Is Sugar an Addictive Poison?

Hypothesis: More sugar causes both more diabetes and more obesity



The Case Against Sugar, by Gary Taubes, Knopf, 368 pp., 26.95.

Less than 1 percent of Americans—1.6 million people—were diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes in 1958. As of 2014, that figure had risen to 9.3 percent, or 29.1 million. If current trends continue, the figure could rise to more than 33 percent by 2050. Something has clearly gone wrong with American health.

The rising rate of diabetes is associated with the rising prevalence of obesity. Since the early 1960s, the percent of Americans who are obese—that is, whose body mass index is greater than 30—has increased from 13 percent to 35.7 percent today. (Nearly 70 percent of Americans are overweight, meaning their BMIs are over 25.) Roughly put, the prevailing theory is that rising fatness causes rising diabetes.

But what if both are caused by something else? That is the intriguing and ultimately persuasive argument that Gary Taubes, author Why We Get Fat (2011) and cofounder of the Nutrition Science Initiative, makes in his new book, The Case Against Sugar.

For Taubes, sugar—be it sucrose or high-fructose corn syrup—is "the principal cause of the chronic diseases that are most likely to kill us, or at least accelerate our demise," explains Taubes at the outset. "If this were a criminal case, The Case Against Sugar would be the argument for the prosecution." In making his case, Taubes explores the "claim that sugar is uniquely toxic—perhaps having prematurely killed more people than cigarettes or 'all wars combined,' as [diabetes epidemiologist] Kelly West put it."

Taubes surveys the admittedly sparse research on sugar's psychoactive effects. For example, researchers have found that eating sugar stimulates the release of dopamine, a neurotransmitter that is also released when consuming nicotine, cocaine, heroin, or alcohol. Researchers are still debating the question of whether or not sugar is, in some sense, addictive.

In the course of his exploration, Taubes devastatingly shows that most nutrition "science" is bunk. Various nutritionists have sought to blame our chronic ills on such elements of our diets as fats, cholesterol, meat, gluten and so forth. Few have focused their attention on sugar. His discussion of how nutritionists started and promoted the now-debunked notion that eating fats is a significant cause of heart disease is particularly enlightening and dismaying. Nowadays the debate over the role of fats in cardiovascular disease consists mostly of skirmishes over which fats might marginally increase risk.

Interestingly, Taubes finds that a good bit of the research on fats was funded by the sugar industry. It is not just a coincidence that the low-fat food craze took off when the U.S. Department of Agriculture issued its first dietary guidelines in 1980 advising Americans to eat less fat. The added sugar that made the newly low-fat versions of prepared foods more palatable contributed to the rise in sweetener consumption. The USDA guidelines did advise Americans cut back on eating sugar, but they also stated that, "contrary to widespread opinion, too much sugar in your diet does not seem to cause diabetes." By the way, Taubes agrees since both sucrose and high-fructose corn syrup are essentially half glucose and half fructose there is no important metabolic differences between them.

Taubes reviews the global history of sugar consumption. The average American today eats as much sugar in two weeks as our ancestors 200 years ago consumed in a year. The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that per-person annual consumption of caloric sweeteners peaked at 153.1 pounds in 1999 and fell to only 131.1 pounds in 2014. A 2014 analysis of data from 165 countries found that "gross per capita consumption of sugar correlates with diabetes prevalence."


So how does eating lots of sugar cause disease? Reviewing the scientific literature, Taubes suggests that the high consumption of sugar eventually produces insulin resistance in the human body. That is, cells require higher and higher levels of insulin in order to coax them into metabolizing the extra glucose floating around in our bloodstreams. As a result, in order to reduce glucose levels in the blood, the pancreas produces more and more insulin—a spiral that often leads to diabetes. Taubes also cites findings that eating sugars boosts both cholesterol and triglyceride levels in the bloodstream, compounds that are associated with higher risks of cardiovascular diseases.

What happens to the fructose component of sugar? It is not regulated by insulin. Instead the oversupply of fructose goes to the liver, where it is directly transformed into fat. According to Taubes, additional glucose appears to increase the rate at which fructose is metabolized into fat. This process may well account for a good portion of the increase in obesity rates. Fat cells are not quiescent; they release various factors that increase inflammation, contributing to all sorts of chronic maladies, including arthritis, high blood pressure, heart disease, kidney disease, and dementia. A recent Australian study found that the lives of people who are diabetic at age 50 are on average three years shorter than those folk who are not.

What's the safe threshold for consuming sugar? Based on history, Taubes suggests that diabetes is rare until annual consumption begins to exceed 70 pounds per capita. He concludes that "enough evidence exists for us to consider sugar very likely to be a toxic substance, and to make an informed decision about how best to balance the likely risks with the benefits." He admits that his case is not definitive, but many readers will come away agreeing that sugar is a likely suspect in a great many modern maladies.

NEXT: Hillary Clinton Likely Lost Because More Democrats Stayed Home

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

    1. John least hard hit.

      1. SIV hardest hit.

        1. How do you think that virus got into the chickens in the first place?

          1. Where is the requisite narrow gaze here, huh?

            1. It is gone where the woodbine twineth.

              1. By which i mean, Swiss took to the bottle early and is passed out in the flowerbed.

          2. *narrows gaze*

            Hey, I gotta work sometimes!

    2. Adblock-blocked

      1. I'm just talking to the sugar man, mother!

  1. I know Sugarfree is a killer....

    of souls.

    1. I think he's a Type 1. Which means he gives type 2 diabetes to other people. They are a lot like vampires in many ways.

      1. SugarFree eats the pancreases of his victims, therefore passing on Type 1 diabetes on to them and making them part of his pancreas hunting pack.

    2. The soul is located in the pancreas, we now know.

  2. OT: Can we please replace the STEVE SMITH references with CHRISTIAN WILKINS references? At least until the championship game is over?

    1. Wrong STEVE SMITH.

      1. My father-in-law's name is Steve Smith. My wife wonders why I have to suppress the occasional giggle when we go up to visit her family.

        1. I would imagine it is a very common name among people of English descent.

          1. Is that a blacksmith joke?

            1. Racist!

      2. You mean we've been talking about Journey's drummer this whole time? He seems like such a mellow, fun-loving guy.

          1. +1 shaved sasquatch

            1. GOONIE GOO GOO!

  3. possibly but it's also good for throwing at Sugarfree, like you would salt at a snail. Also it tastes good.

  4. Personal anecdote:
    When I first cut out sugar cold turkey, I did experience withdrawals and cravings. But I stuck with it and the cravings went away. It felt pretty liberating. I also lost about 50 pounds with no other major changes or effort.
    In short: it just werks.

    1. But it tastes so fucking good!

      1. So does stevia, to me at least. I know people who hate it. Guess we're all different.

        1. I've had a number of different beverages with stevia and liked them all. Then again, I don't have a problem with aspartame either unless it's way overdone.

        2. I'm a huge fan of stevia too, have the pure powder at all times. Mostly for kool-aid because i never grew up

        3. I'm a huge fan of stevia too, have the pure powder at all times. Mostly for kool-aid because i never grew up

          1. That symbol is a microaggression.

    2. M: Interestingly, Taubes cites research that shows that at least some people really do seem to experience withdrawal if they conscientiously give up sugar. He also notes that most of us get our daily "fix" through eating prepared foods with lots of added sugars which prevents us from undergoing the unpleasantness of withdrawal even as we get fatter.

      1. Part of the challenge was removing processed foods and commercial sauces, since they virtually all contain some sugar. Even Sriracha, which was the hardest part. I had to get off my lazy ass and learn to cook. Read ingredients labels carefully, because even if it says 0g sugar, it could just be 0.49g rounded down. That's tricky too, because sugar has many monikers.

        1. I've recently cut my sugar/carbohydrate intake drastically, but you can take my Sriracha when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.

          1. Yeah, at some point you've hit the level of diminishing returns.

          2. but you can take my Sriracha when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.

            That's the sugar talking, not you!

            I've added it back to my diet now that I'm in a better position, but the reason I initially cut it out was to fully obliterate the addiction. You can't do that if you're still exposed to it on a regular basis.

          3. I am all about cutting sugar intake, but like Citizen X, I put Sriracha on everything. Therefore, I was rather puzzled and angry when Sweetgreen got rid of Sriracha because it has too much sugar. Dafuq, Sweetgreen.

    3. My anecdote is similar; cut the sugar, lost 22 kg (48 lbs) over the course of about 6 months.

    4. Same here Microaggressor. That was 20 years ago. If I eat sugar now the way the average person does it makes me sick to my stomach.

      I am in my early 50's, 5;10" and 160 lbs. Everyone I know my age is a fatty. Excepting my wife who eats the way I do.

      Too much sugar, not enough physical activity. That is the cause of diabetes.

      1. That reminds me, once I was given some sort of Starbucks beverage with a typical amount of sugar in it unbeknownst to me. This was after I had come off sugar. I felt like throwing up before I got halfway through it. You need to have a massive sugar tolerance (tolerance is a sign of addiction) to ingest that abomination, and most people seem to have no problem with it.

        Next time you see one of those prepackaged Starbucks bottles in the store, look at how much sugar is in it. It makes sodas look like a healthy choice. But people think of it as a flavored coffee drink, not a coffee flavored pile of sugar.

    5. I cut out sugar and I gained 47lbs in about 6 weeks.

      1. I'm high on sugar and find this hilarious 🙂

  5. While I've had sugar on my list of substances more addictive than weed for years that doesn't mean we need to think of the children and start a war on sugar. At this rate a ban on dihydrogen monoxide is looking like it will be seriously discussed in my lifetime.

    1. Indeed, that's a bit of a danger here. The last thing we need is the FDA regulating sugar content or something.

      It probably would help if the FDA or USDA or whoever does the dietary guidelines would come out and say that they got it totally wrong on fat and everyone should stop paying attention to government dietary advice.

      1. The sad thing is I figured out the dietary guidelines were based on nothing decades ago just by paying attention to how I felt after changing my eating habits. Why other people can't do the same, and instead rely on the government to tell them what to eat, is beyond my ability to comprehend.

        1. The USDA dietary guidelines aren't based on nothing. They're primarily based on the foods the government subsidizes. You need to be more cynical whenever you think about the government.

          1. I should have been more specific. Does it help if I expand nothing to nothing based on health or nutrition?

            Obviously Domino has a vested interest in increasing sugar consumption.

            1. That does narrow it down a tad. It's always useful to point out that the "guidelines" ostensibly meant to help with health were nothing more than sick, twisted propaganda that promoted the exact opposite of the truth, and that the government was behind it all.

    2. I've thought about going to the local college with a BAN DHMO! petition, just to see how many sigs I could get. Then, sell the names to marketing firms.

      If you're gonna be stupid, you should pay for it.

      1. How much do marketing firms pay for a list of names?

        I wouldn't mind having an enjoyable new income stream if it is worth my time.

        1. Dunno, probably not much. I haven't done it yet. Probably won't, because I'm lazy.

  6. Yes. It is. - recovering sugar addict

    1. Bacon, however, is a-ok.

      1. Correct.

      2. Absolutely, just don't buy the nitrite/trate filled shit. Get some good quality natural bacon and you won't go back.

  7. What's the safe threshold for consuming sugar?

    As much as I feel like having.

  8. It's addictive. Of course it is.

    But the tone of that has me reflexively thinking it's a call for government action. And we know how well that will go.

    1. Busybodies gonna busybody. That doesn't mean it's a bad idea to better inform your personal choices.

  9. I wonder what the distribution of sugar consumpyion looks like. The per capita is 131 lbs, but I would love to see the spread as well.

  10. So, who wrote the book on what to do if you want to gain 10-15 lbs? That's what I need.

    Eat more and work out, I guess.

    1. I have found that jerking off, eating pringles, and crying is directly correlated with weight gain.

      1. Not if you balance the jerking off and the crying with the Pringles consumption.

    2. I believe it's called "STFU, Skinny"

    3. /empties two packs of sugar into mouth. Licks lips.

      I'm like Zeb.

      I could use some pounds but in no hurry or need to do so.

      1. Mmm. I love hard boiled eggs. I need to remember to keep them around. If I have them, I'll eat them.

  11. Another interesting aspect to this, about which I read recently, is the effect of SSRIs on dopamine production in the brain. Basically, there is an inverse relationship between seratonin and dopamine. Thus, if someone is on Prozac, their dopamine production is reduced. Therefore, they need to eat more sugar to get the same dopamine kick. Furthermore, dopamine is released by the brain when you accomplish a goal. So people on Prozac are less likely to accomplish a goal. When you set a goal, the brain sets up an expectation of a dopamine release that happens when you accomplish a goal. For example, this is why you should not tell people about your goals, because their approval gives you a dopamine kick, reducing that urge and making you less likely to accomplish that goal. They've actually done experiments to prove this.

    1. I wonder if that's why some brain drugs have weight gain as a major side effect.

    2. why you should not tell people about your goals

      And here I thought the reason was to save yourself the inevitable embarrassment of failure.

      1. Both/and.

      2. I heard someone talking about that in a TED talk or something like that and found it very interesting. Seems like most people think the opposite is true, that telling other people about your goals will help because you fear social disapproval if you fail.

        1. That is probably true for some people in some types of goal setting. But when you run the experiments, it averages out to not telling being better.

          1. I believe it. I just find cases where the "common sense" view turns out to be wrong interesting.

        2. Yeah, I think that's what people try to convince themselves.

        3. I sincerely doubt the entirety of human behavior/brain activity can be accurately summed up by dopamine/seratonin balance. We definitively know it not to be strictly on/off switches at anything but the most absolute basic of levels. People went crazy and killed themselves or each other before SSRIs and continue to do so well after.

          It's exceedingly plausible that some people contain varying balances in one portion of their brain and inverse balances in others. It would only make sense if you can use an fMRI and EEG to map out function *and* bloodflow.

          Fat overweight introverts could be considered as failing at the introversion, need to stop lying to themselves, and to share their goals. Fat overweight extroverts might need a little more introversion.

    3. I've learned to counteract this by standing in front of the mirror pinching my belly fat and yelling discouraging things.

      1. You are a fat, little pig!

  12. Sugar is blessed; for without sugar, we cannot produce alcohol.

    1. Sugar should be exclusively for rum-making.

      1. mead, wine, cider, beer . . all have their places in the world

        1. Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

          1. During the winter break, I started meads using tupelo, fireweed, sourwood, and basswood honeys. This weekend, it is meadowfoam.

  13. Bailey is relying on BMI, which is junk science and LOOSELY correlated with obesity.

    why? Because it measures MASS (in ratio to height) NOT adipose/fat mass

    Many elite athletes, with bodyfat under 12% (far lower than the average man) are obese - due to MUSCLE MASS.

    BMI does not distinguish what KIND of mass when making the determination. When used with a sedentary population, it's a REASONABLE proxy, but there are a huge group of people who have "obese" or borderline obese BMI's, who have as low or lower bodyfat than normal.

    Also, for those who are athletic, they can take in far more sugar (as well as kilocalories in general) with no negative effects - in fact - with positive effects. During workouts for instance, SIMPLE sugars (the allegedly bad kind) are excellent sources of quick energy to prevent bonking etc. - endurance athletes often consume sugar during workouts and competition - with positive results.

    otoh, if you are sedentary, it is preferentially stored as fat and can wreak havoc on insulin levels etc.

    Klokov had a competition BMI of 31.2 ... tell me this guy is obese

    1. Too much muscle mass can also be detrimental. I love seeing muscled up dudes fight in the UFC. If they can't knock their opponent out in the first round, they are sucking wind by the second round. Large overbuilt muscles require a large amount of oxygen, which means lots of metabolic wear and tear in the long run. Of course, I would rather have muscle mass than fat mass in almost any situation, other than trying not to drown in the middle of the ocean.

      1. I used to love those guys who would come and play soccer. 15 minutes in they were gassed.

        1. Klokov is not an endurance athlete

          the average soccer player would suck at Olympic style weightlifting

          GOALS define optimal development.

          btw, Tara Knott, Olympic gold medalist weightlifter is a former soccer player

          many lower weight class Olympic weightlifters (Tara is about 100 lbs btw) look quite similarly muscular to some soccer players

          but are metric assloads stronger

          there are many components to strength besides muscle mass.

          Here's the first American woman in history to clean and jerk double bodyweight

          Nobody ever guesses she's a weightlifter.

          1. "the average soccer player would suck at Olympic style weightlifting"


      2. "too much muscle mass" is dependant on what function you want to perform with your body

        Olympic Style weightlifters are the most explosive athletes on earth, second in olympuic competition only to gymnasts for flexibility, and second only to sprinters in sprint speed

        when it comes to athletes, its all about FUNCTIONAL muscle mass.

        Klokov does not have "too much " muscle mass. he has a level of muscle mass allowing him to lift (along with other strength components) world class weight

        I've seen Olympic sprinters with pretty damn muscular physiques as well

        if you are a marathon runner, same would be decidedly suboptimal

        goals define what is or isn't too much muscle mass.

        1. Shouldn't you be beating suspects?

      3. Too much muscle mass can also be detrimental.
        Of course, I would rather have muscle mass than fat mass in almost any situation

        The problem isn't that too much muscle mass isn't detrimental. The problem is the average guy (or gal) doesn't finish school, buy a house, have a few kids, and find themselves middle aged, 5'8", balding, and carrying around an extra 100 lbs. of solid muscle.

        This is one point where I actually agree with Dunphy. If you get to the point of having too much muscle, it's dead simple just to eat half a meal less every day or stop adding 5 lbs. to the bar every couple mos. and "solve" your "problem". More likely than not, you don't have too much muscle mass and are making excuses for poor performance in your sport or crappy training methodologies. For every fight in the UFC you can conclusively prove was clenched because the loser was 'too big' anybody else can point to at least one, if not more, where the loser lost because he was too small, too weak, or not powerful enough.

        The whole reason for weight classes isn't because people are afraid Alvarez or dos Anjos or whomever is gonna lose a fight to a guy like Ace Yonamine. It's because they're afraid they're going to lose a career to a guy like Cormier or Werdum.

    2. TakD: Calm down. Because BMI is not perfect, does not mean that it is "junk science." Lots of research does show that obesity as measured by BMI correlates pretty well with mortality rates.

      1. Yes, and it's still junk science because it conflates WEIGHT with fat

        of course it's a decent correlate

        the problem is people say "if your BMI is over (for example) 25, you are obese"

        which is utter nonsense

        BMI in itself is USELESS without first checking to see if you are dealing with muscle or fat

        most people are sedentary unathletic wastoids. so, yes ... it's a decent correlate for an AVERAGE person

        for very many persons - it's useless

        1. It's junk when it's used to determine anything about an individual. But I think it is useful when studying populations since, for most people, BMI correlates fairly well with obesity.

      2. BMI is fine as long as you are average and 99% of us are. People seem to think that they are the Rock or something lmao. "BMI is BS because the Rock would be considered morbidly obese by the BMI!" while they shove Doritos in their maws.

    3. 99% of us don't work out like the body builders/athletes/etc that would be considered "obese" because of BMI. If you are 5'10" and weigh 250lbs and never exercise and sit on your ass all day, you're a lard ass. That's not the same as a 5'10" weight lifter with 60lbs of muscle.

  14. And think a 5 year old can walk into any grocery in America and buy as much of this deadly substamce as they can carry. I remember during the height of the fat hysteria seeing the bags of sugar with "non fat food" written on them. People are so stupid.

    1. - You mean there was no deep fat? No steak or cream pies or... hot fudge?
      - Those were thought to be unhealthy... precisely the opposite of what we now know to be true.
      - Incredible.

      1. So, where's my orgasmatron?

        Gimme a hit of that orb.

      2. deep fat

        I once played in a band that had a singer nicknamed "Evil Fat". Don't know why that occurred to me, but whatever, It's only 2:35 ET, but I've had a lot to drink.

    2. I remember during the height of the fat hysteria seeing the bags of sugar with "non fat food" written on them.

      I've actually seen that not too long ago. It's ridiculous, but decades of propaganda have convinced the average consumer that "nonfat" and "low-fat" is automatically good.

  15. Oh goody. Another mass shooting the left can cream their jeans about.

    1. Oh please Gaia, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE let it be a white male!
      -Every prog in the country

    2. At an airport. Clearly the TSA is keeping us safe.

      1. Eyewitness:

        (Shooter) was screaming 'I'm not Jewish! I'm not Jewish!'

    3. *shooter turns out to be a POC*

      "Nothing to see here..." -Lefties

    4. Stupid dingbat CNN anchor asks witness to describe the gun, not the shooter. SMH.

    5. Shooter ID'ed. Name sounds Hispanic, had military ID.

      This will be memoryholed. Not a white man with illegal guns.

    6. Senator Bill Nelson already creaming himself. Says he proposed a new gun bill recently.

      Shut your fucking face, Uncle Fucker.

    7. Let's hope it wasn't one of those Somalians that DHS was giving airport tours to.

    8. What does that have to do with this article? Please stay on topic.

  16. Meh, that's why I bake primarily with stevia instead of sugar.

    I don't think I'd go so far as to call sugar a toxin, though.

  17. I know this kid who tried sugar when he was little and grew up to be a successful and fat narc and 'accidentally' killed himself while cleaning his pistol after coming home from a drug raid.

  18. The government has to act to solve Americans' addiction to food.

    1. Top. Men. have been working hard for the better part of a decade to ensure that Americans can't afford food, so there's that.

    2. I didn't read that anywhere in this article. I have read nothing in Taubes writing about mandating anything, and I've read two of his books. He actually kicks and screams that the government is full of shit and has been paid off by various food interests to make fat the villain. He might even be libertarian. He certainly does not love the government's policies on food and sees a lot of cronyism in the FDA and their pushing the food pyramid despite tons of research that shows it's all BS.

  19. ANYTHING that is pleasurable is addictive

    1. Like Morgan Fairchild's vagina?

      1. That was probably true 30 years ago...

  20. The Archies hardest hit

  21. I am not a doctor, though I play one on comment boards, and I do not discount the arguments against sugar, but, I still believe the problem lies with lack of activity. Americans are just more sedentary than they were in the '50's. Many, many more Americans worked more labor-intensive jobs. Their leisure time was not spent behind a TV, computer, video game, etc. Very nearly every bad thing we do to our bodies can be counter-balanced by an active lifestyle. We spend way to much time indoors, sitting. There is evidence that the rise of autism may be caused by lack of vitamin D, which is the result of spending to much time indoors. Granted, most of the indoors time is attributable to melanoma scares. But at 47, all I consume is sugary drinks (coffee w/sugar in the morning, gatorade and fruit juice in the afternoons, and Pepsi in the evening) and have one hell of a sweet-tooth, but weigh 180lbs at 5'10" (basically the same size as many RB and DB in the NFL). But I also have a very active lifestyle.

    1. I know no one who stays inside because they worried about melanoma other than people who burn easy. It's because they're either lazy and addicted to computer games and reading like me or other reasons.

  22. Over Christmas, my wife made this stuff that consisted of saltines, toffee (i.e. sugar), chocolate forsting, and M. I could not stop eating it, and felt like a cokehead with a bunch of lines in front of him. I probably put away a pound of it at a time and told her not to make it ever again. She laughed and told me she heard it was called "Christmas Crack." I generally am skeptical of most claims that something is physically addictive, but damn! that stuff certainly was - probably the combination of salt and sugar.

    1. how much of it did she eat ?

  23. The government is wrong.
    Your grandmother was/is right.
    About everything.

    1. Hardly. If we listened to my grandfather we'd all be mining coal and drinking ourselves to death.

  24. "Sugar is like oxygen
    You get too much
    You get too high
    Not enough
    And you are gonna die"

    1. Your body doesn't need refined sugar, it can get all the sugar it need from breaking down fats and proteins.

  25. I believe Taubes is onto something. See, for example, the "A-TO-Z Study" from Peabody at My personal experience and that of my family fully support his ideas. See also

  26. my roomate's step-mother makes $72 every hour on the computer . She has been out of a job for six months but last month her check was $13623 just working on the computer for a few hours. blog here


  27. The three inputs I determine to correlate most closely with the output of shitty human health are poor diet (sugar-heavy, fiber-low, too few veggies and too little fat), smoking, and being sedentary.

    I am continually amazed at how much most of my patients loathe exercise of any sort. When I point out that you don't need to be a gym rat, but merely walk around the block five days per week, the excuse is always time.

    When a vascular surgeon is telling one of them their leg needs to come off, some of them decide to care. They save the other leg. Some of them surrender the fight, and disappear piece by piece until they die.

    1. "When a vascular surgeon is telling one of them their leg needs to come off, some of them decide to care. They save the other leg. Some of them surrender the fight, and disappear piece by piece until they die."

      these people are a virus that need more than just weight loss assistance. maybe hotel auschwitz for them.

  28. My mother is 88. She lives on coffee and sugar and is thin, fit with no major health issues. Why do I always know people that don't fit the alarmists model? Perhaps a book is to be sold or a career to be made?

    1. Everyone is different, but on average people consume way too much sugar and refined carbs and worry too much about healthy natural fats and protein consumption (red meat especially). My numbers were borderline unhealthy, I went on a keto diet and dropped 80lbs in a year. My doctor said all my vitals are now well within the normal to excellent range. You are what you eat. Everyone knows that lucky person who can anything and stay perpetually skinny, but they are far and few between, most of us have to make a choice.

  29. While I don't know if sugar is the cause for everyone's wait problem, it certainly was mine. I cut out sugar and "white starches" like potatoes, flour, etc and dropped 80lbs in a year. It was rough for about a month with the cravings but then it's over and well worth the effort. We certainly are consuming far more sugar and carbs than our evolving ancestors ever did. I think the low carb/keto people are onto something and it certainly worked for me. That said I don't think government legislation is the answer, but the food pyramid is a joke. There are healthy fats and proteins. I'm in better shape now at 40 than I was at 25.

  30. uptil I saw the paycheck for $7608 , I accept friend woz realey bringing home money in there spare time on their apple labtop. . there aunts neighbour has done this for under 18 months and at present paid the loans on there house and purchased a new Chrysler . Check This Out


  31. is this an ad for the guys book or what ? wtf is the point ?

  32. I bought brand new RED Ferreri by working ONline work. Six month ago i hear from my friend that she is working some online job and making more then 98$/hr i can't beleive. But when i start this job i have to beleived herNow i am also making 98$/hr if you want to try just check this out.....


  33. Nevaeh. I agree that Richard`s storry is shocking... last wednesday I got a great BMW M3 from earning $5318 this-past/4 weeks and just a little over 10/k lass month. without a question it is the most comfortable job Ive ever had. I began this 10-months ago and pretty much straight away got me at least $83, p/h. see here now


  34. Sorry I'm late to the party. Forgive me if an earlier poster already stated my anecdotal theory.
    Allow me to share...It's not the sugar directly, It's the wheat.
    My Dr, a sports physician, recommended studying "wheat belly" (books and videos)
    I gave up almost all the wheat I would usually eat and lost weight, gained muscle mass, felt much better, decreased the mass of waste coming out of my body, started racing again, look fabulous, increased humility etc. I do not have to count any calories and can eat all the fat, sweets, protein, meats, nuts, fruit I want. Plus, the chicks dig me.
    59, 160, 5'11"
    Just say no to the loaf.

  35. One Person Company is a type of company in which an individual can own the entire firm in his/her name and expand their business. One of my friend used to deal in Sugar business and registered his company as one person company. Now he enjoys government subsidy.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.