers. Start preparing your own meals from real food ingredients that come from smaller local organic, free range farmers or markets supplied by smaller local organic free range markets. I know it may sound anecdotal, but i am 67 and use no pharmaceutical products - prescribed or over the counter for any reason. I don't need them. Almost three years ago, i began eating this way while incorporating an aggressive form of intermittent fasting - eating just one big meal per day. In the first two months, about 60 pounds of excess fluids and body fat was gone, and soon after that, every chronic heath condition that plagued me for decades was also gone. No medical doctor will ever help anybody accomplish what i have accomplished, because they have not been trained to heal anybody. They have been trained to manage health conditions using pharmaceutical tools only. This world is ruled by the very worst corporate criminals on the planet, and nobody will be coming to save you. You will need to be able to save yourself.
@@tonyprice2256 I don't know why you felt the need to write this lecture, when the topic was specifically the fact that you don't believe in the statistics in this video. Regardless, we have cases and studies where people mostly ate simple carbs/processed food - and lost weight - and all of their health markers improved. Sugar is just another factor that contributes to excess calorie intake, and for many people it's the main one or even significant one.
I think he's saying the emphasis should be on behavior. If you're someone watching a lot of adds, you're more likely to consume unhealthy foods. He's is saying unhealthy foods are at fault, but pointing out total population patterns. So we can conclude while overall sugar consumption is down, but in the demographic that 'consumes' food advertisements, unhealthy food consumption is up.
Nowadays Lards is difficult to find and everyone scared it, but back in the time I use to eat foods cooked with lard, however fat people, diabetes, hear decease only goes higher everyday
@@thalesnemo2841 I eat carbs and very little else, I should be obese right? Broccoli is carbs, strawberries are carbs, beans are carbs, whole grains are carbs, vegetables, fruits, leafy greens... please tell me you get the idea. Eating lots of carbs is perfectly healthy. I'm actually the only one in my department who isn't overweight Added sugars and high fructose corn syrup? Definitely bad for your health. Carbohydrates from whole foods are NOT a problem though
@@rayzeroti agree with this. But you need to couple whole food carb intake with excercise most especially resistances training aka lifting heavy ass weights and protein intake should be at least 1 gram per body weight. Less than that like 0.8g/kg if you are sedentary and up to 1.6- 2.0g/kg if you are an athlete that is especially training for endurance, strength and power.
Yeah. Less regular physical activity(more inflammation) less whole fruits and vegetables (deficiency in Mg, potassium)), less sunlight exposure (deficiency in vitamin D) are major causes of obesity, insulin resistance, diabetes, hypertension, heart attack, stroke etc.
Commercial incentives are so misaligned with human incentives. We need to reclaim some semblance of sanity from the business world or it will drive us to extinction
People who have more added sugar in their diets are more likely to have diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, liver disease, and other serious illnesses. You may be able to cut your risk for those conditions if you eat less of it.
Countless toxins categorized as hormone disruptors, and obesegens, have increased dramatically in our water, air and food. This would be another factor to add in.
According to "No, Sugar Consumption Hasn’t Fallen", it seams that the "one picture" is slightly controversial. But the article with the title (not sure if links posting is safe) also notes "To Dr. Guyenet’s credit, he came back in a subsequent blog post with some better evidence of decreasing sugar consumption since around the year 2000, namely the NHANES datasets." Most of what I could quickly find now, on sugar consume, does indicates, at least, that the sugar consume is today lower than some decades ago, has not rised, at least not much during the last decade, and "Although the consumption of added sugars in the United States decreased between 1999-2000 and 2007-2008, primarily because of a reduction in soda consumption, mean intakes continue to exceed recommended limits." ("Consumption of added sugars is decreasing in the United States"). I get the feeling the truth about sugar consumption is slightly more complicated, but nevertheless, that there is no evidence that "sugar" is the main/single cause of obesity. And I need to check this Guyenet guy and his "The Hungry Brain" book. Any take on him?
Good analysis. I don't know much about Dr. Guyenet, except I listened to a 3 hour podcast of him debating a low carb guru. I agreed with his stances, although I felt he should have been a bit more forceful at times in the debate. That said, I don't know anything about his book.
I read his book years ago, and though I had read others that showed a link between ultra processed foods and higher calorie consumption, his was the one that finally got me to impose some limits. I had actually already lost a fair amount of weight and they didn’t play a huge role in my diet but they did play a role when I would have lapses and over eat. It’s really a fascinating book but the honest truth is it does not end with a very positive outlook on the trends. It still comes back to depending on the individual and when you look at world statistics on many fronts, that’s not what makes big changes. The greatest influences on Calorie consumption are availability of food and certain cultures that have tended to value quality and moderation over excess. But even they are being infiltrated by western over consumption habits.
@(2:13) considering the long 'incubation period' of insulin resistance, you would not expect an immediate response to limiting the sugar intake, specially if you consider that once triggered IR takes extreme dietary measures to be countered. Also I need not remind you that in industry at least 'sugar' is restricted to saccharose, not all the replacement sugars with similar glycemic index. So considering other videos of yours, I assume you're trolling us today.
As a sign of appreciation to your dedicated sponsors for this video, I'm going to right now go out and binge on 3 kg of hershey's and Kellogg's products!
I think the drop in sugar may have coincided with the increase in artificial "sugar-free" sweeteners, so I think we would want to factor that into the graph as well.
Is that line added sugar, total sugar, or total carbohydrate? I think the carnivore crowd would put more of the blame on total carbohydrate consumption ….but I blame the dietary guidelines that USDA published in 1980. The level of carbohydrate consumption was (and is) not appropriate on a population level.
What caused the inflection point when it comes to that graph relating sugar and obesity? My guess is that "sugar" does not include artificial sweeteners. I mean, many beverages use sugars, but are allowed to call themselves sugar-free. The graph is probably the same way. Before the inflection point, you see that they almost exactly overlap, and the trend still continues after inflection, except the sugar is just flipped (again, likely because of the switch). That's my guess Also, doesn't sugar consumption objectively increase fat? E.g. de novo lipogenesis, where consumption of sugar creates fatty acids
I had a negative reaction to the title, but agree you are right. Sugar (even high fructose corn syrup) may be going down in the USA, what about all the similar alternatives used to avoid the sugar word on ingredients - yet achieve similar consumption urges. Doritos are a good example tactics to promote over consumption of a food like substance.
I know that obesity is caused by chronic caloric surplus, in my humble opinion, the cocaine-like effect that sugar does to my brain pushes my instincts to overeat, and of course, other addictive foods push me to that end too, like fast food or highly caloric, highly palatable foods.
yeah basically its an energy balance issue, these low carb people are annoying. there is only one way to lose weight and that is to be in a caloric deficit but the keto nuts will swear up and down they lost weight by being a magical keto unicorn
Would be more striking if the graph started with obesity data (1950) especialy as sugars before 1967 were not from USDA but historical estimate. Also not entirely clear to me if they included HFCS into the "sugar" data otherwise things would also be even more striking. Though nobody telling you isolated sugar is good (unlike other nasty stuff and their stronger carnist lobby) it still remain that what else (beside added sugar) is making obesity an actual crisis in US... tv ads selling you what (beside shitty politics/values)? the fiber data would have also been nice.
I like how you present ALL the data and not just data to prove your point. Your videos are very interesting. I'm 60 and I take zero medication. I have always been proud of the fact that I keep myself in good shape even though I don't always eat right. I always like to learn about new studies and research that can keep a guy healthy and happy into their later years. I see so many sick people walking around and I think to myself, "I don't want to be like that".
The obesity continually going up and overall sugar intake going down are two different data group sets where you're looking at a subset, the obese, and the whole data set of median sugar intake. Does sugar intake continue to go up when only looking at the obese? That's what I want to know.
Just looking at median sugar intake we can't dismiss its role out of hand because the obese, a subset of the population, could still be eating sugar in record numbers even if total sugar intake across the whole population has gone down.
@@Josh.Mangelson This possibility makes the most sense to me. Total population sugar consumption may have declined, while the distribution of sugar consumption may have shifted toward a more specific subset of people.
During your vid an add for Hersheys chocolate popped up. "If you haven't tasted chocolate for 24 hours..." 😂 Also on the increase... smart phone Internet/ social media, online gaming. Box set binge watching. On the decrease... manual / outdoor work vs office work. Maybe multifactorial. Good point though.
Nick, I'm very surprised that you didn't include the consumption of vegetable/seed oils and margarine in your analysis. Once they told us to start eating "heart healthy" industrialized seed oils and less butter and meat, that seems to be when it all went downhill. Or uphill, if you're looking at a graph!
Nothing wrong with seed oils. There are literally studies showing that they are as beneficial as olive oil. The problem is that people eat a lot more than they used to.
@@jdilksjr - Another intelligent response from someone who has 3 years of formal education. Thanks for coming out and showing us all you know about this subject. Just like the OP, your claims are based on exactly what you said.
Ok, I get your point BUT the vast majority of food advertised (cereals, pizza, chips) are mostly simple carbohydrates which are broken down in our bodies into what? I would also like to mention that in your first graph the rise in obesity and dip in sugar (probably due to better tasting sugar substitutes) also happened when people were getting computers and the internet into their homes (mid to late 90s) and therefore moving less. I agree it is a multifactorial issue and thank you for all of your thoughts, opinions, and sharing.
Yes, we talk about "added sugar" like it's something magically different, but in reality most carbs are sugar, and many have a glycemic index close to that of sugar. Carbs also force you to eat much more often (you get a sugar crash every few hours) and, when combined with fat, causes your body to become satiated much later than it should. The 90s are indeed the time period during which people stopped smoking (smoking suppressed their appetite) and became much less active. The graph isn't necessarily wrong, it's just... irrelevant?
Every single obese kid I've ever know has 1 thing in common: Their mom spoils them and buys them all the junk food in the world. Never forced them to eat healthy or exercise.
Sugar is one of the three major ingredients in Ultra Process Foods. It is added to just about every packaged food along with seed oils and flour. This, combined with government advice to reduce consumption of whole foods such as beef and eggs is the cause of the obesity epidemic.
@@mark-ish Grass fed beef and pasture raised eggs are best, but even corn fed versions are better than processed foods. I only eat grass fed beef and pasture raised eggs but they do cost more.
It seems like a combination of factors. 1. Reduced physical activity 2. Reduced protein intake 3. Increased simple carb intake 4. Increased processed food intake 5. Reduced fiber intake 6. Renaming of simple carbs to include lots of things that really ought to just be called sugar 7. Changes in eating habits away from home cooked whole foods and towards snack and fast foods
I am not 100% sure of sugar causing obesity, but most likely it does to some extent. What is absolutely undeniable is that Fructose is 100% responsible for fatty liver disease... in children. That or kids are becoming alcoholics very early nowadays.
The inclusion of seed oils with unsaturated fatty acids in the processed foods messes up with your satiety signalling and makes you over eat their products.
@@l00neyville I'm a lot less hungry now that I do keto, with only butter, avocado oil, and occasional olive oil for fats. Two meals a day does it, no matter how far I walk.
Sugar absolutely is a driver of obesity. The things that the researches fail to mention is that sugar by itself is not necessarily the problem. The problem is that sugar is extremely addictive. It makes you crave more food, because it kind of manipulates the body's natural responses. Also, another thing failed to mention in the analysis is that the graph literally doesn't disprove that sugar causes obesity. The graph is showing exactly what we would expect - Sugar Consumption skyrockets (and yes, trying to pull of sneaky tricks like classifying other sweeteners away from sugar doesn't work), and 10 years later, obesity goes up you do not get obese in a month. It takes years. They track together for a while, then it doesn't matter if sugar consumption goes down slightly - the damage is already done. Another thing that the analysis fails to mention is lifestyle. We literally had a tech boom, with lots of jobs transitioning away from being physically active to sedentary. Honestly, I'm not sure if the advertisement thing wasn't just a troll.
@@Notsogoodguitarguy correct, sugar is highly addictive, same mental pathways as cocaine. I've never had a taste for sweets, I like salty food, but I needed to exclude all carbs in order to get the health benefits on keto.
@@Physionic no joke, I found your video very, very relevant and important, to me personally. I've been fighting obesity for a long time, and I'm winning now. Mostly because I care more about learning about obesity than belonging to some diet or movement "camp".
I'm thrilled to hear you're winning now, rigeus. You'll be happy to hear that I'm probably going to release a pretty lengthy video related to obesity next week as my "detailed study analysis" video of the week - currently finishing up reading the study. Hopefully you can add your two cents from your experience.
Not disagreeing about high calorie processed foods being a major contributor, but the drop in Sugar consumption could be related to manufacturers switching from Sugar to using HFCS in their products.
This was priceless! "Yes, they pay me no less than 100 million a month to release content to my massive audience to influence them to buy the rich, chocolaty goodness that will inevitably cast them into obesity purgatory."
I have to admit that when I saw that ad come up, I almost turned the video off. My blood ran a little cold, thinking that this channel could get bought.
Consider replacing add dollars with add minutes. During the time depicted in your data add dollars Rose significantly but add space or add time did not.
Why would sugar be bad if we use glucose for energy? It’s the dose, the matrix, the concentration, the nutrients it comes with, the frequence, the absorption rate, that all determine it’s value.
Not all sugar is glucose. Fructose in particularly is problematic, since only the liver cells can really process it, which keeps the liver from doing other functions and since the liver actually converts Fructose in to fat, can eventually lead to fatty liver disease and all the associated issues that come from this. Namely, diabetes, which leads to obesity in most cases. And highly processed sugars are absorbed more rapidly, leading to spikes in glucose levels that actively destroy cells, causing arterial damage, and that damage directly leads to plaque build-up and eventually hardening of the arteries.
@@berserkasaurusrex4233 there is no way that eating fruit as part of a healthy lifestyle will cause fatty liver. That is just absolute outdated nonsense
Have an alternative explanatio : it could be a lagged relationship between sugar consumption and obesity. After all, sugar impacts the rate of aging, so it makes sense the link would not be instantaneous.
- It's not the sugar - It's not the decreased activity levels - It's not the palatability of the food - It's the thing whose consumption started massively rising in the 70s: it's not protein, it's not carbs, it's not saturated fat. Stephan Guyenet knows. He was talking about this years ago. Just read his old blog(s). It's all there. For some mysterious reasons he stopped talking about it and there is even missing blog posts when you compare the old blog to the new one(s).
Fat+sugar+salt = Bliss factor. Holy grail for handful of big corps controlling most of world’s food. Not bad on their own in sml amts but BF feeds repeat biz and profits (like other industries.) Wrong to play game in system they didn’t create? In money/power and pain/pleasure driven world? Free choice by us? Edit: @5:16 Good doc videos and books on this.
Exactly. When most people think of "sweets", they are thinking of sugar packed in seed oils with salt and artificial flavouring. It is more fat than it is sugar, and yet, they associate it with sugar.
@@slickrick5596 I don't know if that's true that's just what I've heard I'm not sure why vitamin A I don't think they should fortify sugar at all but if they're going to why not something like vitamin D3 instead
@2:37 The inflection point at the late nineties where the blue sugar-line peaks and then dives down - you mean the whole or majority population that was studied suddenly and drastically dropped their sugar consumption? Hard to believe. And in that time, did they increase their consumption of fast food? If they did, the drop in pure sugar consumption would have less meaning, I suppose.
Do they measure sugar consumption accurately? Was it a questionnaire? 1977 is when authorities started recommending low fat diets. If they ate less sugar, they probably just traded sugar for other carbs, like bread, pasta, and cereal.
Hmm.. it could be that sugar has a “hereditary” feed forward which makes people consume more food overall, even to the next generation. (Higher Hunger trigger perhaps.)
It's the decreased activity levels, caused by availability of game computers, tablets and smart phones. People who disliked exercise in the past, had to either get active, read or be bored. Since the 80s it has been increasingly easy to entertain yourself fulltime without lifting a finger.
As the owner of a potato chip company (Fat Spuds Inc) we need to hit specific ROI and annual sales growth targets. One problem we are faced with is the population is not growing fast enough to support our goals. Our process and supply chain are close to optimal so our main focus is how to get our customers to consume more, i.e. a 240 lb couch potato needs to eat more than a 180 pounder. We are expanding our offerings in a program we call Beyond Potatoes. Our first BP release is a salted caramel cheddar chips fried in 100% virgin coconut oil - very popular in the keto community.
@@Physionic No sir. Though my past couple weeks have been pretty busy for other reasons. Looking forward to Christmas where I can eat as much sugar as I want because you said sugar doesn't make people fat ;)
Another potential major factor to consider in the obesity epidemic is the role of leptin resistance in the hypothalamic brain region. Mechanistically speaking (from animal and in vitro studies), we know that inflammation driven by immune dysregulation (specifically, excessive innate immune activity) can induce leptin resistance. There are likely genetic factors at play, but that on its own wouldn't explain the sudden rise in obesity, which suggests there may be some additional environmental factors to consider in tandem with caloric overload.
Great graph! It would be also be even better if they showed exactly what the actual ads were ie were they all about food or household appliances or ... With regards to historical data (which you will not see in that graph), in the 1980s, the amount of unhealthy, ultra-processed foods in the U.S. exploded. At the same time, the tobacco companies Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds were buying up ultra-processed food and beverages companies, including General Foods, Kraft, Nabisco and Kool-Aid. They took their knowledge in designing and selling addictive, highly profitable tobacco products and applied it to their ultra-processed food portfolios. They then sold their food brands to international food and beverage conglomerates in the 2000s so now you have your uber obesity epidemic. HFCS was invented in the 1970s and although it dropped from 2000+, it is still around and now people have also got on the artificial sweetener bandwagon. In 2018, a George Washington University Med study on human fat-derived stem cells and fat samples showed consumption of low-calorie sweeteners could promote metabolic syndrome and predispose people to prediabetes and diabetes, particularly in individuals with obesity. Essentially NNS promote additional fat accumulation within cells compared with cells not exposed to these substances, in a dose-dependent fashion of sucralose, more cells showed increased fat droplet accumulation. In another study, they analyzed biopsy samples of abdominal fat from 18 subjects who said they consumed low-calorie sweeteners (mainly sucralose and a trace of aspartame, and/or acesulfame potassium). 4 were healthy weight, and 14 had obesity. In the healthy weight subjects, the difference in gene expressions were not significant. However, in the subjects with obesity or overweight, the researchers noted significant evidence of increased glucose transport into cells and overexpression of known fat-producing genes, compared with fat biopsy samples from subjects who did not consume low-calorie sweeteners. They also previously conducted the same study on 8 subjects with similar results. In another cell culture study, sucralose appears to promote oxygen radical accumulation - that can cause disease and inflammation inside cells. These oxygen radicals interfere with cell activity and slow down metabolism, which promotes accumulation of fat in the cell. This provides another explanation of how sucralose may interfere with metabolism. So I believe its a triple whammy effect: highly processed food items (combo of HFCS/ excess fats combined with excess simple carbs) + ads on them + NSS
Does sugar quantity include all forms of caloric sweeteners? I know some people use agave or honey. Is that counted as sugar? There are lots of ways of hiding sugars in foods. Unsweetened fruit juice should also be considered as sugar. I suspect ultraprocessed foods would contribute. Highly processed carbs could play a big role. Potato chips, tortilla chips, etc.
Remember that honey is 50/50 fructose/sugar, surely all of these were considered and lumped together as "sugar". Potato chips by themselves aren't bad -- the method they're made is. That said, living in fear of a bag of potato chips also isn't going to help lose, nor gain fat. Now pair those chips with a candy bar and you might create some problems. Despite this, if you eat carbs/sugars with a source of PROTEIN, the effects are much different. I side with Dr. Lustig on having the NOVA food system integrated here. I was carnivore for a year, damn near developed some body dysmorphia, even after a decade as a pro athlete. Enjoy life, keep it balanced and don't use food for comfort, get exercise in 3-5 days a week and you don't need to worry about this fear-mongering freight train of finances. Metabolically healthy obese exists
@@mpoharper Which is fine. That is a lifestyle requirement for you. It is a choice for the rest of society. Taking into consideration all the above... One can drive themselves insane or they can choose better. NOVA helps with that.
@@mpoharper a fair number of people have reversed degenerative health conditions while including high starch vegetables. But if not eating them leads to an enjoyable diet and other results you desire, mazel tov.
When I was a child everyone was out. After school, weekends. We were running, jumping and very physically actively playing. Spotting someone overweight was extremely rare. Now children spend most of their times glued to modern technology that just didn't exist. Obese children now seem to be the norm. The input output ratio (food intake to movement output) fits very well into these charts to indicate a causal link. Of course everyone on this modern technology is also viewing the effects of increased advertisement spending.
![The Easiest Way to Lose Body Fat [Study 242]](/img/1.gif)
The s*** storm is incoming, I can feel it.
Let’s preemptively address some of the comments:
“Are you saying sugar is okay to consume?”
Not in excess.
“Sugar is clearly the cause of all that is evil in this world, you’re an idiot!”
Doth thou even Logic?
“When I consume sugar, I experience X (X = arm falls off, gain 90 kilos, get abducted by UFOs, etc.), so you’re wrong.”
Watch my “Science is Wrong” video.
“Are you really sponsored by Hershey’s, you shill?”
Yes, they pay me no less than 100 million a month to release content to my *massive* audience to influence them to buy the rich, chocolaty goodness that will inevitably cast them into obesity purgatory.
"Are you saying sugar is good for me?"
No, unless you're an anaerobic bacterium.
So are you saying that advertisement dollars make you fat?
How about other types of printed paper?
🤡
The literal advertisements - just looking at them, makes you fat. :-P
Lol. You do this in the best way possible!
Thanks, Bill!
Maybe would be better a graphic showing the consumption of sugar plus HCFS, since both are almost the same
Personally, I would prefer a graphic of total fructose consumption, including bananas, orange juice and even tomatoes
It’s the over feeding epidemic! Food is everywhere-- hardware stores, car washes, gas stations, everywhere, and people see it, buy it, and eat it! We have to retrain our appetites, and stop eating every single hour of the day!
One of my ex colleagues retired to Italy several years ago. He came back to our school for a visit and had noticeably dropped some weight. He said he wasn’t trying, but that the fact that food isn’t available at multiple locations play the part. I was a little surprised because he didn’t strike me as somebody, who would pick up snack foods along the way. I ate lunch with him many times and I never saw any packaged food. A mathematician who partnered with an obesity researcher developed a model that showed that just about all the obesity in the United States, can be accounted for by the increase of exposure to more calories.
The problem is not that it is everywhere, the problem is that people eat it, so they are paying to die 😢 then when it's too late they want a miracle medicine 💊 that help them😅
There are other contributing factors too like portions, highly processed foods, decimated gut microbiomes, and lack of physical activities.
@@MyChilepepper Each one of those is really bad by themselves. When you put it all together it is easy to see why Americans are approaching 50% obesity.
In conclusion sugar is still the bad guy this video just circles around. The thing with sugar is its like a drug so its a downward spiral if you consume it. If you eat just meat and vegies you wouldnt have to worry about cravings for dopamine - sugar. Another main problem is the unhappiness/stress of the world which lead to dopamine consuption - sugar, drugs, alcohol, sex, entertainment.
So in short its sugar and unhappiness and omega 6 oils.
We as humans like to oversimplify things and blame one thing for everything. It's just easier like that. Obesity is a combination of factors - sugar, sedentary lifestyles, over processed food, overeating, combining high fat and high sugar foods at one sitting. Might be more factors. To me is clear that focusing on a single factor will never give us all the answers.
I agree with that.
In my experience, I couldn't lose excess fat with exercise alone, I was IR at the time. I needed to change my diet, exclude processed foods and cook at home. Eating high fat, animal based, low carb combined with exercise has given great results.
It's not the high fat high sugar food, but high seed oil fatty acids within that food in combination with high sugar.
McDonald's stopped using beef tallow to fry the french fries and started using seed oils, whereas Belgium and France kept the original recipe to cook in butter and beef tallow and thus we got the french paradox, eating saturated fats and remain skinny.
@@l00neyville exercise is notoriously poorly associated with weight loss, and Herman Pontzer’s hypothesis seems to explain this. He claims that sedentary people of the same build as more active people burn the same number of calories per day. People who expend more calories in exercise tend to expend less on other processes in the body. I think he said that in hunter gatherers who burn a lot of calories in exercise do not burn a lot of calories fostering their immune system so they have a lot of parasites. But his work shows that people of the same size and weight tend to burn almost exactly the same number of calories per day no matter what their activity level is.
@@l00neyville I am french, and worked a few days at Mc Donald. Everyone everywhere use seed oils (sunflower oil) for fries. Only a few restaurant will use animal fat to cook fries anymore. Those fries tast great. The taste and appearance of fries fried in animal fat is totally different from standard fries fried with seed oils, not the same taste, not the same appearence at all.
One can not out run a bad diet !
A bad diet is one which has more than 100 grams total of daily carbohydrates!
Interesting video, but you're making some logical shortcuts. If for example the population is divided between obese and non-obese, the obese group may very well eat more sugar on average than they did before, even if the population as a whole eats less. My personal suspicion is that the underlying cause of obesity is malnutrition, which makes people eat more to get what their bodies crave. Unfortunately the foodstuffs they eat don't meet their needs.
Good point
Drink more Brawndo.
I think you are right. The more I tweek my diet, the less food I seem to need overall. I still get hungry, but it's not driving me to eat in the same way. I eat less but my weight remains pretty stable, I am not becoming skinny or sick. In fact I almost never get sick.
Maybe most of my life I had malnutrition. Maybe I still do... But very minor compared to what it once was. How would we even know if that has become our baseline?
Are you kidding me, your sponsors are Hershey and Kelloggs...hahaha, I really believe you....NOT
Legitimate argument. Still, the actual ratio of obese to non obese is a telling facto.
Every time I do a 24 or 36 hour fast I become immediately aware that TV ads are nearly all Fast Food chains! Interspersed with pharmaceutical ads!
Yeah, watch a televised sporting event. Alcohol, sugar, fast food, snack food, it's ridiculous. As the good doctor said, broccoli doesn't advertise.
I flippin love broccoli.
I don't watch TV. You tube ads are carefully curated to exploit your individual weaknesses 😅
Also, car ads to sell you a means of getting the other things!
Your sponsor made your point clear!
With a kiss!
You're subtle sense of humor is greatly appreciated. DD
1. Title (most important part) is misleading. If sugar is one of the causes, you can't exclude it based on correlation between one cause and effect.
2. The scale of the chart is misleading. It looks like there's significant drop in sugar intake like 40%, while the the real drop is about 15%.
3. There's assumption that all ppl reduced their intake of sugar, while it might be that most aware and conscious percentage dropped it almost entirely, while majority enjoys it and indulging themselves. That would change expectation about obesity.
4. In biology it's often a threshold "thing". An organism can manage to maintain balance to some threshold of pressure, when harm goes beyond that threshold pathology (disease) starts. More or less destructive influence above and beyond such threshold does not make important difference.
The bottom line: Your claim "Sugar isn't the cause of Obesity..." is not proven at all. And your claim that it is proven is false.
Can you add "seedoils" to that one picture with the ads xD?
This.entire video was a joke!
Seriously, the fattening of the US was obviously caused by the diet guidlines!
The mid 70s is when Neoclassical Economics started to be enforced by the government (Carter administration ). Critics rarely correlates obesity with financial stress, something that neoclassical economics has put on lower & middle class America for nearly 50 years.
This is an amazing point.
I see my pets stress-eat whenever my wife travels out of town. Lot's of vomit to clean. (they like me okay, but adore her)
One major detail around 1980s is when smoking was considered bad, and a lot of people quit. When people smoked, they ate less.
good point
Interesting correlation that others have mentioned: stress eating rather than stress smoking...
In the late '60's I made three decisions that (I didn't know at the time) would be major influencers on my longterm health: 1. I quit smoking. 2. I cut out all fast food. 3. I banned advertising (including corporate news) from my life. In hindsight I believe that I may have the order of importance reversed. Limiting the mental influence of advertising was key. Plus, when I see advertising now it shocks my system rather than just being something in the background. [Yes, I know, I'm a real whacko.] A 1,600 calorie lunch or 450 calorie daily coffee treat or an endless plate of pasta only hits me as a glancing blow and does not cause permanent brain damage. On the other hand, I know that the bakery cookie that I bought at a play last night will tip my weight equilibrium. [ I actually calculate how far I would have to walk to "walk off those calories"] Half-time at the Super Bowl makes me puke.
While I have paid a lot of attention to your videos [I love them all...I've become a mitochondriac], I come from the counseling world (high school guidance). I have found that thoughts, per se, are the focal point of behavior. Our brains will filter out 90% of the world (bandwidth problem) to focus on what's important. Where "important" come from is a great topic. I support this habit with my studies of intellectual history, what people were thinking. This works on so many levels from my Hypocrite Diet (screwing with my own mind) to the Israeli-Palestine conflict. GIGO.
"mitochondriac" ?
I wonder if this "one picture" include these:
Dextrose
Galactose
Maltose
Cane Juice Crystals
Cane Sugar
Castor Sugar
Coconut Sugar
Crystalline Fructose
Date Sugar
HFCS
Dextrin
Diastatic Malt
Ethyl Maltol
Grape Sugar
Maltodextrin
Sucanat
Barley Malt
Blackstrap molasses
Brown Rice Syrup
Caramel
Malt Syrup
Maple Syrup
Treacle
And my favorite -> Honey! as in "no added sugar" 🙂
Yes it does a good job of estimating overall intake. Look at the study.
@@hyperTorless "A timeline of the increase in contribution of refined sugar and high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) to U.S. diet, together with the increase in U.S. obesity rate. The data for sugar, dairy and HFCS consumption per capita are from USDA Economic Research Service (Johnson et al., 2009) except for sugar consumption before 1967, which are historical estimates (Guyenet et al., 2017). " So i am not so sure, if it would not be better to measure all these substances and not just sugar and HFCS. Since the awareness of risk from sugar intake rose, the food industray produced more replacement products. So it is a valid point to ask about that replacements.
I have seen products with four or five kinds of sweeteners and this study did mention a rise in hfcs but not all the sugars you listed
I have seen products with four or five kinds of sweeteners and this study did mention a rise in hfcs but not all the sugars you listed and no one uses maple syrup. Most of these sugars are for people who don’t care for themselves.
This graph is interesting. I admit, I am quite skeptical. Even given the assumption that the data is relatively accurate, a question I must ask is, how is "sugar" defined in this analysis?
eating too many calories makes you fat. not macronutrients. i lost weight and didnt cut carbs or sugar, i just cut calories. this isnt complicated, fat is excess energy, blaming macros is assinine since, anything high calorie dense has potential to make you fat
fructose has glucose in it you are never eating pure fructose, therefore the argument that fructose is digested differently than glucose is bunk.@@ClassicJukeboxBand
@@porkpork2169 you have it backwards re. Glucose and fructose
@@veryaware @porkpork2169 glucose and fructose are two completely different sugar units called monsaccharides. Sucrose is a disaccharide as it contains equal amounts of glucose and fructose. Fructose is of course the primary sugar in fruits and honey. Glucose is the primary sugar molecule found in grains and starchy vegetables. These two sugars are metabolized by the body very differently. Fructose would appear to be the big enemy here but the reality is that when consumed in whole foods with the fibre, antioxidants, water, polyphenols, etc the end result is a healthy food, but possibly less so for diabetics. Glucose is less sweet than fructose therefore sucrose falls right in the middle in regards to sweetness. Finally, glucose rarely occurs as a monosaccharide as it is usually bound to other sugar molecules making it a strong carbohydrate builder.
I was in elementary school in the 70's when fat was demonized and we suddenly started using margarine,vegetable oil,fake cheese,low fat foods etc. All of the crap causes inflammation which can lead to weight gain. In addition,low fat foods are higher in sugar. All of these things contributed to the obesity epidemic imo.
No. Obesity causes inflammation the foods themselves have not shown unique rises in CRP or interleukins
@@destro1989you're incorrect - trans-fats and oils rich in omega-6 do cause inflammation.
@@destro1989no, obesity is a symptom, you're already sick.
The graphic shown at 2:14 is kinda misleading, because at one side the curve has a much higher sensitivity compared.
It's not at all clear from your graphs whether HFCS is included in the sugar data. If it's not, then the graph is seriously flawed.
But I also have to note that obesity is a cumulative phenomenon--so it makes sense that the rise in obesity would lag behind the increase in sugar/HFCS consumption. It also makes sense, for the same reasons, that removing sugar/HFCS would not lead to an immediate reduction in obesity, particularly in an aging population. There's plenty of research to indicate that damage already done, particularly to insulin sensitivity, would cause continued weight gain.
Plus, even though sugar/HFCS consumption may have declined in the 90s, it's still well above the 1980 baseline (if that even is a legitimate baseline). If that amount was sufficient to cause obesity in 1990, barring some dramatic evolutionary change, it should still be sufficient to cause obesity now.
I don't believe that sugar is the only cause. But the sugar industry has lied to us before--we should not let them get away with it again.
I googled US sugar consumption by year and did not see any decrease as you showed. It rose continuously
I found the exact pictures he use so.
I am a year late to this video, but here are some important factors. 1. When folks are discussing the Obesity and sugar correlation, that includes all forms of sugar being Fructose and Sucrose. 2. The reason Sugar consumption declined is because its use was being replace by Fructose in the food supply as Federal farm subsidies for the production of corn grew making significantly less expensive to produce Sugar (Sucrose) from sugar cane. Combined their consumption result in the rise of obesity through 2000 and beyond. 3. About that same 2000 time period the adverse effect of these products became more well know and more "sugar substitutes" came into the market. Additionally, the market for corn crops for the use of making ethanol as a fuel additive came into play resulting in tighter market for corn. However, even with a decline in Sugar (inclusive) consumption there was still sufficient sugar in our diets to cause the glucose, insulin spike response cycle to cause folks to eat more of other "carbohydrates." 4. As studies have shown, sugar substitutes also cause insulin spike responses. 5. All of that new marketing was advertisement for sugar and carbohydrate food products like Doritos and Potato Chips which are more than capable of satisfying the urge to eat and spike insulin on their own. -- Yes, Sucrose and Fructose are not the only culprit to the Obesity epidemic, but they are the primary factor with other carbs coming in 2nd place. -- 6. As to the advertising, folks are not going to eat if they don't have that urge to eat. Children's diets tend to be filled with a lot more sugar than adult foods. These children started eating and drinking more sugary foods in the 80's. By the 2000 their eating habit, cycle of glucose and insulin spike start becoming more a problem resulting in more younger folks in their 20's to become overweight and obese. They had spent many years seeing all this advertisement directing their urges to foods that satisfied and reinforced those urges. -- Your analysis was logical and correct; however, it was not based on all the relevant information needed to come up with the correct conclusions.
As an animal-based low-carb proponent myself (so I have a bias at the moment), I would point out two other important data points. The obesity rise also coincides with the adoption of the food pyramid and the recommendation to eat lots of carbs/breads/grains (all of which turn into sugar inside the body, correct?) AND the emphasis to reduce red meat consumption. If you were to overlay a chart of per-capita red meat consumption you would also see a 30% reduction during that same time period.
It doesn't matter many cultures around the world have far less meat/protein consumption and yet have low obesity. They just don't over eat.
@@toddapplegate3988 yeah love the irony when people blame the food pyramid on obesity when many other nations have the same or very similar guidelines yet don't have nearly the obesity issues we have in countries like the US. Also I'm pretty sure they've done studies and found just about nearly everyone doesn't even follow these food guidelines/pyramid, which also states don't use too much fats and oils, don't eat too many calories, etc. And also in these studies they show ironically people that follow more closely to the guidelines tend to have better health outcomes than those that don't.
I wish @Physionic would respond to this comment. Excellent points
When did McD and Coke enter the pyramid?
Anyway ... The pyramid looks fat. As in wide, which visually could suggest large quantities.
I mean, until recently, the actual pyramids was the largest man made structures in the World. Our meals should match that. Right?
no, many ancient civilizations have been consuming grains as a staple. I think it has more to do with over-processed food cooked in seed oils. Then eating less veggies that have probiotics and balanced nutrition in them because of modern farming practices.
...and managers randomly want to treat their workers with free pizza and krispy cremes!
Cheaper than giving them a raise.
That was done for a number of the IT organizations or departments that I worked for as a young kid in the '80s and '90s. Back then that was a group that didn't exercise much due to the stress of work. That has changed pretty significantly since I've moved into managing and can see where staff are spending their free time. Also, the snacks and food provided are becoming healthier "whole foods" and more "keto friendly" then just plain sugar and bread.
Well I didn't see this video until now. I don't think sugar itself is the cause, it's the overall carb intake. Carbs=obesity. So, sugar is a carb but not the only one. Which is why that chart isn't encompassing the whole problem. I would rather look at a chart that lists typical carb intake and the obesity rate.
I noticed in the graphs that sugar consumption supposed decreased in the late 1990's to early 2000's. But this was when the consumption of high fructose corn syrup started to be pushed big time on the consumer. We all know high fructose corn syrup is a sugar substitute, and it is in fact worse for your health than sugar consumption. If you were to count the consumption of high fructose corn syrup as being that of sugar, then would the consumption of sugar in fact decline in the late 1990's to early 2000's. I think not. There are just so many problems with this silly video. I hope people don't consider it to be worth treating as a reputable source.
He literally showed that high fructose corn syrup consumption went down again but obesity is still rising.
Excelent comment.
That's a lot of words to say you didn't fully watch the video.
It's the addiction to sugar in my opinion. I definitely had it
Is there a correlation between less activity starting at the same time and obesity increase? Example, as a kid through college, I had no car, so I would walk/take public transportation. My increased standard of living made no need for the simpler activities, so now I’m obese.
Great question, herosfit. I don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me if that, too, were a contributing factor.
Unfortunately, levels of physical activity have greatly increased over the last 2 decades with little efficacy in decreasing the obesity epidemic. There is more going on that just physical movement and exertion
@@rayzerot I would bet that the increases in physical activity are not among the obese. Besides, the constrained model of calorie expenditure shows us that most exercise has very little effect on weight loss, because the body simply shifts its use of calories, rather than expanding more to do the work. Herman Pontzer has showed that hunter gatherers who walk multiple miles a day do not expend any more energy than a sedentary person of the same stature in the developed world. They are not obese because it’s too hard to get enough food to over eat consistently. One group gets a fair percentage of their calories from honey, and they’re not overweight. They can’t find a honey in appreciable amounts often enough for it to become an issue.
@@oolala53Exactly- there is more going on than just physical movement and exertion
@@oolala53 Has anyone tried teaching them how to keep bees?
But in the 1970s piramid nutrition was created and carbs production (wheat, corn, soy etc) when massive, the same with vegetable oils
At what point were there so many women in the workforce that no one was left at home to cook regular meals and families started eating out on a regular basis?
WW2
That's a pretty damning statement. I don't want to get into gender based role assignment, but I think maybe some personal analytics need to occur. I don't think it's fair to place the blame of obesity at the feet of the working woman. Our current societal requirement for income almost demands a two person income to get anywhere. With a society made up of almost all middle to lower middle class, how would you expect any grown adult to stay home and do anything and maintain a reasonable living situation?
@@JustinOverdorf when women entered the workforce, the supply of labor increased without an increase in demand. That drove down the price (paychecks). As a result, men were paid less so women who had wanted to stay home had to work. It was a feedback loop causing almost every family to need both parents working. That left no one to cook, clean house, and the raise the next generation. That produced the obesity epidemic and the feral aspect of society today.
@@JustinOverdorfI should have observed that there’s nothing that dictates that the woman should stay home but someone should. I think the root issue is that work outside the home has been propagandized to be more important when the reality is that no job is more important than homemaker. Work outside the home only exists to enable the homemaker to do the important work.
Thanks. Great graph! Processed foods sold in supermarkets. No one or governments can stop the corporates selling them and not many people can resist them.
Yeah u right the other day I was checking out how many junk it is in the supermarket and realized that it was about 70% specially carbs
Man i had the worst diet growing up as a kid, i was eating loads of candies and sugar was a staple of my diet but since i was an extremely active kid i used to be skinny... my honest opinion blaming sugar or junk food for the current obesity epidemic is oversimplifying. It's definitely a combination of many factors
Have you read the data that non-sugar sweeteners can increase hunger, and lead to overeating?
The increase in ad spending, rising obesity rates, and a decrease in sugar consumption can also be correlated with the rise of the internet, which coincides perfectly with the pivotal year of 2000. As people dedicate more time to online activities, advertising spending rises, physical activity tends to decrease, and the negative impacts of sugar consumption are disseminated through online channels.
Seems like you need to include all carbohydrates, not just sugar. The 1970s marked the onset of low-fat craze and fat was replaced by carbs. It's a lot easier (and addictive) to overconsume and exceed our energy needs on a high-carbohydrate diet.
Sugar is a carbohydrate!! A lot of it is due to the purity of sugars (ie processed sugars). The more pure the worse since it floods the blood very quickly. Most fruit need a lot of digestion before sugars are release, hence they are less harmful. OJ etc is bad as it's had all the fibre removed and is a high purity sugary liquid. Eating an orange causes satiation due to build being present whereas liquid sugary drinks don't.
Yeah but they didn't eat low fat in the 70's.... meat and dairy consumption grew..... aka fat
Per capita meat and dairy consumption has steadily declined since the 1970’s according to ers.usda.gov
Ancel Keys started the low fat mantra in the late 60’s
I think it’s due to consumption of highly calorific foods that are highly processed. Think about how fibre fills you up and satiates you. The energy density is lower. Your body is expecting larger volumes with less calories and the satiety alarm bells go off when that happens (hence limiting your intake). Dump highly refined foods in your body and your body sets the alarm bells off too late. Same concept of putting nitrox in your car. Will burn out the engine before you have chance to react.
There are hidden sugars that dont count as a sugar in the US and are put in without having a limit... it isnt shown on the added sugar because the company doesnt need to worry about it...
I know right. I just bought some "sugar free" Jelly Belly jellybeans thinking they were zero calorie. WRONG. They use a sugar alcohol and are only about 25% fewer calories than regular. I guess they think we're idiots, and I guess I was.
@@glenneric1Yeah that one is entirely on you for thinking sugar free means zero calorie. And unless you're slamming those candies by the bag every few hours, it's highly unlikely those calories are going to affect your weight very much. You'd end up with a very uncomfortable trip to the toilet before that would ever happen.
@@VegetaPrinceOfSaiyans Lots of other sugar free things are zero calorie. They knew what they were doing when they said that.
@@glenneric1 And lots of things aren't. Steaks are sugar free and aren't zero calorie. Marketing as sugar free or zero calorie are very different things, and in pretty much the only case that these coincide is sugar free beverages.
@@VegetaPrinceOfSaiyans Steaks have fat and protein. Not comparable.
I am not 100% convinced that the consumption of sugars have decreased as drastically as that chart would suggest. Sugars which include those derived from high fructose corn are present in high amounts in every fast 'food' meal, every soft drink and fruit juice that is consumed and every highly processed 'food' product sold in every supermarket that comes packaged in a box, plastic bag or can. So it is difficult to imagine how overall sugar consumption has decreased when it is present in high amounts in all of the 'foods' consumed by the vast majority of the population.
If you are young and metabolically healthy, you can get away with the consumption of these highly processed junk 'foods' for a while. But at some point, after a few decades perhaps, it will catch up with you, and you will find yourself in an insulin resistant state of obesity and poor metabolic health. And that rate of obesity is not slowing down. In fact, obesity even in children has become more obviously apparent now than it has ever been in world history!
That is the number one problem, we as members of the human race should be addressing above everything else! Solving that problem should be our number one priority, that is unless our goal is to create a 'new normal' where the intentional destiny of 90 something percent of the population is to be type 2 diabetic. Because that is the precise trajectory we seem to be on.
How do you know that it's in "high amounts"? The majority of labels don't show the percentages. They may add a little bit for the taste, and it still will match the overall decline in sugar and syrup consumption.
Plus, you're only looking at the current situation. Sugar was started to be added quite some time ago, and it may be the case that before it was added in larger quantities.
Today's consumers are more health conscious, companies know it and they make more products with artificial sweeteners to reduce calories and use it in marketing.
@@elhant4994 We have been witnessing an obesity epidemic that began more than four decades ago, and has been exponentially growing as time goes on. If you just look at the statistics during the past four decades to present, you will see a steady increase in obesity - even in children that did not exist in the 1970s and before.
And with obesity comes increased cases of fatty liver conditions, type two diabetes, heart disease, cancers, dementia related diseases and every other chronic health problem. There is a direct correlation connecting excessive sugar consumption with the root cause of everything - obesity.
It is possible to lose significant weight and reverse all of those chronic health conditions, as i have done. But you need to stop consuming highly processed 'food' products manufactured by the biggest mainstream food manufacturers. Start preparing your own meals from real food ingredients that come from smaller local organic, free range farmers or markets supplied by smaller local organic free range markets.
I know it may sound anecdotal, but i am 67 and use no pharmaceutical products - prescribed or over the counter for any reason. I don't need them. Almost three years ago, i began eating this way while incorporating an aggressive form of intermittent fasting - eating just one big meal per day. In the first two months, about 60 pounds of excess fluids and body fat was gone, and soon after that, every chronic heath condition that plagued me for decades was also gone.
No medical doctor will ever help anybody accomplish what i have accomplished, because they have not been trained to heal anybody. They have been trained to manage health conditions using pharmaceutical tools only. This world is ruled by the very worst corporate criminals on the planet, and nobody will be coming to save you. You will need to be able to save yourself.
@@tonyprice2256 I don't know why you felt the need to write this lecture, when the topic was specifically the fact that you don't believe in the statistics in this video.
Regardless, we have cases and studies where people mostly ate simple carbs/processed food - and lost weight - and all of their health markers improved. Sugar is just another factor that contributes to excess calorie intake, and for many people it's the main one or even significant one.
how does this prove sugar isn't the cause?
It doesn't lol. But he makes good points
I think he's saying the emphasis should be on behavior. If you're someone watching a lot of adds, you're more likely to consume unhealthy foods.
He's is saying unhealthy foods are at fault, but pointing out total population patterns. So we can conclude while overall sugar consumption is down, but in the demographic that 'consumes' food advertisements, unhealthy food consumption is up.
Nowadays Lards is difficult to find and everyone scared it, but back in the time I use to eat foods cooked with lard, however fat people, diabetes, hear decease only goes higher everyday
The strongest correlation might be with the rise of the internet and the fact that kids play on their phones instead of in their neighborhoods now.
NO IT IS quite simple it’s the CARBOHYDRATES!
@@thalesnemo2841 I eat carbs and very little else, I should be obese right? Broccoli is carbs, strawberries are carbs, beans are carbs, whole grains are carbs, vegetables, fruits, leafy greens... please tell me you get the idea. Eating lots of carbs is perfectly healthy. I'm actually the only one in my department who isn't overweight
Added sugars and high fructose corn syrup? Definitely bad for your health. Carbohydrates from whole foods are NOT a problem though
lol. Loved the Hershey «sponsorship»…informative , factual and funny, as usual, Mr Verhoeven
@@rayzeroti agree with this. But you need to couple whole food carb intake with excercise most especially resistances training aka lifting heavy ass weights and protein intake should be at least 1 gram per body weight. Less than that like 0.8g/kg if you are sedentary and up to 1.6- 2.0g/kg if you are an athlete that is especially training for endurance, strength and power.
Yeah. Less regular physical activity(more inflammation) less whole fruits and vegetables (deficiency in Mg, potassium)), less sunlight exposure (deficiency in vitamin D) are major causes of obesity, insulin resistance, diabetes, hypertension, heart attack, stroke etc.
Commercial incentives are so misaligned with human incentives. We need to reclaim some semblance of sanity from the business world or it will drive us to extinction
You fully committed to the "funded by big sugar" joke. That was lovely 👏👏👏
People who have more added sugar in their diets are more likely to have diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, liver disease, and other serious illnesses. You may be able to cut your risk for those conditions if you eat less of it.
So are people that eat a lot of fat. It's the fact that people eat too much of everything that is the issue, not just one macro.
@@ColdRunnerGWN*fat there's more than one type and you shouldn't treat them as indistinguishable.
@@mark-ish - Name the type of fat that has less than 9 calories/gm.
Countless toxins categorized as hormone disruptors, and obesegens, have increased dramatically in our water, air and food. This would be another factor to add in.
According to "No, Sugar Consumption Hasn’t Fallen", it seams that the "one picture" is slightly controversial.
But the article with the title (not sure if links posting is safe) also notes "To Dr. Guyenet’s credit, he came back in a subsequent blog post with some better evidence of decreasing sugar consumption since around the year 2000, namely the NHANES datasets."
Most of what I could quickly find now, on sugar consume, does indicates, at least, that the sugar consume is today lower than some decades ago, has not rised, at least not much during the last decade, and "Although the consumption of added sugars in the United States decreased between 1999-2000 and 2007-2008, primarily because of a reduction in soda consumption, mean intakes continue to exceed recommended limits." ("Consumption of added sugars is decreasing in the United States").
I get the feeling the truth about sugar consumption is slightly more complicated, but nevertheless, that there is no evidence that "sugar" is the main/single cause of obesity.
And I need to check this Guyenet guy and his "The Hungry Brain" book. Any take on him?
Good analysis. I don't know much about Dr. Guyenet, except I listened to a 3 hour podcast of him debating a low carb guru. I agreed with his stances, although I felt he should have been a bit more forceful at times in the debate. That said, I don't know anything about his book.
I doubt there is one factor that explains it all.
I read his book years ago, and though I had read others that showed a link between ultra processed foods and higher calorie consumption, his was the one that finally got me to impose some limits. I had actually already lost a fair amount of weight and they didn’t play a huge role in my diet but they did play a role when I would have lapses and over eat. It’s really a fascinating book but the honest truth is it does not end with a very positive outlook on the trends. It still comes back to depending on the individual and when you look at world statistics on many fronts, that’s not what makes big changes. The greatest influences on Calorie consumption are availability of food and certain cultures that have tended to value quality and moderation over excess. But even they are being infiltrated by western over consumption habits.
@(2:13) considering the long 'incubation period' of insulin resistance, you would not expect an immediate response to limiting the sugar intake, specially if you consider that once triggered IR takes extreme dietary measures to be countered. Also I need not remind you that in industry at least 'sugar' is restricted to saccharose, not all the replacement sugars with similar glycemic index.
So considering other videos of yours, I assume you're trolling us today.
Awesome graph, what does seed oils look like added to that?
As a sign of appreciation to your dedicated sponsors for this video, I'm going to right now go out and binge on 3 kg of hershey's and Kellogg's products!
I think the drop in sugar may have coincided with the increase in artificial "sugar-free" sweeteners, so I think we would want to factor that into the graph as well.
Is that line added sugar, total sugar, or total carbohydrate? I think the carnivore crowd would put more of the blame on total carbohydrate consumption ….but I blame the dietary guidelines that USDA published in 1980. The level of carbohydrate consumption was (and is) not appropriate on a population level.
I love your snarky sense of humor! More please!
What caused the inflection point when it comes to that graph relating sugar and obesity?
My guess is that "sugar" does not include artificial sweeteners. I mean, many beverages use sugars, but are allowed to call themselves sugar-free. The graph is probably the same way. Before the inflection point, you see that they almost exactly overlap, and the trend still continues after inflection, except the sugar is just flipped (again, likely because of the switch). That's my guess
Also, doesn't sugar consumption objectively increase fat? E.g. de novo lipogenesis, where consumption of sugar creates fatty acids
I had a negative reaction to the title, but agree you are right. Sugar (even high fructose corn syrup) may be going down in the USA, what about all the similar alternatives used to avoid the sugar word on ingredients - yet achieve similar consumption urges. Doritos are a good example tactics to promote over consumption of a food like substance.
I look at food labels. What I see is high fructose corn syrup hidden in almost all ultra processed foods.
I know that obesity is caused by chronic caloric surplus, in my humble opinion, the cocaine-like effect that sugar does to my brain pushes my instincts to overeat, and of course, other addictive foods push me to that end too, like fast food or highly caloric, highly palatable foods.
yeah basically its an energy balance issue, these low carb people are annoying. there is only one way to lose weight and that is to be in a caloric deficit but the keto nuts will swear up and down they lost weight by being a magical keto unicorn
Our bodies reach no point of satiety, consuming fructose - that's why it's added to so many processed foods (along with the removal of dietary fibre).
Has he made a pro seed oil video yet?
Would be more striking if the graph started with obesity data (1950) especialy as sugars before 1967 were not from USDA but historical estimate. Also not entirely clear to me if they included HFCS into the "sugar" data otherwise things would also be even more striking. Though nobody telling you isolated sugar is good (unlike other nasty stuff and their stronger carnist lobby) it still remain that what else (beside added sugar) is making obesity an actual crisis in US...
tv ads selling you what (beside shitty politics/values)?
the fiber data would have also been nice.
I like how you present ALL the data and not just data to prove your point. Your videos are very interesting. I'm 60 and I take zero medication. I have always been proud of the fact that I keep myself in good shape even though I don't always eat right. I always like to learn about new studies and research that can keep a guy healthy and happy into their later years.
I see so many sick people walking around and I think to myself, "I don't want to be like that".
The obesity continually going up and overall sugar intake going down are two different data group sets where you're looking at a subset, the obese, and the whole data set of median sugar intake. Does sugar intake continue to go up when only looking at the obese? That's what I want to know.
Just looking at median sugar intake we can't dismiss its role out of hand because the obese, a subset of the population, could still be eating sugar in record numbers even if total sugar intake across the whole population has gone down.
@@Josh.Mangelson This possibility makes the most sense to me. Total population sugar consumption may have declined, while the distribution of sugar consumption may have shifted toward a more specific subset of people.
What's missing from the graph is vegetable oil (seed oil) which is toxic and in most processed foods.
During your vid an add for Hersheys chocolate popped up. "If you haven't tasted chocolate for 24 hours..." 😂
Also on the increase... smart phone Internet/ social media, online gaming. Box set binge watching.
On the decrease... manual / outdoor work vs office work.
Maybe multifactorial. Good point though.
Nick, I'm very surprised that you didn't include the consumption of vegetable/seed oils and margarine in your analysis. Once they told us to start eating "heart healthy" industrialized seed oils and less butter and meat, that seems to be when it all went downhill. Or uphill, if you're looking at a graph!
Nothing wrong with seed oils. There are literally studies showing that they are as beneficial as olive oil. The problem is that people eat a lot more than they used to.
@@ColdRunnerGWN 😂😂😂😂
@@ColdRunnerGWN Bullshit
@@jdilksjr - Another intelligent response from someone who has 3 years of formal education. Thanks for coming out and showing us all you know about this subject. Just like the OP, your claims are based on exactly what you said.
Advertisements work, everyone is thin in the add, happy, laughing, surrounded by friends…..
If I recall correctly, 1980 that’s about the time that aspartame was introduced in a big way. Any possibility that it’s a contributing factor?
Ok, I get your point BUT the vast majority of food advertised (cereals, pizza, chips) are mostly simple carbohydrates which are broken down in our bodies into what? I would also like to mention that in your first graph the rise in obesity and dip in sugar (probably due to better tasting sugar substitutes) also happened when people were getting computers and the internet into their homes (mid to late 90s) and therefore moving less. I agree it is a multifactorial issue and thank you for all of your thoughts, opinions, and sharing.
All good points, Terry.
Yes, we talk about "added sugar" like it's something magically different, but in reality most carbs are sugar, and many have a glycemic index close to that of sugar. Carbs also force you to eat much more often (you get a sugar crash every few hours) and, when combined with fat, causes your body to become satiated much later than it should.
The 90s are indeed the time period during which people stopped smoking (smoking suppressed their appetite) and became much less active.
The graph isn't necessarily wrong, it's just... irrelevant?
What’s the source of that ‘sugar consumption dropped” data? I’m highly skeptical that that actually happened.
Every single obese kid I've ever know has 1 thing in common:
Their mom spoils them and buys them all the junk food in the world. Never forced them to eat healthy or exercise.
Sugar is one of the three major ingredients in Ultra Process Foods. It is added to just about every packaged food along with seed oils and flour. This, combined with government advice to reduce consumption of whole foods such as beef and eggs is the cause of the obesity epidemic.
depends if grass or maize fed.
@@mark-ish Grass fed beef and pasture raised eggs are best, but even corn fed versions are better than processed foods. I only eat grass fed beef and pasture raised eggs but they do cost more.
It seems like a combination of factors.
1. Reduced physical activity
2. Reduced protein intake
3. Increased simple carb intake
4. Increased processed food intake
5. Reduced fiber intake
6. Renaming of simple carbs to include lots of things that really ought to just be called sugar
7. Changes in eating habits away from home cooked whole foods and towards snack and fast foods
I am not 100% sure of sugar causing obesity, but most likely it does to some extent. What is absolutely undeniable is that Fructose is 100% responsible for fatty liver disease... in children. That or kids are becoming alcoholics very early nowadays.
Ya never know… :)
The inclusion of seed oils with unsaturated fatty acids in the processed foods messes up with your satiety signalling and makes you over eat their products.
@@l00neyville I'm a lot less hungry now that I do keto, with only butter, avocado oil, and occasional olive oil for fats. Two meals a day does it, no matter how far I walk.
Sugar absolutely is a driver of obesity. The things that the researches fail to mention is that sugar by itself is not necessarily the problem. The problem is that sugar is extremely addictive. It makes you crave more food, because it kind of manipulates the body's natural responses.
Also, another thing failed to mention in the analysis is that the graph literally doesn't disprove that sugar causes obesity. The graph is showing exactly what we would expect - Sugar Consumption skyrockets (and yes, trying to pull of sneaky tricks like classifying other sweeteners away from sugar doesn't work), and 10 years later, obesity goes up you do not get obese in a month. It takes years. They track together for a while, then it doesn't matter if sugar consumption goes down slightly - the damage is already done.
Another thing that the analysis fails to mention is lifestyle. We literally had a tech boom, with lots of jobs transitioning away from being physically active to sedentary.
Honestly, I'm not sure if the advertisement thing wasn't just a troll.
@@Notsogoodguitarguy correct, sugar is highly addictive, same mental pathways as cocaine.
I've never had a taste for sweets, I like salty food, but I needed to exclude all carbs in order to get the health benefits on keto.
Great video, thanks! And, yes, I like cake too.
Thanks for the donation, rigeus. Really kind of you. I like cake, too, especially cheese cake or chocolate cake.
@@Physionic no joke, I found your video very, very relevant and important, to me personally.
I've been fighting obesity for a long time, and I'm winning now. Mostly because I care more about learning about obesity than belonging to some diet or movement "camp".
I'm thrilled to hear you're winning now, rigeus. You'll be happy to hear that I'm probably going to release a pretty lengthy video related to obesity next week as my "detailed study analysis" video of the week - currently finishing up reading the study. Hopefully you can add your two cents from your experience.
@@Physionic Thanks! I will! I just hit the notification bell!
does the fast food flood correlate to the increase of obesity on the graph?
There is a lag. Let’s see the obesity rate in the next 10-20 years.
Not disagreeing about high calorie processed foods being a major contributor, but the drop in Sugar consumption could be related to manufacturers switching from Sugar to using HFCS in their products.
This was priceless!
"Yes, they pay me no less than 100 million a month to release content to my massive audience to influence them to buy the rich, chocolaty goodness that will inevitably cast them into obesity purgatory."
:)
I have to admit that when I saw that ad come up, I almost turned the video off. My blood ran a little cold, thinking that this channel could get bought.
@@oolala53 I automatically assumed the ad was bought, the ad was concrete proof.
@@roysokolowski7234 so you’re saying he was being extra sneaky about it. Yeah, that’s Nick.
The -only- thing I have ever seen in any of your videos worth a wooden nickel. So good on you for that at least.@@Physionic
What is the source of this sugar data? Do the carb-insulin proponents use another source?
Is that around the time when diet products featuring aspartame were marketed as the alternative?
I would like to know if that ad spend number has been adjusted for real inflation.
Consider replacing add dollars with add minutes. During the time depicted in your data add dollars Rose significantly but add space or add time did not.
Why would sugar be bad if we use glucose for energy? It’s the dose, the matrix, the concentration, the nutrients it comes with, the frequence, the absorption rate, that all determine it’s value.
Not all sugar is glucose. Fructose in particularly is problematic, since only the liver cells can really process it, which keeps the liver from doing other functions and since the liver actually converts Fructose in to fat, can eventually lead to fatty liver disease and all the associated issues that come from this. Namely, diabetes, which leads to obesity in most cases.
And highly processed sugars are absorbed more rapidly, leading to spikes in glucose levels that actively destroy cells, causing arterial damage, and that damage directly leads to plaque build-up and eventually hardening of the arteries.
@@berserkasaurusrex4233 there is no way that eating fruit as part of a healthy lifestyle will cause fatty liver. That is just absolute outdated nonsense
Also, is there any data about using consuming "TV dinners" and other highly processed foods?
I'm sure there are, but I don't know of any off the top of my head.
Are you saying Dr Lustig doesn't have a clue when he calls sugar poison?
That doesn’t address the data presented, but I’m not a fan of Dr. Lustig’s ideas.
@@Physionic You are one funny dude!
Have an alternative explanatio : it could be a lagged relationship between sugar consumption and obesity. After all, sugar impacts the rate of aging, so it makes sense the link would not be instantaneous.
- It's not the sugar
- It's not the decreased activity levels
- It's not the palatability of the food
- It's the thing whose consumption started massively rising in the 70s: it's not protein, it's not carbs, it's not saturated fat.
Stephan Guyenet knows. He was talking about this years ago. Just read his old blog(s). It's all there. For some mysterious reasons he stopped talking about it and there is even missing blog posts when you compare the old blog to the new one(s).
It's not any one thing...
What is it?
Fat+sugar+salt = Bliss factor. Holy grail for handful of big corps controlling most of world’s food. Not bad on their own in sml amts but BF feeds repeat biz and profits (like other industries.) Wrong to play game in system they didn’t create? In money/power and pain/pleasure driven world? Free choice by us? Edit: @5:16 Good doc videos and books on this.
Exactly. When most people think of "sweets", they are thinking of sugar packed in seed oils with salt and artificial flavouring. It is more fat than it is sugar, and yet, they associate it with sugar.
Does thay study incude the "hidden" sugars in processed foods? It is counting HFCS as part of thr study? Who or what institution funded this study?
Is it true that sugar that you buy in stores is fortified with vitamin A and it's just not listed???
Why vitamin A?
@@slickrick5596 I don't know if that's true that's just what I've heard
I'm not sure why vitamin A I don't think they should fortify sugar at all but if they're going to why not something like vitamin D3 instead
@@daysoftheboo agree. What exactly are you studying exactly?
@@slickrick5596 it wasn't studying this I heard of this from a RUclips video from another
RUclipsr he was the one who did that research
@@daysoftheboo good luck to us as we seek knoeledge
@2:37 The inflection point at the late nineties where the blue sugar-line peaks and then dives down - you mean the whole or majority population that was studied suddenly and drastically dropped their sugar consumption? Hard to believe. And in that time, did they increase their consumption of fast food? If they did, the drop in pure sugar consumption would have less meaning, I suppose.
Positive correlation with inequality
The main point is that people overeat; mostly in form of sugary drinks so...
Now correlate use of seed oils.
Do they measure sugar consumption accurately? Was it a questionnaire? 1977 is when authorities started recommending low fat diets. If they ate less sugar, they probably just traded sugar for other carbs, like bread, pasta, and cereal.
Hmm.. it could be that sugar has a “hereditary” feed forward which makes people consume more food overall, even to the next generation. (Higher Hunger trigger perhaps.)
It's the decreased activity levels, caused by availability of game computers, tablets and smart phones. People who disliked exercise in the past, had to either get active, read or be bored. Since the 80s it has been increasingly easy to entertain yourself fulltime without lifting a finger.
None bakes their in sweets anymore ..
Could that be why less sugar is being sold
Can you add seed oils to that graph?
Nice job with the Hersey's add. Science and humor are strange bedfellows.
As the owner of a potato chip company (Fat Spuds Inc) we need to hit specific ROI and annual sales growth targets. One problem we are faced with is the population is not growing fast enough to support our goals. Our process and supply chain are close to optimal so our main focus is how to get our customers to consume more, i.e. a 240 lb couch potato needs to eat more than a 180 pounder. We are expanding our offerings in a program we call Beyond Potatoes. Our first BP release is a salted caramel cheddar chips fried in 100% virgin coconut oil - very popular in the keto community.
What about estrogens and endocrine disruptor accumulation? Anti baby pill started in the 60ies, BPA and PFAS?
Great sponsorship!!!
Hehe… thanks, Jacob. Good to see you here again - hopefully Thanksgiving didn’t overwhelm you. :)
@@Physionic No sir. Though my past couple weeks have been pretty busy for other reasons. Looking forward to Christmas where I can eat as much sugar as I want because you said sugar doesn't make people fat ;)
Another potential major factor to consider in the obesity epidemic is the role of leptin resistance in the hypothalamic brain region. Mechanistically speaking (from animal and in vitro studies), we know that inflammation driven by immune dysregulation (specifically, excessive innate immune activity) can induce leptin resistance. There are likely genetic factors at play, but that on its own wouldn't explain the sudden rise in obesity, which suggests there may be some additional environmental factors to consider in tandem with caloric overload.
Great graph! It would be also be even better if they showed exactly what the actual ads were ie were they all about food or household appliances or ... With regards to historical data (which you will not see in that graph), in the 1980s, the amount of unhealthy, ultra-processed foods in the U.S. exploded. At the same time, the tobacco companies Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds were buying up ultra-processed food and beverages companies, including General Foods, Kraft, Nabisco and Kool-Aid. They took their knowledge in designing and selling addictive, highly profitable tobacco products and applied it to their ultra-processed food portfolios. They then sold their food brands to international food and beverage conglomerates in the 2000s so now you have your uber obesity epidemic.
HFCS was invented in the 1970s and although it dropped from 2000+, it is still around and now people have also got on the artificial sweetener bandwagon. In 2018, a George Washington University Med study on human fat-derived stem cells and fat samples showed consumption of low-calorie sweeteners could promote metabolic syndrome and predispose people to prediabetes and diabetes, particularly in individuals with obesity. Essentially NNS promote additional fat accumulation within cells compared with cells not exposed to these substances, in a dose-dependent fashion of sucralose, more cells showed increased fat droplet accumulation. In another study, they analyzed biopsy samples of abdominal fat from 18 subjects who said they consumed low-calorie sweeteners (mainly sucralose and a trace of aspartame, and/or acesulfame potassium).
4 were healthy weight, and 14 had obesity. In the healthy weight subjects, the difference in gene expressions were not significant. However, in the subjects with obesity or overweight, the researchers noted significant evidence of increased glucose transport into cells and overexpression of known fat-producing genes, compared with fat biopsy samples from subjects who did not consume low-calorie sweeteners.
They also previously conducted the same study on 8 subjects with similar results. In another cell culture study, sucralose appears to promote oxygen radical accumulation - that can cause disease and inflammation inside cells. These oxygen radicals interfere with cell activity and slow down metabolism, which promotes accumulation of fat in the cell. This provides another explanation of how sucralose may interfere with metabolism.
So I believe its a triple whammy effect: highly processed food items (combo of HFCS/ excess fats combined with excess simple carbs) + ads on them + NSS
So, ad blockers to deter obesity?
Does sugar quantity include all forms of caloric sweeteners? I know some people use agave or honey. Is that counted as sugar? There are lots of ways of hiding sugars in foods. Unsweetened fruit juice should also be considered as sugar.
I suspect ultraprocessed foods would contribute. Highly processed carbs could play a big role. Potato chips, tortilla chips, etc.
Remember that honey is 50/50 fructose/sugar, surely all of these were considered and lumped together as "sugar".
Potato chips by themselves aren't bad -- the method they're made is. That said, living in fear of a bag of potato chips also isn't going to help lose, nor gain fat. Now pair those chips with a candy bar and you might create some problems.
Despite this, if you eat carbs/sugars with a source of PROTEIN, the effects are much different. I side with Dr. Lustig on having the NOVA food system integrated here.
I was carnivore for a year, damn near developed some body dysmorphia, even after a decade as a pro athlete.
Enjoy life, keep it balanced and don't use food for comfort, get exercise in 3-5 days a week and you don't need to worry about this fear-mongering freight train of finances.
Metabolically healthy obese exists
@@josho.9530 I avoid all sugar and starchy vegetables because of heath issues.
@@mpoharper Which is fine. That is a lifestyle requirement for you. It is a choice for the rest of society.
Taking into consideration all the above... One can drive themselves insane or they can choose better. NOVA helps with that.
@@mpoharper a fair number of people have reversed degenerative health conditions while including high starch vegetables. But if not eating them leads to an enjoyable diet and other results you desire, mazel tov.
@@oolala53 everyone is different I guess
When I was a child everyone was out. After school, weekends. We were running, jumping and very physically actively playing. Spotting someone overweight was extremely rare.
Now children spend most of their times glued to modern technology that just didn't exist.
Obese children now seem to be the norm.
The input output ratio (food intake to movement output) fits very well into these charts to indicate a causal link.
Of course everyone on this modern technology is also viewing the effects of increased advertisement spending.