If food is labelled low fat, it’s got to be better for weight loss, right? Wrong – it’s the total kilojoules that matter most for weight loss. Looking solely at fat content only gives you part of the picture.
Back in the 1970s, few foods were specifically manufactured to be low in fat. If, on doctor’s orders, you had to follow a low-fat diet, a trip around the supermarket was fast – skim milk, lots of vegetables and fruit, cottage cheese, fresh fish, and that was about it. Needless, to say you lost weight and got bored very quickly.
In 1982, we got our first set of Australian Dietary Guidelines, recommending we “avoid eating too much fat”. After that, a few more low-fat products appeared on the supermarket shelves.
The second edition of the guidelines in 1992 called for us to “eat a diet low in fat, and in particular, low in saturated fat”. This was attributed to recognition that obesity had now become a problem in Australia.
Then, in the mid-1990s, guidelines for foods with low-fat and reduced-fat content claims on their labels appeared in the Code of Practice on Nutrient Claims. From this time we really started to see an increase in products making these claims.
If a food label claims a product is low in fat, it must contain only three grams of fat or less per 100 grams of product. If it says reduced fat, it must contain at least 25% less fat than the usual version of this food.
The dietary guidelines were revised again in 2003 and the recommendations for lower total fat and saturated fat choices were embedded across a number of the guidelines, with a specific statement to “take care to limit saturated fat and moderate total fat intake”.
We have now been advised to reduce our fat intakes for over 30 years, and low-fat products flood our supermarkets and food courts. Sadly, however, our waistlines have continued to expand and our fat intakes have not reduced.
Something is clearly awry. Somewhere along the way, low fat has been misinterpreted to mean “eat more” because it is low in fat. So rather than linger over a sliver of sponge cake that would contain about 600 kilojoules (150 Calories), I can scoff a muffin the size of a small plate with as many as 2,000 kilojoules (500 Calories), because the sign said low fat.
Just because a food is low in fat doesn’t mean it’s low in total kilojoules.
What does the evidence say?
Food is made from macro-nutrients: protein, fats and carbohydrates. These each provide energy in the form of kilojoules. One gram of protein provides 17KJ, one gram of carbohydrate provides 16kJ and one gram of fat provides 37kJ. Fat has the highest kilojoules so you would think that following a diet low in fat should automatically mean you eat fewer kilojoules and lose weight. Not so.
My colleagues and I recently updated the adult weight-management guidelines for the Dietitians Association of Australia and reviewed the recent evidence comparing higher carbohydrate/lower fat diets for weight loss to higher fat/lower carbohydrate diets.
The good news was we found there were lots of studies, with a systematic review and seven recent randomised-controlled trials. Overall, when protein and energy intake were held constant across the two diets, both approaches were equally effective in achieving weight loss.
Back onto the Australian Dietary Guidlines, the latest draft says to “limit intake of foods and drinks containing saturated and trans fats and to include small amounts of foods that contain unsaturated fats."
If you’re putting low-fat foods into your shopping trolley, it’s wise to stick to the ones that would have been around in your grandparent’s day. This means eating more vegetables, fruits and low-fat dairy products, plus whole grains, fish, or vegetarian sources of protein such as baked beans. It also means avoiding packaged and highly-processed low-fat foods.
If a low-fat diet is not palatable to you, you can still lose weight eating more fat, but you will need to be more aware of the kilojoule value of the foods you choose to eat.
The bottom line is that when it comes to weight loss, watch the total kilojoules, because it’s excess kilojoules rather than dietary fat that leads to weight gain.
Comments on this article are now closed.
Sharon Potocnik
Student, Nutrition
Well put. I and my friends who have followed my lead have successfully lost weight by simultaneously reducing portion size while increasing micronutrient density and diversity. Yet can someone explain to me why the call for low-fat dairy continues, even at the end of this article? As I understand it, reducing the fat content of milk reduces the kilojoules marginally while simultaneously slashing the nutritional value. 190mL of full cream milk apparently has the same kilojoules as 250mL of reduced fat milk but around 3 times the vitamin A content for example. If this article is about weight loss, I can vouch that it is possible to lose weight while eating full fat dairy products.
Graham Smith
Self Employed
Wouldn't low-fat dairy products be fine provided they are not loaded up with sugars as are many low-fat yoghurts?
Provided of course servings are kept at the same or lower levels.
If fat content of a dairy product is reduced, and not replaced with carbohydrate or protein, then surely the total kilojoule level is also reduced.
Sharon Potocnik
Student, Nutrition
Graham, my concern is that reduced fat dairy equals nutrient diminished dairy. Reducing portion size can have a much greater impact on total daily kilojoule intake than bothering with small reductions from tweaking food fat content. In my experience, my eating was not being driven by real hunger, but rather by cravings. By ensuring most food that I eat is high in nutrition, including eggs, natural oils, butter, full cream natural yoghurt (not forgetting fruit/vegies/meat/fish etc.) cravings hit less regularly and I know now to treat cravings with an intake of nutrition dense/diverse foods rather than low nutrient/high kilojoule/processed food.
Murray Webster
Forestry-Ecology Consultant/Contractor
I had read that when calorie intake decreases, after some period the body learns to deal with the new energy regime, and lowers 'metabolic' rate and can even decrease muscle mass. Is this true? and how is it accounted for in a low-calorie diet?
Seamus Gardiner
Citizen
Add activity into the equation, Murray.
Clare Collins
Professor in Nutrition and Dietetics at University of Newcastle
Murray
If you exercise during weight loss this helps to counter the loss of muscle tissue and minimises the reduction in metabolic rate. If your body was a car, then metabolic rate is equivalent to the car being in idle. If you diet to lose weight without doing any exercise- then you will lose a greater amount of muscle, which is like taking a cylinder out of the car engine. To keep all the cylinder firing you need to keep using them though exercise, However, when you are successful in weight loss, it is like switching to a smaller car, so from a 4-wheel drive to a sedan. So, although you now have a car that uses less fuel, it actually easier to drive it around.
Seamus Gardiner
Citizen
I just came back from a few weeks in France. One thing that struck me was there were no ads for reduced fat anything or any diet products whatsoever.
I saw no low fat anything and conversely was pretty much forced into a diet of pastries, bread, cheese, salami, yoghurt and fresh fruit.
i saw very, very few obese people (although it's possible they were locked away somewhere). I'm not suggesting a correlation between a fat-filled diet and a lean population, nor am I suggesting that the French are healthier (they seem to smoke a hell of a lot too), but I'm wondering if a fixation on low fat food is counter-productive. Perhaps we should be thinking about high satiety food and plenty of exercise.
Mark Dressler
logged in via email @gmail.com
Yes the French paradox, it's called.
Regan Forrest
logged in via Twitter
I noticed the opposite when I was in the US last year. In the supermarket I struggled to find any yoghurt that wasn't "nonfat". I finally did find one, compared the nutritional information and found it had fewer calories than its 'nonfat' cousin, which presumably was laden with sugars.
Clare Collins
Professor in Nutrition and Dietetics at University of Newcastle
Sharon, fro Australians, full fat dairy is still one of the major sources of saturated fa. For heart disease risk reduction, I major aspect of dietary advice is to reduce saturated fat. For many people, swapping to lower fat types of dairy is one of the easier dietary changes to make. You can make up the vitamin A by increasing intake of the vegetables and fruits high in the precursor beta-carotene, such as carrots, pumpkin, rockmelon.
Sharon Potocnik
Student, Nutrition
"a recent meta-analysis of prospective studies found no evidence that dietary saturated fat was associated with an increased risk of coronary heart disease and stroke" pg 331, Essentials of Human Nutrition, editors Jim Mann and A. Stewart Truswell 4th Edition. (Sorry I don't have the book at the moment to provide the details of the meta-analysis refered to)
Given they weren't even referring specifically to the potentially healthful dairy saturated fat, I still don't understand why dieticians and government health promotions still insist on low-fat dairy? I really want to understand this.
Clare Collins
Professor in Nutrition and Dietetics at University of Newcastle
Sharaon
thanks for that. You may like to read the draft revised Dietary Guidelines document at this link:-
http://www.eatforhealth.gov.au/sites/default/files/files/public_consultation/n55_draft_australian_dietary_guidelines_consultation_121003.pdf
Guideline 2 curently says:- Limit intake of foods and drinks containing saturated and trans fats, added salt, added sugars and alcohol.
This is the advise currently for the general Australian population. If you would like to read the more detailed evidence systhesis it starts on page 62.
Sharon Potocnik
Student, Nutrition
Thanks for the reference. I have read it now and find it unconvincing. For example, "Excess weight: The evidence suggests that consumption of milk is not associated with weight change or risk of obesity in adults......" I couldn't see any evidence presented suggesting that full fat dairy was unhealthy for you, only that low fat dairy (and often any dairy) is good for you. This leaning toward low fat dairy is more likely due to the trial design than any evidence that full fat dairy is detrimental.
Russell T
IT Consultant
This may be the study Sharon was referring to.
Effect of dairy consumption on weight and body composition
in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized
controlled clinical trials
AS Abargouei1,2, M Janghorbani3, M Salehi-Marzijarani3 and A Esmaillzadeh1,2
International Journal of Obesity advance online publication, 17 January 2012; doi:10.1038/ijo.2011.269
CONCLUSION: Increased dairy consumption without energy restriction might not lead to a significant change in weight…
Read morePaul Rogers
logged in via Twitter
Sharon, see the latest reviews and analyses of saturated fat and cardiovascular disease here:
"The role of reducing intakes of saturated fat in the prevention of cardiovascular disease: where does the evidence stand in 2010?"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21270379
And also . . .
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22583051
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22658146
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22854398
However, please note that the evidence for increased insulin resistance, inflammation, and cognitive decline is also emerging for excessive saturated fat consumption.
Clare Collins
Professor in Nutrition and Dietetics at University of Newcastle
Paul and Sharon
This is a 2012 Update to that 2010 paper which tries to summarise the pros and cons of dietary fat
Fatty acids in cardiovascular health and disease: a comprehensive update. J Clin Lipidol. 2012 May-Jun;6(3):216-34.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22658146
Paul Rogers
logged in via Twitter
Clare,
Yes, I've listed that one as well in the other group. The first one I posted has a link to free full text on the right; that's why I put that one first.
Recent Willett paper there as well.
Cheers.
chris matthews
mediator
I find this article quite simplistic and somewhat confusing. There is no discussion of the various caloriific differences in eating fat, carbohydrates or protein.
My understanding is that for every 100 calories of carbohydrate consumed virtually all is transformed to energy. For every 100 calories of fat consumed about 88% is transformed to energy, the rest being used to process the fat. For every 100 calories of protein consumed about 70% is transformed to energy. Moreover protein also provides a higher level of undigestible material which is expelled.
Any discussion of fat in the diet needs establish its place next to other types of food.
Sue Ieraci
Public hospital clinician
chris - maybe re-read the article, including "what does the evidence say".
You say "Moreover protein also provides a higher level of undigestible material which is expelled." Can you show some evidence for this? It is usually considered that plant materials contain more indigestible fibre, which is generally a benefit as part of a balanced diet.
Paul Rogers
Manager
Chris, you are referring to the "thermic effect of food" or TEF.
But you've got it the wrong way around. Fat has the least TEF at around 97% usable energy, that is, very little energy is taken to digest and store fat. Carbohydrate is next at about 85%, and protein the lowest at around 72% -- give or take a few percent according to various studies.
However, early studies were mostly with simple, refined carbohydrates, so whole grain or high-fibre CHO are not far behind protein in the amount of energy lost to digestion and storage.
Gary Cassidy
To me the idea that since fat has 37KJ/g and carbohydrate has 16KJ/g that eating a low fat/high carb diet will result in eating fewer overall kilojoules is flawed. Our bodies have a very powerful inbuilt mechanism (hunger) to ensure adequate energy intake - eating fewer kilojoules than our body requires will trigger hunger. Most diets fail because hunger is such a powerful driver. Unfortunately our inbuilt mechanisms to avoid over eating are not so good - particularly with processed foods.
Also, it seems that a high sugar intake will likely lead to wait gain in ad libitum diets.
Gary Cassidy
"Also, it seems that a high sugar intake will likely lead to wait gain in ad libitum diets."
Oops! Forgot the reference.
http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.e7492
Paul Savage
Theme Leader, Biotechnology at CSIRO
Gary, I think you have hit on a very important point that's been only touched on slightly in the article - hunger. While dietary kJ might all be equivalent, different foods have different short-term and long-term satiety levels. For example a handful of popped corn has low kJ but feels quite filling in the short term because of its bulk. The same amount of energy consumed in the form of fat or sugar might not feel nearly so filling.
In addition there is the complication of thirst. Drinks with differing sugar and fat contents quench thirst more or less similarly so if (e.g.) soft drinks or energy drinks are consumed primarily to quench thirst the body's hydration requirement may override any satiety signals coming from the sugar in the drink. So a normal meal + a 12 oz can of Coke might feel similar to the same meal + a 10 oz glass of water but the former would contain an additional 40 grams of sugar.
Judith Olney
Ms
Thanks Gary, interesting point.
I recently decided to lose some extra kgs, I wanted to lose about 5-7 kgs to get back to a point where I feel healthy and energetic. These extra 5-7 kgs make a huge difference to my energy levels.
I found, when I put on the weight over the winter, that I was constantly hungry (what I thought was hunger), and was eating larger portions, and craving sweets.
I didn't go on a specific diet, but simply reduced my portion sizes, did not eat processed foods, and…
Read moreJohn Doyle
architect
I get the impression that you Clare are still beholden to the idea that saturated fat is a food to be reduced in our diets. I hope you are not clinging to studies that are based on the seriously flawed work of Ancel Keys?
Read moreSurely you agree with the statement, I cannot remember by whom, that "fat is our most valuable food".
It's also the 6th taste recently discovered here in Australia. Lack of fat equals lack of taste, and we substitute sugars and salt to compensate in processed food.
Unfortunately…
Rosemary Stanton
Nutritionist & Visiting Fellow at University of New South Wales
In reply to John
If I wanted a house designed, I would be unlikely to go to see Clare Collins. By the same token, if someone wants nutrition advice, I wouldn't advise them to go to you.
Russell T
IT Consultant
Hi Sharon,
That it is a reasonable take. However, I think you should mention exercise. I used to cycle everywhere and also walk a lot. As my children grew and we moved to the country these pastimes disappeared as a possibility as I was always driving someone somewhere and having a sedentary job in IT this didn't work very well for my waistline. In no time I had put on 15 kilos even though I purposely adopted 2 border collies so I was forced to walk at least for 1 hour each day. Then the inevitable…
Read moreRosemary Stanton
Nutritionist & Visiting Fellow at University of New South Wales
Thanks for a nicely balanced article Clare.
I especially liked the fact that you noted that the low fat message had not resulted in any decrease in our fat intake.
Personally, I think the search for some particular combination of macronutrients continues the idea that there must be some magic formula for weight loss. It also delays the need to look at foods. No one eats protein or fat or carbohydrate. We eat foods and with only a few exceptions, few foods consumed on their own contain a single macronutrient.
The people who give up sugar usually also reduce their fat intake because they stop eating biscuits, cakes, most pastries, ice creams, desserts and confectionery. Similarly those who cut down on fat will also have rejected these foods as well as battered and fried foods, cream, butter and margarine. Both options therefore reduce kilojoule intake and as you have noted from your analysis of many research papers, cutting kilojoules is the crux of the matter.
Sharon Potocnik
Student, Nutrition
Thank you all on your contributions to my question of "why low-fat dairy?". I am only a lay-person with an interest in nutrition, but having read Essentials of Human Nutrition, edited by Jim mann and A. Stewart Truswell, it said that milk drinking has not been associated with increased cardio-vascular disease. In addition, milk fat apparently contains 400 diffferent fatty acids and other biologically active compounds beneficial for health. I only used Vitamin A as one example of what is lost when…
Read moreJohn Doyle
architect
To Rosemary Stanton's reply to my message
Rosemary, don't play the man, play the ball.
Sue Ieraci
Public hospital clinician
I din't read Rosemary's comment as playing the man, but as a criticism of unsubstantiated assertions made by an untrained person, criticising a referenced article by someone who is trained in the field.
Rosemary's wording was more succinct.
(Oh, and fructose is not "poison to the liver".)
John Doyle
architect
Sue, you are also leaping to conclusions. Rosemary's response did not address the issues etc I write about. She just takes the arrogant view that she's an expert who wants to play it like a politician. She's obviously more a politician than a dietician these days. That's why she played the man.
You are equally arrogant to dismiss me as untrained. What makes you think I am guessing at any of this??? I have probably done more research than you [?] Dr. Professor Robert Lustig at UCLA says" fructose…
Read moreSue Ieraci
Public hospital clinician
John Doyle, since you described yourself as "architect", I assumed you had not formally studied the clinical sciences.
If I was mistaken, perhaps you could explain your understanding of fructose metabolism, and how you came to the conclusion that this naturally occurring fruit sugar is "poison".
John Doyle
architect
How nice, Sue!
You want me, an "untrained person" to do your research for you?
Well I'm happy to steer you in the right direction!
Maybe then you won't be so dismissive of my efforts.
Unfortunately I don't know how to import a link to this site so I have copied it out.
It is a 90 minute video presentation with everything you need.
You might "get" the science since you are in the field.
<http:www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player embedded&v=dBnniua6-oM>
I have had trouble copying it out before so I hope it opens for you.
But Google 'Robert Lustig' and you'll find it.
There are plenty of other links around about all these dietary boo-boos I can send.
I can list books you should read, like"Big Fat Lies" by David Gillespie who also wrote"Sweet Poison"
This is what I am saying. It's another world now!
Dieticians need to catch up, because they are dragging the chain.
It's no joke. It's serious, and life saving!
John Doyle
architect
I tried the link
It doesn't open directly to the video, just Youtube.
But if you enter Robert Lustig in the search box it appears as "SUGAR. THE BITTER TRUTH"
Rosemary Stanton
Nutritionist & Visiting Fellow at University of New South Wales
John, I wasn't 'playing the man' although I could be accused of 'playing the profession' in that I was indicating that different fields of study equip us with different knowledge and skills. if you want another example, if I want my car fixed, I don't take it to my dentist - and I certainly don't ask the mechanic for a dental check up.
BTW chicken that is not raised organically may contain antibiotic residues, but chickens are not given hormones. Same thing with pigs - antibiotics but not hormones…
Read moreRosemary Stanton
Nutritionist & Visiting Fellow at University of New South Wales
Now who's playing the (wo)man?
I trust I am not arrogant.
And since when was I a politician?
I'd be interested in your definition of 'research'.
BTW I met and interviewed John Yudkin. I also knew Ancel Keys - in his latter years when he spent his life trying to get people to follow his beloved Mediterranean diet. He was strongly of the opinion that too much sugar was a bad thing. He also spent many years trying to get people to eat more vegetables and fruit, to choose wholegrain products and use extra virgin olive oil and nuts as their major sources of dietary fat. I am amazed at how some popular book authors frequently misquote both Yudkin and Keyes and this then passes down through blogs. I'd recommend reading Keyes actual papers and his books.
Sue Ieraci
Public hospital clinician
No, John Doyle - you have misunderstood. I have already studied physiology, and came to a different conclusion to you (and David Gillespie) as have the vast majority of people who have studied the field. Fructose does not "poison the liver".
If you understand the physiology of fructose metabolism differently to the mainstream, then it's up to you to defend that position.
If you are talking about excess, then all sorts of things that are safe or even life-sustaining in balanced amounts can…
Read moreSue Ieraci
Public hospital clinician
Rosemary - we appear to be living in a time when "diet is everything" and everyone wants to assert their lay opinion. Since this is your field of expertise, I imagine it could drive you crazy. Everyone appears to be after a simple answer "just cut this out" or "eat lots of this and none of that" when reality is about balance - of both energy and nutrients.
I also see a misunderstanding of the "modern" diet. Apart from the obvious increase in obesity, have you seen evidence that Australians are…
Read morePaul Savage
Theme Leader, Biotechnology at CSIRO
Sue I think we need to be careful about being dismissive of the "lay person's" right to opinion. Some of your comments here an other places come dangerously close, in my opinion, to argumentum ad verecundiam. If we go down that path only political scientists should comment on politics, only athletes on sport, and only architects on building aesthetics. That path also leads to the potential of group think and "conventional wisdom", which can entrench errors for decades. Of course it's okay to debate…
Read moreSue Ieraci
Public hospital clinician
Thanks for your comment, Paul.
I suggest you read Patrick Stokes piece "No, you're not entitled to your opinion" (meaning: you have to justify it).
Sue Ieraci
Public hospital clinician
"the profession has done itself few favours over the years with flip flops on foods that were good for you, bad for you, made you fat or not, raised or lowered your cholesterol, etc. "
Paul - if you are a science practitioner, you will be familiar with the fact that science continuously updates itself as new evidence emerges. Does that not happen in your field?
"Remind me again, should I cut salt from my diet or not?" Use moderation and don';t look for simplistic answers.
John Doyle
architect
Dear Rosemary
Read moreI'm sorry, of course you "played the man"! You regarded my knowledge as worthless and acted like politicians do and aimed at me personally. I'm sure you are well versed in dealing with politicians.
You have a big profile in diet research but considering that on your watch [not just you but the field as a whole] obesity, metabolic syndrome and cvd have all galloped ahead, it doesn't show the field in a good light.
So guess what happened? Your profession is being sidelined. Amateurs…
John Doyle
architect
Well Sue, if you have come to a different conclusion from Professor Lustig
Please explain to us here what and why you believe you are right and he is wrong?
No one is defending excess consumption, but when we a century ago ate 2 Kg of sugar per person and now it is 50 kg today, then fructose will be a poison. Fructose is OK in Fruit because eating the whole fruit is adding fibre which helps in digesting it. It takes 3 apples to make a glass of apple juice, which can be downed in a few seconds. It's not easy to eat 3 apples in one go.
I was actually hoping that if you watched the video you would come on board. Did you actually watch it?
John Doyle
architect
Thanks, Paul
I refrained from returning fire in kind, but you have put it on record now. Experts don't know everything. There is that old saying that an expert knows more and more about less and less and ends up knowing everything about nothing.
I dont see how you can agree however with Sue's position on fructose as she hasn't explained what it is except to doubt professor Lustig??? You also say that even the excess we consume today is not poisoning the liver? No one is talking about eating sugar as a rare treat being poisonous, otherwise humans would have developed to avoid it.
Gary Cassidy
It would be a shame if any opinion was rebuffed by "your wrong because you're an architect, engineer, plumber, etc", or "you're a zealot - you don't deserve an opinion" - (ahem Sue).
However, I think in this case (Johns original post) John made a number of unsupported claims regarding nutrition and food production. Perhaps, Rosemary's response may have been different if each claim had some supporting evidence provided.
Paul Savage
Theme Leader, Biotechnology at CSIRO
I've read Patrick Stokes' excellent piece "No, you're not entitled to your opinion" and agree wholeheartedly with it Sue. I didn't suggest that every crackpot opinion was equal, or deserved equal air time. It's just that an opinion (or more accurately an hypothesis) should stand or fall on its merits and should not be discounted in value merely due to the (lack of) training of the source.
Indeed, such dismissive behaviour is very often counter-productive and causes the other party to become even more entrenched in their world view. I've seen it time and again in debates around "alternative" medicine, climate change, etc. But it seems to be especially a problem with the medical fraternity, no offence, with the well documented God complex. I guess when you daily hold people's lives in your hands and have to make fast judgements there's going to be a strong reluctance to be patient with those you consider fools. I'm just asking that you try.
Paul Savage
Theme Leader, Biotechnology at CSIRO
Yes of course it does -- all science 'facts' are provisional. The difference is that nutritionist science gets picked up, interpreted, and rapidly promulgated by the media. So the onus is on those scientists to take more care with their pronouncements. I suppose to be fair it's more the media's fault for lazy reporting than the scientists per se, but the point remains the same regardless of fault -- nutritionists perhaps get less respect for their science which is seen by Joe Public to flip flop compared to other science disciplines where errors are more quietly corrected.
John Doyle
architect
Rosemary,
Read moreIn addition to what I wrote below I also am aware that even our so called healthy foods are becoming suspect now.
I know that chickens are not given hormones but feed lot cattle are affected. I personally do eat red meat, but pay extra for organic, grass fed.
I read we are due for a "soil crisis" if we continue down the current path of overuse and pesticide treatment of our fields. But what are we going to do when we will have 9 billion mouths to feed?
Look at fruit and vegetables…
Paul Savage
Theme Leader, Biotechnology at CSIRO
John, don't thank me. I was supporting the right of someone with no medical training to voice their hypothesis without being shouted down because they are not credentialed. I also happen to think your hypothesis that fructose is a poison is nonsense.
Socrates wrote that the beginning of wisdom is a definition of terms. So, as Sue said, everything is a poison depending on dose. By the generally accepted meaning of "poison" fructose is no more a poison than the other carbohydrates or most food…
Read more