[ASC-list] FW: Fructose and obesity (Was this delivered? Not to my address by 1730 hours on 21 Feb)

Chris Forbes-Ewan forbes-ewan at tassie.net.au
Mon Feb 22 21:51:22 UTC 2010


In my message below I described the background to a blog entry titled
'Attack of the Chocolatier' on David  Gillespie's site: www.raisin-hell.com

 

There are now more than 70 comments on that site, of which about 30 are from
me.

 

I wouldn't expect anyone to try to read all the comments (unless they are
suffering from insomnia), but you may be interested in the following comment
which has gone to several of Gillespie's other blog entries. It will also go
to the Nutritionists Network and to Gillespie's entries on Crikey, among
other places.

 

If any journalist is interested in writing an article about this, I would
pleased to assist in any way I can.

 

Chris Forbes-Ewan

 

19 Hedley St

Scottsdale  Tas  7260

 

Phone: 03 6352 2092

 

COMMENT

 

Readers of David Gillespie's blogs may be interested to know that it is now
more than two weeks since I first attempted to get David to reply to a
series of questions in a comment about his blog entry titled 'Attack of the
Chocolatier'. 

My questions cut to the core of David's treatment (or rather mistreatment)
of the science that he claims underpins his book 'Sweet Poison'. David
hasn't answered any of my questions. 

By refusing (or perhaps more appropriately not being able) to answer those
questions, David is tacitly admitting that the science behind his book
'Sweet Poison' is fatally flawed. 

As I have demonstrated in other comments on 'Attack of the Chocolatier' and
in my Ockham's Razor program (ABC Radio National) of 10 Jan 10, David
Gillespie is not a reliable source of information on the health effects of
fructose.

The questions are:

(i) In light of the evidence provided by Rosemary Stanton that there has
either been no increase or a slight decline in food intake in the last 30
years (see my comment sent on January 29, 2010 at 8:48 PM), do you still
believe that food intake has increased by 30% in Australia in the last three
decades? 

(ii) Taking into account your claim that average Australian intake of
fructose is about two-thirds the average intake in the US, and that the US
intake accounts for 9-10% of total energy intake (references provided in my
comment sent on January 29, 2010 at 10:10 PM) do you still claim that almost
20% of our energy intake is now derived from fructose?

(iii) Noting that the authors of the 1985 paper by Reiser et al. [Am J Clin
Nutr. 1985 Aug;42(2):242-51] refer (more than once) to a '... lack of
relationship between the onset of the abnormalities and the type of dietary
carbohydrate', do you still claim that fructose consumption was the cause of
severe heart conditions in four participants in that study?

(iv) Noting that at least 19 human fructose-feeding studies were conducted
after 1985 (references provided in my comment of January 30, 2010 at 6:02
PM) do you still claim that no further human studies were conducted
following that date?

(v) Noting that the World Health Organisation recommends that the maximum
safe intake of added sugars is 10% of total energy (or rather just short of
10%); that the NHMRC dietary guideline is to 'consume only moderate levels
of sugars and foods containing added sugars'; that the American Heart
Association sets safe upper levels of intake of 35 g of added sugar for men
and 25 g for women, and that 12 of the 19 references to human studies
conducted in the period 1985-2007 reported positive or, at worst, neutral
effects attributable to fructose, do you still believe that added fructose
is a poison in the diet at any dose?

(vi) Given that the NHMRC in Australia and ACSM in the US (and other
national health authorities) recognise the value of physical activity in
weight control, do you still believe that physical activity has no role to
play in weight control?

(vii) Noting that the conclusion of the most recent meta-analysis (in the
December 26 edition of Clinical Nutrition) concludes that 'There is no
support from the human literature for the hypothesis that sucrose may be
physically addictive ...', do you still insist that fructose-the relevant
component of sucrose in this context-is addictive in humans?

 

 

 

From: asc-list-bounces at lists.asc.asn.au
[mailto:asc-list-bounces at lists.asc.asn.au] On Behalf Of Chris Forbes-Ewan
Sent: Saturday, 30 January 2010 10:47 PM
To: asc-list at lists.asc.asn.au
Subject: [ASC-list] Fructose and obesity

 

Around the middle of last year an Ockham's Razor program by David Gillespie
was briefly discussed on this list. 

 

Gillespie, who is a lawyer, not a nutritionist or scientist of any other
kind, has also written a book, Sweet Poison. In his book and Ockham's Razor
program Gillespie claims that there is overwhelming scientific evidence that
fructose consumption is the cause of both the obesity epidemic and most
chronic diseases. The URL for his program is:

 

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/ockhamsrazor/stories/2009/2621415.htm

 

Three weeks ago I presented an Ockham's Razor program in which I argued that
Gillespie has grossly exaggerated the case against fructose. The URL for my
program is:

 

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/ockhamsrazor/stories/2010/2770728.htm

 

Gillespie responded to my program with an entry on his blog. His blog entry
repeats many of the errors contained in his book and Ockham's program and
adds a few new ones. From the early comments about his blog entry and my
program, he appears to have strong supporters.

 

I have also contributed comments, and will continue to do so for a few days
yet (there is still a lot to say about David Gillespie's lack of
understanding of nutritional science, his misrepresentation of the results
of scientific studies, and his selective use of evidence). 

 

If you are interested in this subject, the blog and comments are available
at:

 

http://www.raisin-hell.com/

 

Chris Forbes-Ewan

 

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.lists.sublimeip.com/pipermail/asc-list/attachments/20100223/34a0942d/attachment.htm>


More information about the ASC-list mailing list