Jun 29, 2013

Angry--Bake a Cake

A Case for Regulating Sugar Like Alcohol

Robert Lustig on reigning in what's toxic, addictive, and everywhere
Substances like alcohol are regulated according to four criteria. For a government to take that big step on behalf of its citizens, a substance must:
1. Be ubiquitous
2. Be toxic
3. Be addictive
4. Have a negative impact on society
There is, according to Robert Lustig, a substance that fits the bill times four -- save for the fact that it is not currently regulated. And that is sugar. Specifically,fructose. In a conversation with The Atlantic's Corby Kummer at the Aspen Ideas Festival today, Lustig -- a pediatric endocrinologist who doubles as a sugar detractor -- made the case.
Sugar, Lustig noted, is obviously ubiquitous. It has an obvious negative impact on society, given the obesity and diabetes epidemics that have caused so much anxiety in the United States. Sugar is also, Lustig argued, toxic: the mitochondria in our bodies' cells, he said, are unable to convert the excess fructose we eat into energy, so they convert it instead into liver fat. That in turn starts a cascade, causing the insulin resistance that can lead to chronic metabolic disease -- which can lead in turn to diabetes, heart disease, and possibly cancer. A study that Lustig and his colleagues conducted, which was published in the journal PLoS this February, suggested that diabetes is caused not by obesity, as is sometimes thought, but by sugar itself. Even the scientist who won the 1923 Nobel Prize for the discovery of insulin warned that high sugar consumption could be linked to diabetes. As Lustig put it during the talk, "25 percent of all the [Type 2] diabetes in the world is explained by sugar and sugar alone."
Bolstering the case for regulation, Lustig says, is the fact that sugar is addictive. Fructose, Lustig claims, can dampen the suppression of the hormones that signal both hunger and satisfaction to the brain -- which means that the more we eat, the less likely we are to feel satiated. So the more likely we are to want more. (And more, and more, and ...)
Regulation, of course, is always fraught. Regulating something like sugar would be especially tricky. Of the four regulation criteria Lustig listed, the only one that isn't really open to argument is the first: sugar's utter ubiquity. There's also the sugar lobby. There's also the fact that sugar, for consumers, tends to be cheap. There's also the fact that sugar, in many of its forms, tends to be delicious.
Still, "everyone's looking for a nutritional villain," The Atlantic's Cummer noted; we're all looking for what he called "a kind unified field theory" about what causes childhood obesity and so many of the other health problems the U.S. is facing right now. The more we learn, the more it seems that sugar is at least a component of that unified theory. And if Lustig gets his way -- if people do come to see sugar as a substance that can be abused -- public awareness might offer its own kind of regulation. Sugar, Lustig put it, is "great for your wallet, but crappy for your health." The companies that profit from its sales might not, at the moment, have an incentive to change their ways; the more the public learns about sugar's effects, though, the more we might limit our intakes of the stuff. Voluntarily.

copied from the Atlantic...........

Hey CNN: Where is the New George Strombo and Larry King

Hey CNN:  Where is the New George Strombo and Larry King

Gosh right when you get to like something and look forward to it they change everything!

I was really looking forward to seeing Larry King on the new George Strombo show on CNN.  I love Larry, I've watched him FOREVER  and I was waiting to see him all week.
I like to hear what Larry has to say--he's always positive and he is one of the best television interviewers in the business.  He says he's always curious and I am too and that's why I like him.

Friday night is not full of TV choices, as it is, for this news and PBS type person.

And now it's gone.......

And replaced with what.....more Anderson Cooper?  

Now, I like Anderson, I like him very much, but seriously, enough is enough. 

Actually, last evening Anderson Cooper's interview with the ex-wife of the father of Trayvon Martin was stunning.  I will remember it forever.  It seems like the father used her, of course she raised his kids and, by the way, loved them and took care of them, until he found someone new and then excluded her from information as if she did not have feelings.  It was tearful and hurtful for me.....It felt like she was totally used and I went away with a dislike for men.  

Anderson is talented.....but it is not the Anderson Cooper network....or is it?

If CNN would listen to me about what shows to put on I'd be a little happier....

Well, since you asked:

Right now I'll be watching, Fred and the legal boys....now if they change that there's going to be a high price to pay on my blog.

I'm still waiting for Style With Elsa Klench....Fashion Backstage Pass with Alina and her cute hairdoo will suffice nicely...on a weekly basis.

I'n not a fan of Mr Bourdain but the show on Libya was really enlightening.  I know everyone else really loves him--less of himself in that group and it would be a more tolerable situation.

Wait...what is happening right now....Fred and the boys are on early....are my clocks wrong...is it the heatwave, the cats......I've got to go.......