I am confused by Jennie Brand Miller's  conclusion to her posting of 8
November. In it she states:

"I am in the process of writing a paper titled 'Sugar - not a villain
after all'.  In it I provide the accumulated scientific evidence (most of
it from the last 5-10 years) that restricting sugar may do more harm than
good. This is because low sugar diets in HUMANS (not rats!) are
associated with:

1. an increase in fat, especially saturated fat, intake (the sugar-fat
seesaw)
2. an increase in obesity and overweight
3. an increase in the glycaemic index of the diet
4. a decrease in insulin sensitivity
5. diversion of millions of research and consumer dollars to non-sucrose
sweeteners."

The use of sugar, as "sugar" in diets was not prevalent until well into
the 17th century and for perhaps more than a century after that it was
not a general part of anyone's diet.

The use of foods from which sugars are naturally derived such as fruits,
have not, at least to my knowledge, been a common part of any diet,
anywhere in the past - or the present.

If "sugsr" is as important to the diet as Jennie indicates, it brings up
the question of what was included in the diet of the world's peoples from
Paleolithic times to almost the present that counteracted the four
harmful effects Jennie has presented?

I must add that I am disturbed by Jennie's fifth statement regarding the
waste of consumer dollars on irrelevant research. Although it was not
intentional, this sounds like an out and out blurb for the sugar
industry. It is also implies that certain other researches and product
developments never should have taken place.

robert

robert rosenstein : [log in to unmask]