On Tue, 28 May 2002, Ken Stuart wrote:

> "Sugar" is just a refining of the juice of the sugar cane plant, which
> itself, AFAIK, is an entirely paleo food prized by Asian children for
> thousands of years.

I think we can understand "sugar," from whatever source, to refer
to sucrose.  Beets and dates and most fruits are other paleo
sources.

> I would guess that there has not been any great increase in the per
> capita consumption of "sugar" during the period where heart disease has
> increased.

I disagree.  The period of escalation of heart disease in the US
has been from about 1920 to roughly 1970, then reaching a
plateau.  During that time, I think sugar consumption, in the
form of candies, cookies, and soft drinks, has risen sharply.

> During that same period, due to agribusiness lobbyists, the government
> started its advocacy of the "low fat" diet.   People did not substitute
> "sugar" for the fatty foods they used to eat (like meat), instead they
> substituted "starches", like bread and potatoes.

I think the low fat diet initiative started well after heart
disease was on the rise.  In fact, it really got going in
*response* to that increase, as heart disease rates were peaking.

People had been eating plenty of starchy foods, in the form of
bread and potatoes, biscuits, pancakes, and waffles, for
generations.  My grandparents certainly didn't skimp on such
foods.  But they didn't have two-liter bottles of soda constantly
on hand, or Pop-Tarts, or endless supplies of cookies.

> Since protein usually is found in combination with fat, the "low fat"
> diet simply resulted in a large increase in the consumption of
> carbohydrates.

That's true, but the low-fat diet came to late to explain the
increase in heart disease.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]