Paul, I think that you may be indirectly agreeing with Chris by adding in the artificial sweeteners line re addiction.

What evidence is their that fructose is addictive or results in appetite stimulation vs sweet carbohydrates? Ridiculous TV shows that screen MRI's of people drinking soft drink and then comparing it to cocaine don't shed any light on what compound may or may not be addictive (does the same part of the brain 'lighting up' demonstrate addictive properties?).

Testing drinks each individually containing sucrose, glucose, fructose, an artificial sweetener and an artificial sweetener with added non-carbohydrate calories should give better insight into what if any part is addictive.

This would also question whether or not high profile fructo-phobes like David Gillespie who recommend simply swapping fructose for glucose are actually resolving anything!

If sweetness is at least habit forming if not addictive than fructose does have a special role as it is much sweeter than glucose. It is the sweetness of fructose that the artificial sweetners are trying to mimic.

When combined with the metabolic characteristics of fructose, there is a good basis for caution when consuming foods laced with fructose or those fructose sweetness replacements.

I am not an absolutists on the issue of fructose and enjoy fruit when i want something sweet. I am just very careful about what i eat that has added sweetness.

There's that puritanism again- "If it's sweet, it MUST be bad!"

And if it's not sweet than it must be good? This is not sound reasoning.

"When combined with the metabolic characteristics of fructose"

Which ones? It's ability to stop the massive rise in blood sugar that starch causes (the apparently safe carbohydrate)?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7835329

Or it's inability to provoke the same inflammation and oxidation as glucose?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17384340

and more

http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/sugar-issues.shtml

If birthday cake was the only common encounter with added fructose then i doubt we would be having this discussion.

Unfortunately, added fructose and the fructose mimics 'artificial sweetners' are lacing many many products that most people would not identify as junk. Compare the sugar contents of plain oats with the new fruit flavoured varities. Most are 25% sugar.

Dr Stanton, I must say I agree with most of what you are saying, however I reject the inference that eating a diet high in saturated fat is bad for us. Bacon fried in butter (or lard) is not a junk food. There is increasing scientific evidence that saturated fats have no ill effect on the body - when you exclude refined carbohydrates from the diet.

I also wonder why you can't just come out and say that ADDED sugars (along with all refined carbohydrates) - especially added fructose are not good for us. This is essentially what writers such as David Gillespie are saying.

No-one is saying that we shouldn't eat fruit, just that we need to exclude the refined, processed sugars which have been added to our food in increasing proportions over the past 40-50 years. Stay to the outside of the supermarket isles and you may just find yourself getting healthier!

Anyway, I will continue to enjoy my high fat diet comprising animal protein, fat and fresh fruit and vegetables, which has so far seen me lose over 14kg, and is the first time I haven't felt like I am on a 'diet'. I will continue to see my blood pressure and cholesterol levels tumble despite eating huge quantities of saturated fat, and you and your colleagues no doubt will continue to say saturated fat is evil despite the growing body of evidence to the contrary. :)

RR wrote: "Chris, so what do you make of the thousands of people who followed David Gillespie's "Sweet Poison" advice - simply stop eating added sugar/fructose - and lost heaps of weight without much effort, after having previously struggled without success for years or decades?"

An important distinction lies in that slash between sugar/fructose! It is important to know if the major culprit is fructose rather than just sugar. Gillespie and Taube both point the finger explicitly at fructose. It is relatively easy to go cold turkey on fructose but most people would find it extremely difficult to do the same for all sugar.

As you imply these studies involving 10 weeks let alone 7 days are a joke. The NHMRC (forget NIH, the influence of Big Food is just too strong there) should do a big, long-term (one year at least) with thousands of subjects. I is beyond ridiculous that we are still in the dark on such a simple question. Perhaps they should devise a game show or reality show format for the controlled study?

Rory, I hope you aren't here to continue the hypocracy that you demonstrated on Dr Stanton's recent article? I hope you're not here making more claims you can't substantiate and then roasting others for doing the same in your eyes? Let's see!

>I never know who to believe: nutritionists who tell me that sugar is not the problem or my own lying eyes. I see kids in Aboriginal communities in Cape York sucking down sugary softdrinks - bottle after bottle after bottle as if it were water <

So which nutritionists are actively encouraging people to drink soft drinks Rory, or is this another non-specific strawman? Which large health bodies let alone individuals don't try discourage sugar sweetened beverages and in many cases fruit juices as liquid dietary staples?

>Rhesus monkeys - whose genomes are a 93% match with those of humans - tended towards obesity and became diabetic within 6-12 months of starting to drink human-sized serves (75g) of fructose daily via a standard Kool Aid mix with water<

One of the many rebuttals you dodged last time - how many grams of fructose per kilogram would that be? How big is a rhesus monkey in relation to an average human? Are you deliberately trying to misled people by using the term 'human dosage'??

>Going the other way, there's clear evidence now via thousands of humans including me that simply removing added sugar/fructose for many tends to reverse obesity while also reducing signs of metabolic syndrome in general.<

Now we are onto the 'Argumentum ad populum", where last time you failed to addressed why this eating pattern should be taken over ANY other that has a few thousand followers reporting success, including the LOW GI diet??

What about those Sweet Poisoners who also get the same symptoms from wheat or carbs in general - confessions can be found on that Facebook page? The Wheat Belly page has many more followers than David Gillespie, so why shouldn't your warped 'evidence' radar direct you in that direction?

>One answer is that the unnaturally high level of added sugar/fructose in modern diets does SOMETHING BAD to appetite control,<

Is this unique to fructose or are others forms of carbs also implemented?

No differences in satiety or energy intake after high-fructose corn syrup, sucrose, or milk preloads.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18065574

Effects of sucrose, glucose and fructose on peripheral and central appetite signals.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18627777

Fructose and satiety.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19403706

Effects of carbohydrate sugars and artificial sweeteners on appetite and the secretion of gastrointestinal satiety peptides
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21255472

I asked the scientist that appeared on the US 60 Minutes program, Dr Eric Stice, about the story that allegedly compared sugar to cocaine - his response was "Our program of research has not directly tested the notion that sugar is addictive. Rather, we have focused on individual differences in responsively of reward circuitry to food and risk for overeating. We frankly think that regular intake of sugar and fat causes neural changes that increase the likelihood of escalated intake of these macronutrients. We are in the process of writing up the study that investigated receipt of Coke (high-sugar) versus milkshake (high-sugar and high-fat), but that is not at the point where we can circulate it."

>The fact that scientists haven't bothered or managed to document the "addiction" that many of us have experienced perhaps says more about the scientists (focused on other things) than it does about the addiction - absence of "evidence" is not evidence of absence.<

Nice argument from ignorance - the ignorance being your own with regards to what scientists could or could not be bothered, let alone are able to do! Read the above studies and review this statement please?

>More rigorously, the evidence on unnaturally high levels of added sugar/fructose fructose consumption being the biggest-single driver of obesity and diabetes boils down to widespread "diabesity" showing up over the past couple of centuries in previously unafflicted local populations some time after refined sugar (and flour) was introduced and became popular: South Africa, India, the Middle East, the United States, Canada, Australia, NZ - take your pick.<

This and your Taubes quote, as shown to you previously, actually help to discredit your fructose hypothesis by mentioning refined grains (and further strengthening the GI hypothesis)! Oops!

>In terms of the latest data on the glocose/fructose distinction, Chris, a study just last week added weight to the pretty clear story that there is a big difference, and that fructose is not benign in unnatural volumes over time<

And who is talking about unnatural volumes being good. You quoting the follow-up to the UC David study, which again used 25% of calories from fructose (which would require 50% sucrose) wouldn't be supported by anyone, and surely can't be quoted as more evidence that massive quantities are bad in themselves (let alone displacing other nutrients). You are again quoting studies and dosages and thus drawing conclusions that no one is disputing - the disagreement is over your extrapolation! What was that line from Top Gun?

How about for a 'latest study', we look at some more realistic dosages? The effects of four hypocaloric diets containing different levels of sucrose or high fructose corn syrup on weight loss and related parameters http://www.nutritionj.com/content/pdf/1475-2891-11-55.pdf which demonstrated that "Similar decreases in weight and indices of adiposity are observed when overweight or obese individuals are fed hypocaloric diets containing levels of sucrose or high fructose corn syrup typically consumed by adults in the United States." The levels were 10 and 20% of total calories! (looking forward to you playing the funding card as the ONLY debunk as per David Gillespie!)

Did you miss the recent fructose overview in Nutrients and Metabolism "Health implications of fructose consumption: A review of recent data", some very different conclusions "
http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1743-7075-7-82.pdf
"The issue of dietary fructose and health is linked to the quantity consumed, which is the same issue for any macro- or micro nutrients. It has been considered that moderate fructose consumption of ≤50g/day or ~10% of energy has no deleterious effect on lipid and glucose control and of ≤100g/day does not influence body weight. No fully relevant data account for a direct link between moderate dietary fructose intake and health risk markers."

You might also be interested in this recent review also before condemning fructose totally based on your own and a few thousand others' experience "Effect of Fructose on Glycemic Control in Diabetes" http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/35/7/1611 Isocaloric exchange of fructose for other carbohydrate improves long-term glycemic control, as assessed by glycated blood proteins, without affecting insulin in people with diabetes. Generalizability may be limited because most of the trials were <12 weeks and had relatively low MQS (<8). To confirm these findings, larger and longer fructose feeding trials assessing both possible glycemic benefit and adverse metabolic effects are required."

Congratulations for getting through this, sticking to the topic and not falling into self promotion again - although, despite the fact that your conspiracy theories at the end were pretty close, you should be applauded for moving on and staying focussed!

Darryl, I think you might need to reread Gillespie (unless his opinion has been updated)? If so, I would love to see something more recent - although nowhere have I seen his 10-15g of fructose per day ceiling not include fruit.

He tends to quote Lustig by saying fruit with fibre is ok on occasions, but then states that all fructose turns to fat and even athletes that burn up the fructose still get the negative health implications in other places - so his position is a little blurry.

In this interview David says @15-10 "If you stick to the Australian Standard Dietary Guideline, which is no more than two pieces of fruit, whole fruit, per day for an adult and one for a child - then if that's the only fructose you are getting in your diet, you'll be fine".

http://www.abc.net.au/nightlife/stories/3451718.htm

Page 8 of the Australian Guide to Healthy Eating "How much from the Fruit group is needed every day?"
The range for people four years old and over is between 1 and 5 sample serves each day."
http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/E384CFA588B74377CA256F190004059B/$File/fd-cons.pdf

Some sources suggest 2 fruits per day (and supporting papers show more when exchanged for other carbohydrates eg p3 http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/n33.pdf) but I'm unable to find where is says it is a maximum.

Other sources say that two fruits is a minimum p18 "the minimum five servings of vegetables and two of fruit established by the core food group analysis endorsed by the National Health and Medical Research Council." (originally from Cashel K, Jeffreson S. The core food groups. Endorsed by the National Health and Medical Research Council. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, 1995;83.)

Thanks David, I wasn't championing David Gillespie - just noting that the main thrust of his books are that we should exclude fructose from our diets in its refined - additive - form. I acknowledge he calls for stronger measures than that - I certainly don't agree with all he says, and enjoy my raw honey as a sweetener, along with maple syrup (though I restrict them)

I genuinely believe (with only anecdotal evidence to support my contention admittedly) that the answer to the obesity epidemic lies in restricting our intake of the highly processed foods which are now a staple in our societies diet. It is at the stage now where people believe buying a processed meal base is home cooking - I even saw a comment on a forum a while ago where someone said (paraphrase because I can't find it now!) 'Why don't these fatties do some home cooking - I made tuna mornay tonight and it was so simple - just tuna, cheese and a packet of maggi...'

The way that I eat now, and envisage eating for ever, as it is a way of life which is not at all difficult to follow, is closest to the Paleo/Primal diets. Lots of fresh vegies, fruit and meats. When the hankering for a sandwich gets too much though, I allow myself to have some of those refined carbs - they are just a treat now rather than a staple!

Anyway I'll finish my rant now :)

The people in those aboriginal communities are also consuming nutritionally poor starches and large amounts of polyunsaturated fat as well Rory. Why not blame those things? There is plenty of evidence that they cause weight gain and all sorts of other problems.

When people give up eating sweet things, fructose isn't the only component of those foods so a 'low-sugar diet' ala David Gillespie's advice isn't really a great measure of the effect that fructose has on our bodies.

The fructose demonization campaign looks no different to the saturated fat campaign to me. It has that same puritanical sentiment driving it: "if it tastes good it must be bad". Fructose actually has a lot of beneficial effects- boosts metabolism, regulates blood sugar, can reduce pain.

It's strange that in the sugar debate glucose never seems to get much of a mention. Ye it's way high on the glycemic index (fructose isn't), mobilizes mineral loss from bone far more than fructose does and stimulates appetite in contrast to fructose which seems to suppress it:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1799283?dopt=Abstract

Steve, you wrote that "The fructose demonization campaign looks no different to the saturated fat campaign to me." We'll have to wait and see. My guess is that as the scientists get around to studying what everyday people are eating as they get fat and diabetic, we'll find over time that the latter is exonerated but the former confirmed to be as guilty as hell.

Agreed, Michael, that an "important distinction lies in that slash between sugar/fructose", and that scientists need to do a better job of tracking what is happening in the real world over years and decades not days and weeks. I first stopped eating unnaturally high levels of fructose to lose weight. It worked. Since then, I've done alot of reading and I now eat minimal added fructose to limit my risk of diabetes, going blind and losing a foot or two. Chapter 6 of Gary Taubes's "Good Calories, Bad Calories" is pretty convincing on the link between elevated sugar/fructose consumption and diabetes.

Hi David. As rude and as out of your depth as you tend to be on this particular topic, I will respond. You asked, "So which nutritionists are actively encouraging people to drink soft drinks Rory, or is this another non-specific strawman?"

My answer is: the authors of "Australian Paradox". Here is their (false) conclusion: (5.) "The present analysis indicates the existence of an Australian Paradox, i.e., an inverse relationship between secular trends in the prevalence of obesity prevalence (increasing by ~300%) and the consumption of refined sugar over the same time frame (declining by ~20%). The findings challenge the implicit assumption that taxes and other measures to reduce intake of soft drinks will be an effective strategy in global efforts to reduce obesity" (http://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/3/4/491/htm ).

I've long struggled to understand why any serious nutritionist would go out of her/his way to produce a "peer-reviewed published" - yet still false - scientific observation of an "inverse relationship" between added sugar and obesity. Eat more added sugar, drink more sugary softdrinks, and get thinner. It's a scientific fact. Is that enough active encouragement for you, David?

I am arguing near and far for the high-profile paper's correction or retraction, because it is factually flawed - to say the least - and it has become a menace to public health: http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/WHO'S%20CITING%20OZ%20PARADOX.pdf .

The authors - Professor Jennie Brand-Miller and Dr Alan Barclay of the low-GI school at the University of Sydney - so far have failed to say anything credible in defence of their paper. There is no good defence. Indeed, they were recently skewered by a widely respected journalist, who documented their (shall we say) unscholarly behaviour in response to my critique: http://www.smh.com.au/business/pesky-economist-wont-let-big-sugar-lie-20120725-22pru.html

I have posed eight awkward questions for Professor Brand-Miller and Dr Barclay regarding their error-dominated paper but I am not holding my breath waiting for answers: http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/8-QUESTIONS-FOR-AWB-&-JBM-BANNED.pdf

Rory, this was pointed out to you last time this was discussed, yet you want to champion it again, isn't this the type of behaviour that you deplore and speak out against?

The chapter by Taubes talks about refined carbohydrates almost as much as it does about sugar - ie high glycemic carbs! Which is what 'you know who' suggests one of the problems are!

Will you comment on previous intakes from earlier in the century (even from USA) - It was even covered in the Taubes book although his graph isn't similar to the USDA one. Even the Cleave work shows nothing under 65lbs per person since 1905 (USDA shows nothing under 80lbs)! How do these correlate to modern epidemics and claims fructose must be almost eliminated? Could there be more than one factor at play (as most sensible people are suggesting)?

Why do you keep avoiding these questions and then continuing to spread the false information despite being corrected?? (I notice when you have your own argument turned against you as I have done here, you don't respond well??)

Rory, have your flawed research skills led you to the site Dr Barclay has set up to answer your questions yet??

I have posed at least eight awkward questions for YOU regarding YOUR error-dominated hypothesis but I am not holding my breath waiting for answers

Hi David,

I appreciate that you have been enjoying a good joust with Rory over a number of threads in a number of articles and I don't want to get mixed up in that debate but I am having some trouble working out if you actually have a position/view regarding the significance of fructose consumption with regard to the obesity/poor diet/diabetes issue.

If you do and can state it shortly I would be interested to know what it is.

At times it sounds like you do believe it is a significant issue but just less significant than Rory and Gillespie suggest or simply object to the way they reach their conclusion. (right conclusion but using bad science to get there)

At other times it sounds as though you believe their concerns regarding fructose have no substance at all.

Perhaps you don't even have an opinion on the significance of fructose and just want to be a devil's advocate and put them to proof - that is fine too.

As you may have gathered my concerns with fructose are mostly related to the issue of sweetness and the use of sweetness by the food industry rather than the possible metabolic effects of fructose. Thus in a sense this a sweetness rant rather than a specifically fructose rant.

My reasons are quite unscientific and involve a sample size of one - I have a strong sweet tooth and the drive I get, once the sweet tooth is fired up, reminds me much more of the drive for nicotine, than any sort of hunger pang or need for nutrition. Hoovering a block of lindt after a large meal seems more about the sweet 'hit' of each chunk rather than leptin or grehlin messages not getting through.

Needless to say, if the sweetness of fructose drives consumption AND there are also metabolic effects that tend to disguise from the body the energy consumed, fructose is an impressive ingredient to drive over consumption.

From the food processing industries perspective, a miracle ingredient indeed!

As the food processing industry quite rightly spends a lot of time thinking about how to increase consumption and sales, I can't help wondering if there is something about the impact of sugar/fructose/sweetness on people that they understand only too well and that explains their enthusiasm for adding it to as many products as possible and as much as possible.

For example:

Plain rolled oats have zero sugar and porridge without sugar and just milk is plain but quite edible. Yet the new flavoured quick oats have between 25-30% sugar. Why so much? Why not 5% or 10%. Surely that would be enough to help the oat medicine go down. Possibly, the hook is not effective at those low doses or is not enough by comparison to the competition. Perhaps the trick is to get the dose as high as can be tolerated and 25-30% is the magic number that the food industry has derived.

Why not moderate the intake of Lindt? Once per day? once per week? I have found that to be as feasible to achieve in practice as trying to moderate my now extinct smoking habit to one or two cigarettes per day.

It does not surprise me that the food processing industry claims that 'fun foods' or 'treats' are part of a balanced diet as it is a good way to ensure that the 'taste' for sweet is kept alive.

Telling people that it is normal to keep seeking a regular sweet 'hit' might be very poor advice.

I appreciate that personal experience counts for little but it has been my experience that achieving a balanced moderate diet is much easier if one of the miracle ingredients of the food processing industry is avoided as much as possible.

In the same way as going cold turkey is, in the end, the only effective way of ending one's nicotine habit.

When it comes to the products of the food processing industry I think it is safe to assume that there is a lot of scientific thinking that has gone into their product formulations. Perhaps they just don't publish it in scientific journals and it is subject to careful Document Retention Policies.

Perhaps I am just too skeptical and suspicious.

David, Dr Barclay's website and his recent comments on the Medical Observer website deliberately do not address my eight awkward questions. That's why we are talking about it here: http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/8-QUESTIONS-FOR-AWB-&-JBM-BANNED.pdf

Sugar matters as an excess sources of calories and most foods are nutrient poor. Except for extreme cases of intake (and/or extreme levels of lack of exercise) it is largely irrelevant on its own, but like many sources of nutrient poor processed foods, intake should be reduced (but not to the extremes of asking while pain relief a child can have since tablets contain sugar.) nor is replacing fructose for glucose very beneficial in the end. Research doesn't support limiting fructose, when it does, I'll change my mind!

The food industry generally does you no favours and wants to sell more product, thus people should be vigilant.

The effects of fructose are almost totally overstated and should probably be put in the same categories as high GI foods, ie when it is sugar. I also think carb intakes should match activity levels.

Sweetness is definitely an issue and I believe responsible for any issues people have with 'addiction' (although I think it is too strong a word in most cases).

>Why not moderate the intake of Lindt? Once per day? once per week? I have found that to be as feasible to achieve in practice as trying to moderate my now extinct smoking habit to one or two cigarettes per day.<

And in other examples people can - such as the lady featured in the Aussie 60 minutes story, she cut out lots of stuff, but wasn't aware of some of the hidden ones but still had lost weight, craved less and was feeling better! I think a lot of it is in your head, the artificial sweeteners confuse the issue a do some peoples preferences for fatty foods and salty foods!

When it comes to 'addiction' or even just a 'bad habit' it is certainly fair to say "a lot of it is in your head", but then that is the nature of the beast - at least to the extent there is any real agreement as to what constitutes addiction.

The difference is that when it comes to sweetness, and its most common source fructose, a strong desire for sweet foods is still generally treated as something quite innocent 'a sweet tooth', 'fun foods' etc (a line favoured by food processors and the author of this article in other articles he has written) and suggestions that it be considered in the same ball park, if not the precise playing field, as other habit forming substances are treated dismissively.

Much the same as the way tobacco was discussed right up until the 1990s and even beyond. I can still remember many people, being quite certain that the decision to smoke was more about lifestyle (goes well with coffee, alcohol a night out, sophistication) than about addiction and those arguing against the consumption of tobacco were health nuts and cranks.

Having heard all the rationalisations about the decision to consume nicotine I can assure you that there is a familiar ring when one suggests to a person with a strong sweet tooth that their decision to consume sweet foods regularly may indicate an element of addictive behaviour. It is like telling a smoker that you want to take their smokes away.

The self loathing of those who feel helpless to control their impulses for sweet foods are also similar to those who repeatedly try and fail to overcome addictions to other substances.

The ongoing development (arms race) of artificial/alternative sweeteners is not dissimilar to the development of nicotine replacement therapies.

The difficulty is that once you accept that sweetness "is definitely an issue" (even if you do not consider it satisfies the technical criteria of addiction) it is hard to avoid placing fructose under very close scrutiny as it is almost twice as sweet as glucose - and apart from the various fructose 'mimics' is the single most common source of intense sweetness in the food supply.

Judging from some of your comments I suspect you have not personally compared the sweetness of glucose, fructose and sucrose. I recommend doing so as the pure forms are readily available and it becomes instantly clear where the sweetness in sucrose/sugar comes from. Fructose has a sweetness rating 1.7 times that of glucose.

It follows that if "sweetness is definitely an issue" foods with fructose added (usually in the form of cane sugar or fruit juice concentrates) have a question mark over them and a sensible approach is to limit or avoid their consumption - especially if you have strong preference for sweetness. Which judging from the contents of most aisles in most supermarkets may include a large part of the population.

Advising them to exercise will power and consume sweetness only in moderation and as part of a balanced diet may sound good in its call for personal self determination but in practice may be ineffective. Just as advising an alcoholic to just drink a small port on Sundays after Church is a recipe for trouble.

Thus even if your statement that the Research to date doesn't support a metabolic basis for limiting fructose intake is correct your own views regarding sweetness suggest that it alone may be a sufficient basis for many people to limit their intake or avoid foods that have been laced with sweetness - as in most cases that amounts to eating foods with added fructose/sucrose.

Which of course leaves me wondering what exactly is your concern with those arguing forcefully that people should severely limit or avoid the consumption of foods containing added fructose/sucrose and who are highly critical of a few nutritionalists who appear determined to downplay the significance of fructose. The comments in the pre-diabetes handbook published by Brand-Miller fit that description.

I suspect your concern is largely about the inflammatory and emotive language that has been used in the debate by some participants on both sides. I share those concerns.

AT least you are now admitting it is a guess - even if you choose to misrepresent the ethics and interests of scientists trying to resolve the obesity problem. How are you doing with those questions about YOUR theories Rory? Any closer to YOUR answers?

Good morning, David.  After all these weeks, you're still missing the important point. The important point is that there is a profound difference between you and I writing on the Internet and in popular books, and a distinguished University of Sydney Professor of Science publishing in a "peer reviewed" scientific journal.  

You don't like David Gillespie's books, because you think he's clueless. On that, you and Chris are joined at the hip (brain?). You both have put a lot of energy into calling it as you see it. And good on you. It's a debate and we all are free to debate the facts: http://www.asc.asn.au/blog/2010/02/23/fructose-and-obesity-was-this-delivered-not-to-my-address-by-1730-hours-on-21-feb/ andhttp://www.nutritionaustralia.org/national/media-releases/response-david-gillespie-behalf-nut-net .  

The good news is that whether you and/or Chris and/or Gillespie are right and/or wrong, it's all just fine.  It's neither here nor there.  None of you have a University of Sydney badge of scientific credibility that makes anyone assume you know what you are talking about.  Indeed, many assume the opposite.

David, you and many other readers may well think I don't know what I am talking about when I write on my website or in The Conversation. Again, fine.  Wrong, but fine. What I write is neither here nor there for most people because to them I'm just another no-talent nobody transformed into a no-talent know-it-all expressing his two-cents worth on the Internet or in a book. Few take much notice.

In particular, I don't get an instantly credulous audience among the plebs and the media because I'm a Professor of Science at the prestigious University of Sydney.

Nor do I get to populate the "peer reviewed' scientific record with idiosyncratic and obviously false conclusions about readily available facts. I don't get to manufacture and publish my own "facts" as scientific fact.

David, my concern is about the integrity of the scientific record.  My concern is about what is written into the scientific record by those wearing the badge of credibility provided by the prestigious University of Sydney.

Rightly, there is supposed to be a higher standard - an extremely high standard - for what is published in scientific journals.  And what is published by Professors of Science from the University of Sydney.

In my opinion, it absolutely is not okay for academics and other scientists from the University of Sydney (or any other Australian university) to publish as fact things in scientific journals that are false, leaving the public misinformed.  That simply erodes academic and scientific integrity, and public trust.  

The scientific record is supposed to be populated by factually correct information, via the oversight of a competent peer-review process. Critically, the public debate - including the current debate on the causes of obesity, diabetes and related maladies, the biggest public-health issue of our time - needs to be based on facts. 

If peer-reviewed "science" cannot be trusted, then scientific progress disrupted or reversed. If the public loses trust in scientists, taxpayers will stop funding important research.

Now, senior University of Sydney scientists very active in the public debate have published in a scientific journal a supposedly peer-reviewed paper that contains a deeply flawed reading of the available data and factually incorrect conclusions. 

Waving a BIG RED FLAG to competent observers, what we have here are Australia's highest-profile academic defenders of added sugar in food (as harmless) -  with deep links to the sugar industry and other sugar sellers via their Glycemic Index enterprise - falsely exonerating added sugar as a key factor in the development of obesity.  

Moreover, the authors have told their factually incorrect story in the journal Nutrients, on blogs and in national newspapers without any mention of the fact that they have a serious and undisclosed conflict of interest; that is, their low-GI enterprise depends on super-low GI = 19 fructose being harmless, or at least continues to be perceived as such by the hapless public: see http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/Sydney-Uni-conflict-interest-030712.pdf

Awkwardly, the scientific peer-review process for the Australian Paradox paper was either incompetent, non-existent or ignored, because the published paper is dominated by a series of basic errors.  Also, it turns out that one of the authors was the "Guest Editor" of the relevant "Special Issue" of the journal Nutrients.  Neither of those things are good.  Indeed, the "Guest Editor" thing means that for alert observers the BIG RED FLAG is waving even more furiously.

As you know, David, I'm arguing near and far for the correction or retraction of the Australian Paradox paper's deeply flawed and somewhat dangerous false conclusion.  My argument is not complicated because the errors are so basic and so dominating.  

For example, fancy professional scientists not knowing - or perhaps just not noting - that the ABS dataset on which their paper's preferred sugar series - and so their spectacular (but false) conclusion - is based was discontinued as unreliable by the ABS more than a decade before the paper was published!  

And, David, check out Professor Brand-Miller and Dr Barclay's bizarre false interpretation of Figure 5A involved in Questions 1, 2 and 3: http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/8-QUESTIONS-FOR-AWB-&-JBM-BANNED.pdf  

David, surely you are prepared to concede that's an eye-popping error?  Yep, all peer-reviewed and published as scientific fact. Twice!  

Will someone please explain how that officially discontinued series and the authors' bizarre insistence that up is really down are not a clear example of incompetence or worse at what is supposed to be the highest level of scholarship in Australia?

Is Australian Paradox just the product of a series of clumsy mistakes on basic facts?  It could well be - after all, Gary Taubes has documented extraordinary incompetence and sloppiness with key facts by some of the highest-profile and most-influential nutritionists in the US and UK over the past century (for starters, check out Chapters 6 and 23 in "Good Calories, Bad Calories").

But Taubes also discusses a disturbing conflict-of-interest episode a generation ago in the US involving relationships between Harvard University's nutrition department and the US food industry.  The lesson from that episode is that cosy links between universities and the food industry may not work out well for public health. 

One warning sign back then was the unusual sight of a famous nutritionist going out of his way to publicly defend "modern sugar consumption" as harmless (pp. 422-23).  Does that ring any bells?   One assumes it's even more unusual for famous scientists' arguments exonerating sugar to feature a series of obvious – indeed, eye-popping – errors of fact.

So, again, is Australian Paradox just a product of careless incompetence, or are the University of Sydney's high-profile low-GI advocates actually as smart as advertised, and simply doing all they can to breathe life into the fundamentally flawed low-GI approach to nutrition, the approach to which they have devoted their careers? It's hard to know anything much either way until legitimate questions on this conflict-of-interest issue are answered.

Perhaps I need to add that conflict-of-interest question to the other eight legitimately awkward questions I've posed to Professor Brand-Miller and Dr Barclay: http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/8-QUESTIONS-FOR-AWB-&-JBM-BANNED.pdf 

Anyway, the good news is that retractions of scientific papers are trending sharply higher and there is plenty of room for one more: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/17/science/rise-in-scientific-journal-retractions-prompts-calls-for-reform.html?pagewanted=all

If somehow I'm wrong on Australian Paradox (I'm not), I should restate the $40,000 "Australian Paradox Challenge" I issued to University of Sydney Vice-Chancellor Dr Michael Spence, on 7 June 2012. Ten weeks and counting, yet no-one has come forward to collect the cash.

"…I challenge the University of Sydney’s scores of fine scientists – indeed, any scientist, nutritionist, medical doctor, economist, journalist or enthusiastic observer anywhere - to prove that my critique of Australian Paradox is mistaken."  

"To be clear, I will reward the first successful researcher with $20,000 (cash), if anyone is able show beyond dispute that the available (valid) information really "…indicates a consistent and substantial decline in total refined or added sugar consumption by Australians over the past 30 years”, as concluded in Australian Paradox.  Moreover, I will pay a further $20,000 to the charity of choice at the University of Sydney's low-GI school, and publish a genuine public apology in The Sydney Morning Herald, The Australian and The Australian Financial Review.  What could be fairer to the University of Sydney? Here’s an opportunity to (i) show everyone that the annoying economist is wrong, (ii) secure a public apology in major newspapers, and (iii) relieve him of the price of a new car in the process (http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/SydneyUniVC%20LETTER070612.pdf ).

David, now that you have had another opportunity to view the facts of the matter - and given that you are "a fan of science and the scientific process" - I hope you will join with me in calling on Professor Brand-Miller and Dr Barclay to correct or retract their deeply flawed Australian Paradox paper.

So if you want to compare fructose/sweetness to cigarettes and alcohol and recommended all or nothing, where do we go? Is fruit out or do we add something to counter the sweetness? Artificial sweeteners must trump fructose for sweetness, so should they be the first 'gateway' drug to eliminate?

The analogy doesn't hold when comparing sweet foods to cigarettes and alcohol - especially when Gillespie recommends glucose and dextrose in place of fructose - bit like low strength beer or low strength cigarettes, no?

David,

You have misquoted or misunderstood the issue that I raised but to clarify.

Yes I do want to compare fructose/sweetness to other habit forming/potentially addictive substances such as cigarettes and alcohol.

No I do not suggest it is an all or nothing issue nor did I call for fructose or artificial sweeteners to be eliminated. As I said I enjoy sweetness but I because I have a sweet tooth (in partial hibernation) and I have found that it undermines my attempts to eat well, I am careful not to let it off the leash too frequently and when I do I try to stick to fruit but of course do not always succeed.

Sweet stuff is embedded deeply in all manner of social occasions - much like grog and once upon a time smokes). Funny how people don't break out the carrots and bamboo shoots on birthdays.

We do we go?

Easy, it is a question of giving appropriate warnings to the public especially in an environment where extremely large amounts of money are spent to suggest that regular if not constant encounters with intense sweetness (primarily derived from added fructose/sucrose) are normal and desirable. The targeting of children in this regard is particularly deplorable.

Fruit is in - at least until we encounter large numbers of obese people who got that way by eating fruit. I can imagine problems arising from GM fruit if it is designed to crank up the sweetness level. - 'Candy grown on a tree might be its advertising line'?

Artificial sweeteners are to be avoided as essentially they are designed to 'mimic' the sweetness of fructose and thus may encourage the over consumption of a variety of foods. But if someone wishes to let their sweet tooth off the leash and wishes to avoid consuming fructose (and considers the sweetener safe) then they may be an option.

I don't understand your reference to low strength beer or low strength cigarettes. Beyond their potential to be habit forming I am not sure how you connect sweetness, alcohol and nicotine. I do not suggest that the nature of the habits those substances form are identical in nature or character.

With reference to substituting glucose/dextrose for fructose, I make two points. Glucose/Dextrose is much less sweet than fructose so there is reduced sweetness stimulation going on but I agree that if the objective of the recipe is to maintain a highly active sweet tooth than I think it is an unwise strategy.

From what I read on your website you appear to be very interested in healthy eating habits and thus I would expect that you would have little objection to a healthy eating campaign that focused on the potential for healthy eating habits to be undermined by an over stimulated sweet tooth.

For the most part such a campaign would of necessity recommend caution consuming foods containing added fructose/sucrose. Avoidance might be recommended for those who have particular difficulty controlling their sweet tooth as the sweet tooth fades significantly with abstinence.

I do not understand what objection you would have to such a campaign.

While I note your clear statements on your website that you do not seek to promote the case for the food processing industries that rely on added fructose for their business models, the reality is that you are their BEST friend. That is unfortunate because I see no signs that you benefit from that status.

Haven't you noticed that they are not arguing your case (that there is no evidence against fructose) but instead are relying on the classic boilerplate generated in a lawyer's office.

"XYZ corporation supports eating healthy and recommends that our (insert name of sugar laden frankenfood) form part of a balanced diet with regular exercise"

They know whatever they say now might come back to haunt them in a few years.

Another attempt to erect astrawman!

Any reasonable reading of my comments would have identified the following as the core of my position.

"For the most part such a campaign would of necessity recommend caution consuming foods containing added fructose/sucrose. Avoidance might be recommended for those who have particular difficulty controlling their sweet tooth as the sweet tooth fades significantly with abstinence.

I do not understand what objection you would have to such a campaign."

As for your view that we already have a healthy eating campaign that limits added sugar. Well as this article and many others around the globe indicate, we certainly have the start of an excellent campaign and attitudes are certainly starting to change.

While the nature of your involvement is curious, considering the nature of professional qualifications, it all helps to focus attention on this very important issue.

Cheers
Paul

Try the fructose taste challenge that I recommended earlier and you will quickly see why fructose and not glucose/dextrose is the additive of choice of the food processing industry when it comes to sweeteners.

Not only is fructose sweeter but the character of the sweetness is different - sharper, more intense on the palate. (When it comes to different sweeteners the descriptive language sometimes sounds like a wine tasting).

As I mentioned before I am not a fan of trying to 'replicate' fructose sweetness with substitutes.

To sum up, as I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this, I feel the sweetness of fructose is a major issue and one that the food processing industry deploys without shame (especially to children) and it alone provides a sound basis for strong warnings and caution whilst we wait for the scientific "fat lady" to sing to your satisfaction with regard to possible fructose metabolic issues.

The only suggestion I would make is that keep an open mind about what 'evidence' is sufficient to warrant action as we know from the history of tobacco control that the affected industries will fight tooth and nail and throw as much dust in the air so they can claim the "science is not yet settled".

It is interesting that while there is technology available to remove nicotine from tobacco, the tobacco industry have never offered to remove the nicotine from their products in return for less regulation and taxation.

I guess we will.

Perhaps the words of Yoda may be of assistance in the path to understanding.

YODA: Train yourself to let go of everything you fear to lose.

In this case accepting that there are a range of very good reasons for a professional dietitian or nutritionalist to consider the indiscriminate lacing of the food supply with added fructose/sucrose as a matter of serious concern and which are of much more importance than whether a lawyer or an economist are identified with delivering the message or deliver that message in terms that you are completely professionally comfortable with.

You have lost sight of the forest for the trees.

I know the 'forest' of health eating consists of many trees and there are more than one noxious weed damaging the forest. I simply think that fructose is one of the biggest weeds and an excellent place to start for many people.

You are consumed (though confused might be a better word) by the idea that no one start work on that weed until we have Tobacco Industry level of scientific proof or unless they also attack all the other weeds at the same time.

Good morning, Sue. As you may have noticed in my reply a bit earlier to David, my contribution is focused on the integrity of the scientific record. I'm sorry if you find it tiresome. Perhaps if you and others who are professionals in the medical/science/nutrition space were as keen to pipe up to correct the BIG and IMPORTANT errors of fact when they emerge - rather than just hanging around smacking hapless nobodies in The Conversation - then amateurs like me would not be boring professionals like you, in the process of drawing attention to a serious problem.

The Australian Paradox paper presents as a scientifically verified fact that there is "an inverse relationship" between added sugar/fructose consumption and obesity. I was surprised when I saw that result. But then I'm not a professional. Eat more sugar, drink more sugary softdrinks, and get thinner. Sweet. That's a peer-reviewed scientific BRIGHT GREEN LIGHT for (former) sugar hogs like me, saying that sugar is not a problem so get into it. Then I saw all those charts pointing up for sugar consumption (not down?), and a dataset discontinued as unreliable. It's all a bit bizarre, actually.

Sue, you are rarely short of an opinion - and no doubt think that you are one of "the other people with the relevant expertise" - so how about it: Is Professor Brand-Miller and Dr Barclay's interpretation Chart 5A right or wrong? http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/8-QUESTIONS-FOR-AWB-&-JBM-BANNED.pdf

If it is correct, please explain why, and - if you are right - I'll hand over that $40,000 referred to earlier. If it is wrong, what should be done about it, given that it has been peer-reviewed as correct (twice) and forms the basis of a paper that has become a menace to public health? http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/WHO'S%20CITING%20OZ%20PARADOX.pdf

Rory - there are many controversies in the scientific literature. Creating public policy on the basis of one flawed study would be a problem - but I dono't see it happening here.

In my area of practice, there is ongoing controversy about the use of thrombolytics (clot-busting drugs) in acute stroke. There are several studies, with vaarious methodologies and outcome measures, and the debate continues year after year.

My advice to you would be not to spend too much time worrying that the community will be encouraged to consume more sucrose because of that study you name.

You say that I'm "rarely short of an opinion" - but perhaps you will see that most of my opinons are expressed in my area of training and expertise (ie the health sciences and health care). You won't find too many ponitifications from me on this site on ecominic policy, incentives for olympians or power pricing.

Understanding how the scientific literature works doesn;t just require a sound mind and an understanding of English - it requires an understanding of the practice context and the underpinning science. I don't have that sort of understanding of geology, or chemical engineering, or climate science, so I don't attempt to critique research in those areas. it's not a failing - it's just knowing what you know and what you dont.

It's not complicated, Sue. It's a simple chart and a simple question. It's about up versus down. That's all. If the top line in Figure 5A points up - as it does - then it's hardly reasonable for anyone to publish a supposedly peer-reviewed science paper (twice) saying it points down. Why are you so timid about saying something like, "Yep, the paper has at least one mistake and it should be corrected"? Sue, I assume you have a policy of correcting errors if you make them. That's the right thing to do, and I don't doubt that you correct yourself when it's appropriate.

So I don't understand why in this Conversation - specifically on fructose and obesity - you or anyone else are unprepared to state the obvious and say: "Yep, that's a serious mistake and the University of Sydney scientists should correct it; after all, the paper is wrong and obesity is a pretty important topic".

Of course, I shouldn't pick on you because you don't run the University of Sydney. And I apologise for putting you on the spot.

So, my final questions today: Who is in charge of quality control for academic and scientific research at the University of Sydney? And why does he/she not do his/her job?

>BIG and IMPORTANT errors of fact<

Sue, Rory believes that because he has found a small chink in the armour, he can bring down the entire system by mentioning it at every possible opportunity. Like creationists critiquing Piltdown Man, or anti-vaccinations clowns using a bad reaction to a batch of a vaccines to 'prove' their conspiracy theories - Rory is out to validate his own personal experience by exposing 'The Wizard'!

Rory,

Evidence in (clinical) science is not based on the findings of one or two studies. A good analogy that is used time and time again to illustrate this point is the 10 blind man and the elephant:

One blind man feels the ear of the elephant and claims the elephant is flat and wide. Another blind man feels the tail of the elephant and claims the elephant is long and pencil thin. Yet another blind man feels the trunk of the elephant and claims the elephant is long like a hose. An so on...

While each blind man (each scientifically peer reviewed paper) is correct and point to the truth (small "T") of what an elephant is, none is correct in determining the Truth (big "T") of what an elephant is. Ultimately we may never know what the Truth is and possible only know many small truths. But if many small truths all point towards one fact, then by statistical probability those small truths are probably closer to the Truth than one or two small truths that point away from that fact.

Every scientific study will have its own methodological flaws based on the limitation of the study design. By itself this does not make it a bad study, but just tells the reviewer/reader/researcher there are limitations of inferences.

For example, it is unlikely that you can get all participants in a study to be exactly alike in all regards (age, height, weight, ethnicity, co-morbid diseases, dietary habits etc). In human studies, it is also unlikely you can ethically conduct a perfectly controlled experiment like in the lab situation in animals (calorie intake, food composition etc).

A study that is properly conducted and methodologically robust (including control and compensation for limitations) will be peer-reviewed based on the merits of the findings it produces. This is an empirical approach. It then subsequently becomes a qualitative judgment based on other information (other similar studies, inferences from related fields, animal study, basic science understanding) to determine if the findings of that study make sense in the wider knowledge context (that is why Sue mention she only comments in areas where she has a wider knowledge context).

When enough similar studies are available, a meta-analysis can be done to pool all the data to produce a more robust empirical analysis. The subsequent qualitative input from that meta-analysis then makes it even more valid. This is how science and knowledge on the whole is advanced.

In response to your "final" questions:
I believe there are adequate scientific control and peer-critique within the University of Sydney and greater scientific/research community to ensure research reliability and validity. While there may be academic discourse and disagreement of perspective in an intellectual forum, that is done with mutual respect and based on evidence and fact. An argumentum et hominem has no place in such a forum.

Good morning, Ben. Here's a little on my experience, on why I think I can have something to say on the importance of quality control. So for a decade and a half, I wrote a much-read economic and financial newsletter. I wrote for thousands of readers via email, say one to five times a week, each piece usually 1-5 pages (but up to 40 pages, I think was by far my biggest). Every time, I agonised about the quality of every sentence, every paragraph, every page, every chart in my analysis - checking and rechecking and rechecking - before I hit the "Send" button.

That is how I made my living. The credibility of my work was everything. It was just me - no PA, no offsider, no other fact-checker. I had to deal with every error I made. I tried extremely hard not to make any. The ones that slipped through the net, I corrected. I had to, as every competent reader had noticed. There was no room for pretending. Honesty was not only the best policy, it was the only viable policy.

Now, in this my first "science" experience - into which I stumbled - I have documented serious errors in a serious science paper by high-profile scientists at a serious university.

The scientists have pretended there are no mistakes in their paper. So I have documented the series of basic errors again, and again. Yes, it has become boring, tiresome and sometimes annoying, not least for me.

A widely respected journalist has documented some of the incompetence and unscholarly behaviour involved: http://www.smh.com.au/business/pesky-economist-wont-let-big-sugar-lie-20120725-22pru.html

All I am asking is that the errors be corrected. I am surprised that there seems to be little support here for what I regard as the only reasonable approach. That's something I don't really understand.

Anyway Ben, you say you "believe there are adequate scientific control and peer-critique within the University of Sydney and greater scientific/research community to ensure research reliability and validity".

Yes, I used to think that too. But alas, that has not been my experience in this episode. So now I think that if scientists and the University of Sydney are not getting basic things right, and not correcting their basic errors, why should anyone have confidence that University of Sydney research is going to make progress on hard things? And why would taxpayers want to keep funding negligent research?

Ben, you note that, "Every scientific study will have its own methodological flaws based on the limitation of the study design". I can assure you that is not the issue here. The problems are more basic, and I mean really basic. For example, Ben, check out Professor Brand-Miller and Dr Barclay's bizarre false interpretation of Figure 5A involved in Questions 1, 2 and 3: http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/8-QUESTIONS-FOR-AWB-&-JBM-BANNED.pdf

Ben, surely you are prepared to concede that's an eye-popping error? And should be corrected?

And fancy professional scientists not knowing - or perhaps just not noting - that the ABS dataset on which their paper's preferred sugar series - and so their spectacular (but false) conclusion - is based was discontinued as unreliable by the ABS more than a decade before the paper was published!

Could someone please explain how that officially discontinued series alongside the University of Sydney's bizarre insistence that up is really down is not a clear example of incompetence or worse at what is supposed to be the highest level of scholarship in Australia?

Maybe now would be a good time for Dr Barclay and Professor Brand-Miller to stop reading, press "Reply" and explain, for starters, how Figure 5A indicates - as they have claimed twice in supposedly "peer reviewed" published papers - a long trend decline in per-capita consumption of added sugar?

Then they might work their way through the rest of my eight awkward questions in the link above. Or they could just "cut to the chase", save us all some time and correct their deeply flawed paper.

In the meantime, I have little alternative but to continue to ask who, if anyone, is responsible for academic and scientific quality control at the University of Sydney.

> for a decade and a half, I wrote a much-read economic and financial newsletter.....Every time, I agonised about the quality of every sentence, every paragraph, every page, every chart in my analysis - checking and rechecking and rechecking - before I hit the "Send" button.<

So why the drop in quality now, just to sustain your cognitive dissonance? Why not quote large meta-analysis, why quote Rheseus monkey studies and misrepresent Taubes? Why hold up the experience of a few thousand as an example and suggest scientists couldn't be bothered getting around to researching fructose?

Why avoid your mistaken interpretation of science and even when corrected, repeat it?

Why won't YOU answer the tough questions?

David, please do not be upset if I say that correcting your strong opinions is not something I have time for. As I wrote to you in great depth yesterday, my concern is about the integrity of the scientific record. The best I can do is simply assure you that my very strong opinion that today's unnaturally elevated levels of fructose consumption are a serious health hazard - indeed, that excess fructose and global "diabesity" probably go hand in hand like tobacco and lung cancer - will not be published as fact in any "peer reviewed" science journal, at least not until I get a chance to be "Guest Editor".

Also, I note that neither you, nor your friend Dr Barclay nor Professor Brand-Miller have been in touch to collect that $40,000 cash on offer in my "Australian Paradox Challenge". After 10 weeks, readers would be correct in assuming that's because my critique is correct, as they can see clearly in my post above to Ben. Yes, Dr Barclay and Professor Brand-Miller should simply correct their deeply flawed paper.

Finally, David, would you like to hazard a guess who was so silly as to advise University of Sydney Vice-Chancellor Dr Michael Spence to mistakenly vouch for the veracity of the deeply flawed Australian Paradox paper? (http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/SydneyUniVC%20LETTER070612.pdf )

You're right, David. I've tried to explain to Rory the broader context of research and theimportance of understanding professional practice and how policy is made, but if falls on deaf ears because this stuff, like anti-vaccination, is based on a fixed ideology - it's not amenable to rational discussion.

Rory - "peer reviewed articles" are assessed by reviewers for each particular journal as being suitable for publication. The real peer review occurs when an informed audience reads, critiques and responds to the paper.

There are millions of punlished papers that have flawed methodology - that's the purpose of publication - so an informed audience can assess the methodology and not just accept the conclusions.

Rory appears to have a genuine motivation, but also appears to have become obsessed by fructose and a single pubished paper. In the meantime, I don't see any experts in this area suddenly changing policy and pushing everyone to consume empty calories. If nutrition and obesity were as simple as reading up on the internet, why do we expect so much training for professionals? Perhaps there is more complexity to this area than untrained people realise.

Sue, perhaps there is less complexity in this area than "trained" people realise?

You rightly say "There are millions of punlished papers that have flawed methodology". But how many of them are published after confusing "down" with "up"? As I explained to Ben earlier, this is not about "flawed methodology". It's about - alongside other obvious errors - Professor Brand-Miller and Dr Barclay's negligent confusion of down with up in their interpretation of Figure 5A (involved in Questions 1, 2 and 3 of http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/8-QUESTIONS-FOR-AWB-&-JBM-BANNED.pdf ).

You didn't yesterday and doubt you will today, but for your own credibility Sue maybe you should concede that's an eye-popping error? And that it should be corrected?

In any case, my so-called "fixed ideology" is that serious errors should be corrected. They should not be published time and time again on the scientific record as fact. Sue, I'm surprised - a bit shocked actually - that you do not share my attitude that errors should be acknowledged and corrected.

And as I've sought to explain, this is not all about fructose. This is about the fact that first time I ever crossed-checked what a high-profile scientist was saying, it turned out to be completely wrong. The available information certainly does NOT indicate a "consistent and substantial decline in total refined or added sugar consumption by Australians over the past 30 years." If it did, the authors would not have been able to publish four charts that point UP not down! (Figures 1-4 at http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/NutrientsLETTER2405122.pdf )

Whether or not the Australian Paradox paper is an academic disgrace - in my opinion, it is - and so should be corrected is independent of whether fructose is good, bad or indifferent. And the "broader context" to which you refer would be a disaster if the papers filling it were unconstrained by simple facts that long ago had been agreed. Like up is up, and down is down.

By the way, it's not a "single published paper", Sue. It's two and counting. Three, if we count the initial rebuttal that falsely - but amusingly - claimed that cars are eating a big chunk of the sugar via ethanol production (http://christopherjoye.blogspot.com.au/2012/07/journo-skewers-university-of-sydney.html ).

Not to mention Professor Brand-Miller's efforts to convince the nation via the media that sugar/fructose is not a problem and in any case we are eating "less and less" of it:
• http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/a-spoonful-of-sugar-is-not-so-bad/story-e6frg8y6-1226090126776
• http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/war-over-sweet-nothings/story-e6frg8y6-1226261140744
• http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/weight-a-minute-dont-blame-sugar/story-fn59niix-1226080214264
• http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/disgust-at-claims-sugar-as-dangerous-as-alcohol/story-e6frg8y6-1226260002393
• http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/diet-and-fitness/how-hard-can-it-be-to-cut-sugar-20100630-zmvt.html

Moreover, in just in the past week or so, Sue, Dr Barclay and Professor Brand-Miller have launched a new website, and continue to convey serious misinformation on the particular facts regarding the Australian Paradox paper. Under the banner of the University of Sydney. I will document the particular errors in due course.

Not that you will have an interest, Sue, because you are happy for the University of Sydney to publish whatever suits, and are not bothered about its serious and still-undisclosed conflict of interest (http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/Sydney-Uni-conflict-interest-030712.pdf ).

Sue, you claim "The real peer review occurs when an informed audience reads, critiques and responds to the paper". That worked well! As far as I can see, this deeply flawed paper almost got to its first birthday before anyone (me) wrote anything bad about it. Rosemary says she said from Day One that the paper is "silly" and "incorrect" but didn't get round to writing it down. But the conversations on the topic in-house were robust, she assured me. But no-one bothered to tell the rest of us about this dodgy paper, a paper that's living an inspired life - for something that should have been strangled at birth - well beyond academia.

For the record, Sue and David and Rosemary, the Australian Paradox paper is not just some obscure factually incorrect silly study that would not have seen the light of day but for me. In particular, the Heart Foundation, Diabetes Australia, Nutrition Australia and the Dietitians Association of Australia all seem to have drawn false comfort from the paper's mistaken conclusion of "an inverse relationship" between sugar consumption and obesity. And then routinely misinformed the countless Australians who go to these entities for what they thought would be reliable nutrition and health advice.

The deeply flawed paper also is cited by the Australian Food and Grocery Council in its lobbying against the proposed (mild) recommendation to limit sugar consumption, in the Australian Government's current draft nutrition guidelines. So too, it is cited by Kellogg's, Coca-Cola, Pepsico, the US Sugar Association, the Canadian Sugar Institute, Mackay Canegrowers and Senator Boswell in the Australian Senate. There probably are plenty more, but we can all see what is going on (see #6 at http://www.australianparadox.com/ ).

Of course, I only know that because I am a zealot, right Sue? Interestingly, I also happen to know that the facts - and misstatement of facts - that have emerged in this dispute have raised more than a few eyebrows in a couple of interesting places.

So thanks for your insights. Gotta run. But I can't help thinking about how the world would change if no-one bothered to check their facts, and no-one corrected their errors. It would work well, I guess, for maybe 10 minutes.

Thanks for you answers, Chris. And fair enough. So, one more question, please. I'm fascinated - since your chosen topic is "What role does fructose have in weight gain"? - that you did not cite the Australian Paradox paper.

After all, as far as I can see, that paper - concluding that there is "an inverse relationship" between (added) sugar/fructose and obesity - is by far the most-widely cited Australian study on this particular topic. Yep, eating less (added) sugar/fructose is associated with increased obesity, is the peer-reviewed scientifically verified story published twice by Dr Alan Barclay and Professor Jennie Brand-Miller of the University of Sydney.

And many have taken the "peer reviewed, published" result seriously. [As an aside, for Sue: I emphasise "peer reviewed, published" because that is an important aspect of Professor Brand-Miller and Dr Barclay's rebuttal of my critique: We have published, we are (famous) nutritionists, and you are not a nutritionist, so we are right. That's their argument right before they moved into the bit on page 2 where they simply made up the spectacularly false - but rather amusing - claim that cars not humans have been consuming a big chunk of the available sugar via ethanol production (http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/RESPONSE-TO-ROBERTSON.pdf ). Widely respected journalist Michael Pascoe has documented the rather unscholarly (shall we say) process that followed: http://www.smh.com.au/business/pesky-economist-wont-let-big-sugar-lie-20120725-22pru.html#ixzz21hP5IgYR ]

Anyway, as I wrote yesterday, the Heart Foundation, Diabetes Australia, Nutrition Australia and the Dietitians Association of Australia have taken these scientists, their endless search for knowledge and their dud paper seriously. Each of these entities seem to have drawn false comfort from the paper's mistaken conclusion of "an inverse relationship" between sugar consumption and obesity. And then routinely misinformed the countless Australians who go to them for what they thought would be reliable nutrition and health advice.

Australian Paradox also is cited by the Australian Food and Grocery Council in its lobbying against the proposed (mild) recommendation to limit sugar consumption in the Australian Government's current draft nutrition guidelines. So too, the deeply flawed paper is cited by Kellogg's, Coca-Cola, Pepsico, the US Sugar Association, the Canadian Sugar Institute, Mackay Canegrowers and Senator Boswell in the Australian Senate. There probably are plenty more, but we can all see what is going on (see #6 at http://www.australianparadox.com/ ).

Chris, given the paper's very high local and global profile - that's usually seen as a triumph for local academics - I'm surprised the Australian Paradox paper did not rate a mention in your survey of the literature above. Was that just an oversight? In particular, as someone who has read and critiqued a good deal of the literature, for the article above and over the years, what do you think of the quality of this Australian Paradox study?

As background, Professor Boyd Swinburn, who in March was the director of the World Health Organisation collaborating centre for obesity prevention at Deakin University, "...says the study's summary of the data as showing 'a consistent and substantial decline in total refined or added sugar by Australians over the past 30 years' belies the facts 'and is a serious over-call in my opinion'. His conclusion is that 'the ecological trends of sugar and obesity are pretty well matched and I do not believe there is any paradox to explain'."
(http://www.smh.com.au/national/health/research-causes-stir-over-sugars-role-in-obesity-20120330-1w3e5.html#ixzz23kuUB9WR )

And Rosemary elsewhere on this website has said that the paper is "silly" because "we have no evidence that sugar consumption in Australia has fallen". She has "many objections to that particular paper" and "will almost certainly cite it at some stage as an example of something I consider to be incorrect".

By contrast, David, Sue and Ben remain agnostic: in recent days they have found it very difficult to say whether the top line - sales of sugary softdrinks between 1994 and 2006 - in Dr Barclay and Professor Brand-Miller's fabulous Figure 5A trends up or down. I didn't realise it was a hard question and I hope to be able to provide them with a Powerpoint presentation at some point to help make things clearer.

In the meantime, Chris, I wonder if you would care to comment on whether the University of Sydney's fabulous Figure 5A indicates a downward trend in added-sugar consumption, as claimed by the authors, or not? (Figure 5A can be viewed in the vicinity of Questions 1, 2 and 3 of http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/8-QUESTIONS-FOR-AWB-&-JBM-BANNED.pdf ).

Have a good weekend, Chris, and thanks very much for your time and effort in responding to the many and varied questions we've all been throwing at you here this week.

An aside to Rory, who says "the deeply flawed paper is cited by Kellogg's, Coca-Cola, Pepsico, the US Sugar Association, the Canadian Sugar Institute, Mackay Canegrowers and Senator Boswell in the Australian Senate."

Multi-national manufacturing companies cite whatever they can to try to maximise sales of their products. On another thread here, there is discussion about a company selling a dodgy weight loss porduct, and citing dodgy research. This does NOT translate into public policy, because single studies that show paradoxical results are pulled apart within those professional communities.

Rory - I can see that you are driven crazy by the fact that a paper you disagree with has ot been "corrected." But you are not seeing this in the broader policy perspective, probably because you don't move in circles where these issues are debated, discussed and regulated.

I know you don't seek my advice, but it might do you good to stop obsessing about that paper. Your current action is only drawing attention to something that many of us had not explored before. If the so-called "Australian paradox" is wrong, it will not be confirmed or reproduced by further research, and it will die it's own death (unless you keep drawing attention to it).

Hi Sue. Happy Monday and thanks for responding. I think you may be surprised to find by the end of this post that - while not "peas in a pod" - you and I share some very similar concerns. (And I think Rosemary might also sign up for some of what I write below. Please correct me as required, Rosemary.)

Sue, you said, "Multi-national manufacturing companies cite whatever they can to try to maximise sales of their products". Yes, that is exactly what I am worried about.

You said, "This [companies citing shonky research] does NOT translate into public policy, because single studies that show paradoxical results are pulled apart within those professional communities".

If only that were true. That it is NOT true is what I've been complaining about! The "paradoxical" - actually it's just false - Australian Paradox result was NOT "pulled apart" by the relevant "professional communities".

Indeed, to this day - beyond the public comments of Rosemary and Professor Swinburn that I have cited (and which were made publicly after I started a fuss) - you will struggle to find on the public record any academic or scientist having written anything bad about that deeply flawed paper.

That's even after the spectacularly false result - "an inverse relationship" between sugar consumption and obesity - was REPUBLISHED as Australian Paradox Revisited a year later (in April 2012)

And despite the rather disturbing and unscholarly behaviour involved in the process: http://www.smh.com.au/business/pesky-economist-wont-let-big-sugar-lie-20120725-22pru.html

Sue, I now realise that I haven't been sufficiently clear to you and others about why I care about this third-rate paper.

So, why do I even care about the hopelessly flawed academic disgrace that is Australian Paradox?

Well, I believe it was the analysis behind Australian Paradox that provided the intellectual grunt that allowed the Heart Foundation - outrageously - to put "Ticks" on breakfast cereals containing 30% added sugar and on other sugary junkfoods. It also provides the intellectual basis for putting Low-GI stamps on sugary junkfoods.

Sue, you say: " 'Low GI' has nothing to do with 'healthy'. It's been misappropriated by the food industry. Much like sweets full of sugar can be promoted as 'fat free' ". Sue, I agree absolutely. That is my point!

As you know, Sue, GI = 55 is the arbitrary dividing line between low and high GI. Importantly, it turns out that the “sweet poison” half of table sugar - fructose - has a super-low GI of 19, towards the very bottom of the GI scale. Fructose is super-low GI so it must be a “good" food, right?

And if any processed food product is not low GI, then just add fructose because adding fructose is the simple recipe for a lower GI reading.

Food companies keen to get on board the Low-GI train have an incentive to add fructose, to make processed food lower GI, and less healthy in the process.

Rosemary last week seemed surprised to find that this now is happening in Australia. Do you recall that new breakfast for adults and kids keen to get out the door. The ingredients are:

"Filtered water, skim milk powder, wheat maltodextrin, soy protein, vegetable oils (sunflower, canola), cane sugar, fructose, hi-maize™ starch, prebiotic fibre (inulin), cereals (oat flour, barley beta glucan), minerals (calcium, phosphorous), food acid (332), vegetable gums (460, 466, 407), flavour, vitamins (C, niacin, A, B12, B6, B2, B1, folate), salt, natural sweetener (stevia extract)". http://www.sanitarium.com.au/products/breakfast/up-and-go-vive/up-and-go-vive-vanilla-bliss

Yes, cane sugar (sucrose), fructose (a second serve) AND stevia.

"How low on the GI scale would you like your manufactured food product, Sir? 54? 53? 45? 40? Tell me when to stop pouring!"

Check out the sweet-as low GIs of high-added-fructose “Coca Cola”, "Milo", “Snickers Bar”, "Ice Cream", “Cake” in a search at http://www.glycemicindex.com/foodSearch.php .

Sue, the fact that fructose has a super-low GI of 19 is THE FUNDAMENTAL FLAW in the "Low GI" approach to nutrition. This profound flaw is the awkward bit the low-GI industry avoids mentioning like the plague.

That is, the recipe for a low or lower-GI product is simple - just mix in SUPER-LOW GI=19 FRUCTOSE!

The GI scientists choose to limit energy, fat and salt, but happily add sugar/fructose. The false Australian Paradox result allows them to do that with intellectual cover, including via the University of Sydney's stamp of credibility.

Interestingly, Australian Paradox - sugar is not the problem - co-author Dr Barclay is keen to assist in the formulation of lower-GI sugary products at a one-off rate of $6000 per product: http://www.foodhealthdialogue.gov.au/internet/foodandhealth/publishing.nsf/Content/D59B2C8391006638CA2578E600834BBD/$File/Resources%20and%20support%20for%20reformulation%20activities.pdf

Sue, while I agree that neither the Heart Foundation "Tick" nor the Low-GI-stamp programs are "public policy", my strong concern is that Australian Paradox's false conclusion - the intellectual basis for thinking that adding more sugar is consistent with a healthier product - is having a very unhealthy influence on what ordinary Australians - seeking to be healthy - are being encouraged to eat.

With Australian Paradox in the background, the Heart Foundation and the low-GI crew explicitly give added sugar a clearer path to our stomachs, and to the bellies of a new generation of kids.

Now, Sue, if you had a strong opinion that unnaturally high levels of added sugar/fructose are a key driver of Australian and global obesity and diabetes - as I do (yes, David, it is not yet a "proven" fact) - then you'd view the Australian Paradox paper as contributing to a growing disaster for public health and public policy.

Sue, all that is the context in which I have felt it important to do what I can to ensure the deeply flawed and somewhat dangerous Australian Paradox paper is corrected or retracted. I hope you can view my efforts more kindly in future, if you agree that there might be a bit of public-health issue here.

In any case, I will pursue this matter as best I can until I get a result that I regard as reasonable.

Rory - I didn't read your entire last post, but I think we are coming from fundamentally different positions.

What I see is a huge body of research, some high quality, some not, which is discussed within the relevant professional groups.

I am not a nutritionist or dietician, but I have some understanding of how research translates into policy. I do not see any body of nutritionists, dieticians, clinicians, or anyone, really, advising anyone to consume more sugar than they burn off.

Fructose is no "poison" - it is part of a balanced diet, the same as fat, and salt, and starch. Fructose is not about to be promoted as a health food, or added to the water. "Empty calories" are not great nutritionally, but also aren't bad if you brush your teeth and consume the energy in exercise. There is nothing "magic" - or simple - about diet. As I said before, it's all about balance.

Rosemary, I asked this one the other but I think you missed it (fair enough, I agree that my posts are a bit overfull with words):

What are we to make of a Low-fat, Low-GI breakfast food/drink involving the following ingredients: "Filtered water, skim milk powder, wheat maltodextrin, soy protein, vegetable oils (sunflower, canola), cane sugar, fructose, hi-maize™ starch, prebiotic fibre (inulin), cereals (oat flour, barley beta glucan), minerals (calcium, phosphorous), food acid (332), vegetable gums (460, 466, 407), flavour, vitamins (C, niacin, A, B12, B6, B2, B1, folate), salt, natural sweetener (stevia extract)" (http://www.sanitarium.com.au/products/breakfast/up-and-go-vive/up-and-go-vive-vanilla-bliss )?

Am I right to think that some food companies do indeed go out of their way to add pure fructose? Mmm, tasty: cane sugar (sucrose), fructose (a second dose?) AND stevia. Can't wait to get a truckload of that healthy low-GI option into my kids.

To clarify - I agree that pure fructose is not used frequently (but as Rory notes it is starting to make an appearance in foods that claim to be Low GI as fructose is very low GI and thus using fructose rather than sucrose is even more effective in reducing the GI of a product.

I suppose there is no need to point out yet again the happy co-incidence that LoGiCane refined sugar was the lucky recipient of a Low GI "Gold Star" by the same people publishing the Australian Paradox).

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/low-gi-sugar-patently-better/story-e6frg6no-1111119143429

I use the expression fructose/sucrose and fructose/sugar to make it clear that I am talking about fructose and not glucose.

I have found that just using the words sucrose/sugar runs into the problem that if a reader does not know what sucrose is they assume I am criticizing the consumption of any sugar. They then eagerly point out that our bodies run on glucose and thus limiting sugar/sucrose is akin to starvation.

Perhaps, as Rosemary alludes to, the anti-fructose brigade would do better to put their energies into dispelling myths about GI.

The concept of Glycaemic Index was developed in the context of diabetes management, where insulin is not naturally secreted, so there is an advantage to having "slow release" foods so that the glucose level in the blood is evened out rather than occurring in peaks and troughs.

This is not an issue in people with a normally-functioning pancreas, because the glucose level triggers insulin release whenever required.

"Low GI" has nothing to do with "healthy". It's been misappropriated by the food industry. Much like sweets full of sugar can be promoted as "fat free".

One of the fascinating aspects of this debate is that despite the tone of that 'open letter' the practical differences between the positions of Mr Forbes-Ewan and Mr Gillespie are quite small and their recommendations differ only in degree.

Mr Forbes-Ewan believes if one exercises regularly the occasional modest encounter with foods containing added fructose/sucrose will not do you harm. He recommends against consuming sugary drinks or consuming the quantities of fructose the average person tends to do regularly. In my view Mr Forbes-Ewan has become more cautious in his fructose consumption recommendations in recent times and that is welcomed as I thought his praise of dessert was a touch too fulsome at an earlier point.

Mr Gillespie recommends avoiding added fructose/sucrose completely.

Compared to the sugar eating habits of most people and the marketing campaigns of the food processing industries they are really brothers in arms.

The problem only arises because Mr Forbes-Ewan and some other nutritionalists do not like the language used by Mr Gillespie - they consider it florid, dramatic and designed to attract the attention of the uninformed public. They also dispute his interpretation of the science but that is not a major point as in the end their recommendations re the consumption of fructose are different only in a minor degree.

Personally I have no problem with the use of words such as 'toxic' and 'poison' in an environment where public attitudes have been molded by decades of mass marketing and unquestioned acceptance of added sugar in the food supply and the result has been excessively high levels of consumption.

Whatever your feeling may be about the method the facts speak for themselves.

We are finally witnessing a large number of people taking seriously the idea that excessive consumption of sugar will do them serious harm. We can only hope that we will see similar improvements in public awareness for other important health concerns in the near future.

What is disturbing though is the prominence given to research (the Australian Paradox) that is clearly flawed and is being used to dismiss concerns about the excessive levels of sugar that are consumed by the general public. Research like that gives a green light to people to think,

"Phew I don't need to worry about consuming sugar because it is not connected to obesity in Australia"

The tendency of some nutritionists and dietitians to dismiss the seriousness of this high profile flawed research that is being actively used by the food processing industry to deflect attention and dismiss concerns (and some of the participants on these threads are excellent examples) is bizarre.

>In my view Mr Forbes-Ewan has become more cautious in his fructose consumption recommendations in recent times <

It's always amusing to see Dr Lustig's, Sarah Wilsons and David Gillespie's supporters suggestions that nutrition advisors NOW are cautioning against added sugar (like those people have led the charge)!

Even read a comment on the Gillespie worship page on Facebook after hearing Rosemary's response (http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/bigideas/stanton-interview/4179890) "They have to sit on the fence for a while so they can transition into: "I've been saying we shouldn't consume sugar and polyunsaturated fats for years now."

Amazing how hard people work to address cognitive dissonance!

>Mr Gillespie recommends avoiding added fructose/sucrose completely<

No he recommends no more than 15g per day and that includes limiting fruit intake!

>They also dispute his interpretation of the science but that is not a major point as in the end their recommendations re the consumption of fructose are different only in a minor degree.<

Introduction to Big Fat Lies "Diets and exercise won't help us lose weight. Vitamins and minerals are a waste of money and sometimes downright dangerous. Sugar makes us fat and sick. And polyunsaturated fat gives us cancer and works with sugar to give us heart disease. The evidence for all of these statements is abundant and unequivocal"

What about his position on saturated fat being all good and setting no limits on consumption? Or his recent advice for someone who said they crave Milo and hot chocolate "try mixing some dextrose and cocoa in the milk instead - our kids love it". (won't call you again on the double standard ;-) Melanoma not being caused by sunlight? etc etc etc

I think you are mistaken about how much common ground there is, especially due to Gillespie's black and white view on most things health related.

Sorry Mr Driscoll, but to the sugar munching world your recommendations regarding sugar and David Gillespie's recommendations are much the same i.e. ' major buzz kill'.

Sorry that news causes you distress.

If it helps at all, I happy to concede that David was not have been the first to make those types of recommendations. He just seems to be the one who managed to 'cut through' and make a significant difference to the level of public awareness.

But there are the plenty of other public health issues that require more attention. Why don't you choose one and give it a go. I will support your efforts.

Hi Rosemary,

A lot of people do take the guidelines and the work of professionals like yourself very seriously.

I know that in my family the messages were picked up and the family meals ( a bit of a bun fight with three brothers) reflected those messages including the warnings about eating less sugar.

However, while we were on our guard about soft drinks, sweets etc the hidden sugars in breakfast.cereals and sauces etc were less well understood. Nor do i think that we understood that we may have been creating a life time struggle by believing that intense 'sweetness' was natural and to be pursued by means natural or artificial.

The way i understand the current anti fructose sugar campaigners is that they are seeking to challenge this status quo and recommend that we take a much harder line regarding the addition of fructuse/sugar to the food supply, even to the point of abstinence for people who struggle moderating their consumption of foods with added fructose/sugar.

It this harder line that appears to trouble the 'all things in moderation' philosophy.

I think it is time to recommend a harder line.

My experience with smoking and fructose/sugar/sweetness is clear - dabbling 'in moderation' did not work - abstinence from nicotine worked - near abstinence with sugar worked.

I think it would be interesting for some research to be done comparing the results of people following a diet very low or absent added sweetness/fructose/sugar and those who try to follow the current 'all things in moderation philosophy.

Sometimes never is easier than 'sometimes and in moderation'

One common objection to abstinence is that it leads to bingeing. I think that dabbling in moderation leads to bingeing. I certain binged on nicotine when i dabbled with smoking in moderation. It was only when i completely abstained and 12 months had passed that i finally felt fully free of the desire for a nicotine binge. According the abstinence leads to bingeing argument i must be due an almighty binge after 8 years abstinence.

I dont think fructose/sugar is as addictive as nicotine but an abstinence or close to it approach might be the better recommendation for people who are struggling to moderate their level of consumption.

Afterall there is no nutritional need for added fructose/sugar in any food so its absence is merely a matter of choice.

Paul,

One problem I have with the "Fructose is the devil" argument is that people being the way people are will find ways to continue to eat junk without the fructose. I made a visit to the "How Much Sugar" website forums and low and behold the first discussion I see is about somebody replacing fructose with dextrose.

I can imagine that soon I'll walk down the shopping isle and see all these boxes containing pretend food (with massive amount of dextrose) and on the box will be a big tick with "Low Fructose" written next to it.

Hi Gary,

It is a legitimate concern that if low/No fructose becomes the rage we may find food producers simply replacing the fructose with dextrose. As dextrose is not as sweet as fructose they will probably bump up the sweetness with something like stevia or an artificial sweetener.

The good side of this is that they will be avoiding some of the fructose metabolic issues that have raised concerns, the bad side (from my point of view) is that they may still over eat due to an overactive sweet tooth.

Which is why I suggest caution re consuming intensely sweet foods - which at the present time are mostly foods sweetened with fructose.

Your suggestion of avoiding processed foods will to a large extent achieve a similar result - so I agree and think we are not likely to meet in those aisles at the supermarket.

Wrong post - how did that happen?

Paul, still unable to address anything but fructose/sugar? based only on YOUR theory that fructose a major sweetener despite Rosemary's correction?

Sounding more like a Gillespie apologist every day methinks! No commenting on replacing Milo with dextrose?

A Gillespie apologist?

A surprising comment considering every second reply of yours excitedly points out some point where you believe my position appears inconsistent with Mr Gillespie. I have commented on your 'Milo/Dextrose" conundrum several times in this thread and also in the world's longest fructose thread.

http://www.raisin-hell.com/2010/01/attack-of-chocolatier.html

Mr Gillespie has no need of an apologist he is an extremely capable presenter of his position on these matters.

The only thing I suspect that I have in common with Mr Gillespie is a deep frustration that the primary source of resistance to the message, that people should severely limit, and for many, avoid foods with added fructose are some member of the group of people who claim to have the healthy eating habits of the population as their main concern.

It would be understandable if this debate was with the representatives of the fructose/sugar producing and food processing industries or those that are directly employed by them.

Fortunately, I am quite confident that the members of your flock are rapidly shrinking in number and in a small time the number of nutritionists and dietitians that are down playing the warnings or wishing to split hairs as to the precise reason added fructose/sugar is a really bad idea, will be as common as the Tasmanian Tiger.

So rather than chase Rory up hill and down dale on this thread why not have a go at earning yourself a nice lazy $40K proving Rory wrong.

Ok, I will give you a point for knowing of an even 'longer' thread about fructose. I am not entirely surprised by that.

Now I see where your style of debate comes from but I am not sure it works any better for Mr Aragon than it does for you. Is handing people their 'buttocks' a good thing?

You seem very keen on the idea that the sweetness of fructose is just like any other sugar. Good for you. Try convincing the food processing industry of that and see what reception you get in their food technology laboratories.

Not arguing with Rory on that topic? - Sounds like you may have just qualified for Rory's list!

"Haven't you already been corrected on this?"

I don't think so.

Oh that's right - in the Dave Driscoll alternate universe the food processing industries make big bucks by lacing processed foods with glucose/dextrose instead of fructose and compounds that imitate its sweetness.

David, I can see that you are a glutton for punishment, but you still have to try to keep up. To help get you up to date: Rosemary was surprised last week to find that food companies are indeed adding fructose, on top of sucrose. It helps to lower the GI score, as you know. Indeed, the low-GI school at University of Sydney is in part building a business around the idea.

Recall that I asked Rosemary: "What are we to make of a Low-fat, Low-GI breakfast food/drink involving the following ingredients: "Filtered water, skim milk powder, wheat maltodextrin, soy protein, vegetable oils (sunflower, canola), cane sugar, fructose, hi-maize™ starch, prebiotic fibre (inulin), cereals (oat flour, barley beta glucan), minerals (calcium, phosphorous), food acid (332), vegetable gums (460, 466, 407), flavour, vitamins (C, niacin, A, B12, B6, B2, B1, folate), salt, natural sweetener (stevia extract)" (http://www.sanitarium.com.au/products/breakfast/up-and-go-vive/up-and-go-vive-vanilla-bliss )?

Am I right to think that some food companies do indeed go out of their way to add pure fructose? Mmm, tasty: cane sugar (sucrose), fructose (a second dose?) AND stevia. Can't wait to get a truckload of that healthy low-GI option into my kids."

Rosemary rightly came back and said she couldn't buy such a product. But, David, your mate Dr Alan Barclay could certainly help make such a product. Here's the deal: http://www.foodhealthdialogue.gov.au/internet/foodandhealth/publishing.nsf/Content/D59B2C8391006638CA2578E600834BBD/$File/Resources%20and%20support%20for%20reformulation%20activities.pdf

After all, reformulating food products to lower the GI score seems to be a feature of Dr Barclay's day job, when he isn't wowing the world with his skills as a time-series analyst and struggling to tell up from down: http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/8-QUESTIONS-FOR-AWB-&-JBM-BANNED.pdf

Good afternoon, Chris. It's a new week. Shall we try that again? Does that top line - sugary softdrinks - in Figure 5A trend up or down? Yes, you can still view Figure 5A at Question 1 in http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/8-QUESTIONS-FOR-AWB-&-JBM-BANNED.pdf

Your Friday reply was a bit disingenuous, Chris, don't you think? I parked a pure-black zebra in front of your desk and you can't say if it is black, white or brindle. You replied, "I don't know whether the zebra is black, white or brindle. I don't believe anyone else knows the answer to this question, either. The most recent National Nutrition Survey (NNS) for which results are available was conducted in 1997--too long ago for definitive conclusions to be drawn on recent trends in zebra colours. I understand that an NNS was conducted this year, so we will have to wait until those results are available before we can compare the colour of zebras from 1997 with that in 2012 and come to firm conclusions about colours."

Chris, I'm pretty sure I asked you directly "...whether the University of Sydney's fabulous Figure 5A indicates a downward trend in added-sugar consumption, as claimed by the authors, or not?". Let's check the replay. ...Yep, that's what I asked and everyone who bothers to look at Figure 5A - reproduced at Question 1 in the link above - can see that the answer is simple: "Yes, Rory, as you say, the trend is up".

As you well know, Chris, I specifically asked you what you think of the QUALITY of the most-cited Australian academic paper on your chosen topic of fructose and weight gain. That paper is "The Australian Paradox: A Substantial Decline in Sugars Intake over the Same Timeframe that Overweight and Obesity Have Increased", co-authored by Dr Alan Barclay and Professor Jennie Brand-Miller and published in the "Nutrients" journal, with Professor Brand-Miller wearing a second hat as the "Guest Editor" of the relevant "Special Issue" of the journal.

I was curious to see, Chris, if you would tell me why you did not cite the obvious paper that you should have have cited. That is to say, should have cited and then dismissed as dominated by serious errors and a spectacular false conclusion, using whatever nice words you wanted to use to hint at those problems.

As you know Chris, the Australian Paradox paper might have been somewhat credible if the authors had not published four - FOUR - separate charts of big-picture indicators of sugars consumption that trend UP not down, and if the basis of the authors' preferred series - the only one that suggested decline - had not been discontinued as unreliable by the ABS more than a decade before the paper was published in 2011 (http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/4306.0 ).

It's all here in exhaustive and exhausting detail at: http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/NutrientsLETTER2405122.pdf .

In my opinion, the "shoddy" sugar study morphed into a "shonky" sugar study when the authors displayed rather unscholarly behaviour in the rebuttal process: http://www.smh.com.au/business/pesky-economist-wont-let-big-sugar-lie-20120725-22pru.html . Is the word "shonky" an unreasonable one to apply given the circumstances?

Beyond the fact that the authors were unaware or chose not to mention the rather important DATA DEAD-END from 1998-99 for their preferred series (which by itself should be sufficient to require the paper's retraction), the University of Sydney's embarrassing false interpretation of Figure 5A is the most clear-cut example of Dr Alan Barclay and Professor Brand-Miller's ridiculously flawed analysis and conclusions (Questions 1-3 in the "BANNED" link above).

That's not counting that slippery disappearing false claim that the cars ate a big chunk of the available sugar via ethanol production.

With regards to Figure 5A, it's a riot that Dr Barclay and Professor Brand-Miller somehow managed to confuse down with up, and yet - EVEN THEN - somehow managed to get their grotesquely flawed paper published in a scientific journal. And it turns out that Australian Paradox was published in the journal where co-author Professor Brand-Miller was wearing a second hat as "Guest Editor". So, yes, I am asking and serious questions about the level of competence and scholarship of senior scientists at the University of Sydney.

Now, Chris, if you had confirmed the obvious - "Yes, Rory, as you say, the trend is up" - we might have done a little dance as I pressed you on how deeply flawed the widely cited paper really is, confirmed that's why you chose NOT to cite it, with the exchange perhaps ending with me repeating again that the academic disgrace and public-health menace that is the Australian Paradox paper should be corrected or retracted. Or the exchange might have been ended by you simply walking away from the discussion. And none of that would have been new or interesting for many readers.

As you know Chris, and as regular readers know, I am here on this website mainly to do one thing. It's the thing that David Driscoll keeps complaining about: I am here to argue the case that the University of Sydney should correct its serious - and what I see as somewhat dangerous - factual errors and spectacularly false conclusion in the Australian Paradox paper.

But, Chris, when you - like David before you - refused point-blank to confirm the obvious, all the silent, competent and objective readers of this Conversation just saw you confirm the obvious. They think, "Boy, Chris just buried his credibility". (Competent and objective readers, pile in now if I got that wrong!)

It's interesting, Chris. The problem with intellectual credibility is that you cannot buy it. And you cannot fake it. You either have it or you don't. To be seen as credible, you actually have to be credible. So if you can't possibly confirm to me that, yes, the PURE BLACK ZEBRA indeed looks black, or that the line that clearly trends up indeed trends up, then you reveal yourself as not fair-dinkum in this discussion. Fair enough. That does not make you a bad person. It just means that you are unlikely to be much use in helping to get at the key facts in any discussion about fructose and obesity. Sorry to put you on the spot, Chris, but you did not handle that question well.

Chris, I'll show you credible. Looking back a month or two ago, many readers in this "Conversation" saw me chase Dr Rosemary Stanton across these pages - across Conversations - to corner her on her view on Australian Paradox. Now, Rosemary and Professor Brand Miller have lived their careers together in the small Australian pool of high-profile nutritionists. I assume they know each other well. Perhaps they are friends. I don't know. (I have never met or spoken with either of them, except via public blog discussions like this one.)

Anyway, I guessed that Rosemary didn't want to say anything bad. And I had to almost publicly embarrass myself in the process of cornering her on this topic. But when she was somewhat cornered, Chris, do you know what she did? She stepped up and told the truth, because she is a distinguished, competent and credible commentator on nutrition matters. She said (over two Conversations):

"And yes, I agree with you [Rory] that we have no evidence that sugar consumption in Australia has fallen. A walk around any supermarket shows that huge numbers of foods contain sugar. I argue this point frequently with colleagues”; “I have many objections to that particular paper and to the idea that sugar is not a problem”; and "I have expressed my opinion about the paper to the authors and - when it was published - I commented on it in several fora. I will almost certainly cite it at some stage as an example of something I consider to be incorrect".

That is the gist of what you might have said in your reply, Chris, if you were an objective commentator on this topic. Maybe something bland like: "The Australian Paradox paper is deeply flawed and should not be cited in serious conversations about sugar/fructose and obesity".

Like you in your Friday reply, Chris, the authors of Australian Paradox also are being disingenuous on their new website, by pretending that their paper has no serious errors, and that somehow whatever is revealed in 2013 - in the next national nutrition survey - will have some bearing on whether or not Australian Paradox is the academic disgrace I think it is (http://www.theaustralianparadox.com.au/index.php ).

After all, the paper didn't make any forecasts, it simply observed as scientific fact that - based on the available evidence - sugar consumption had shown a "substantial decline" over the "30 years" to 2010. Chris, the available and valid evidence is reproduced in the authors' main charts reproduced as Figures 1-4 here: http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/NutrientsLETTER2405122.pdf .

The fact that the available valid indicators of sugar consumption all point UP not down means that the authors' conclusion of a substantial decline - all peer-reviewed and published in the science journal at which Professor Brand Miller was the "Guest Editor" - is obviously wrong.

Dr Barclay and Professor Brand-Miller might have got away with concluding "don't know, it's unclear", but "substantial decline" was an obviously unreasonable stretch from the clear uptrends illustrated in their own charts!

So, Chris, shall we try that Friday thing again? Why did you not cite the Australian Paradox paper in your opinion piece, since it is the most-widely cited Australian paper on your chosen topic, and given that it is co-authored and "Guest Edit"ed by one of Australia's most famous and distinguished scientists?

Finally, Chris, does that top line (sugary softdrinks) in Figure 5A trend up or down? Yes, you can still view Figure 5A here: http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/8-QUESTIONS-FOR-AWB-&-JBM-BANNED.pdf

Chris, I'm confused. The Australian Paradox paper - in a result twice published in a peer-reviewed journal - concluded that there has been "a consistent and substantial decline in total refined or added sugar consumption by Australians over the past 30 years” - and so there's ”an inverse relationship” between sugar consumption and obesity.

Those (factually incorrect) conclusions were overseen by co-author and Nutrients' "Guest Editor" Professor Jennie Brand-Miller in the relevant "Special Issue" of the journal (http://www.mdpi.com/journal/nutrients/special_issues/carbohydrates ).

Now, Chris, you have said twice that "Neither I nor anyone else can be sure whether sugar consumption has increased, decreased or remained steady in Australia in recent decades". Okay, I've got it.

That is, your clearly stated position is that the main conclusion of Australian Paradox is hopelessly wrong. Yet you won't say a bad word about it? At the same time you want to pretend that you are an objective observer in this discussion. Are you kidding?

Since you clearly think Australian Paradox has misread the available data, I would encourage you, please, to join me in arguing near and far for the correction or retraction of that deeply flawed paper. Here are the questions that require answers: http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/8-QUESTIONS-FOR-AWB-&-JBM-BANNED.pdf

As instructed, Chris, I have removed you from my list of ANALYSTS WHO THINK AUSTRALIAN PARADOX IS AN ACADEMIC JOKE.

Can I put you down on this list? ANALYSTS WHO THINK AUSTRALIAN PARADOX IS AN ACADEMIC JOKE BUT ARE NOT PREPARED TO EXPLICITLY CONCEDE THE POINT IN PUBLIC.

Assuming you are happy to go with the fine-tuning, those various lists are updated below:

(a) ANALYSTS WHO THINK AUSTRALIAN PARADOX IS DEEPLY FLAWED, NOT TO SAY AN ACADEMIC JOKE:

1. Rory Robertson
2. Professor Robert Lustig
3. Professor Boyd Swinburn
4. Dr Rosemary Stanton
5. David Gillespie
6. Paul Heath
7. ?
8. ?

(b) ANALYSTS WHO THINK AUSTRALIAN PARADOX IS AN ACADEMIC JOKE BUT ARE NOT PREPARED TO EXPLICITLY CONCEDE THE POINT IN PUBLIC

1. (Waiting for Chris's response)
2. ?

If somehow that is not your view Chris, please pipe up and I'll remove you from my growing list of people who can tell up from down.

(c) ANALYSTS WHO ATTACK DAVID GILLESPIE ON FRUCTOSE ISSUES BUT REFUSE POINT-BLANK TO SAY EXPLICITLY THAT THE AUSTRALIAN PARADOX PAPER IS DEEPLY FLAWED

1. Dr Alan Barclay
2. Professor Jennie Brand-Miller
3. David Driscoll
4. Chris Forbes-Ewan
5. ?

I'll keep expanding these lists as people choose to jump on board. Have I missed anyone notable? Anyone want to suggest additions or removals?

Rory,

I think you are being a bit unfair on Chris. He has clearly stated his position ("Neither I nor anyone else can be sure whether sugar consumption has increased, decreased or remained steady in Australia in recent decades"). I believe he should be given the courtesy to refrain from making public judgement on a specific paper.

Gary,

That's a fair-enough question. And I might say "fair enough", except that there is a very interesting background here. My issue is that Chris has not previously refrained "from making public judgement on a specific paper".

In fact, last year he was actively promoting Australian Paradox as an excellent paper, providing excellent evidence on a topic he cared about so much about that he was chasing David Gillespie all over the web to poke him in the eye with this paper (http://www.asc.asn.au/blog/2010/02/23/fructose-and-obesity-was-this-delivered-not-to-my-address-by-1730-hours-on-21-feb/ ; http://www.nutritionaustralia.org/national/media-releases/response-david-gillespie-behalf-nut-net )

That's a wordy jungle, so to cut to the chase Chris's relevant comment on Australian Paradox reads as follows: "Until better evidence comes along, I will accept that sugar (and therefore fructose) intake has decreased in Australia and the UK while the obesity epidemic has been surging ahead. This directly contradicts David's claims that fructose intake has increased in parallel with the obesity epidemic. "

Here are Chris's 6 May 2011 comments in full, since he does not like me putting words in his mouth:

Chris Forbes-Ewan said...
"""""Some time ago I wrote in a comment:

'The paper by Alicia Sim and Alan Barclay that was presented at DAA last year has been submitted for publication (I’m not sure where). If it passes the peer-review process and is published, then I would regard that as the best evidence available. Until better evidence comes along, I would then accept that consumption of added fructose has probably declined in Australia (while it has increased in the US) at the same time as obesity has reached epidemic proportions in both countries.'

The paper has been accepted for publication in the journal Nutrients. It was e-published late last month:

http://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/3/4/491/

Alan Barclay and Jenni Brand Miller are cited as the co-authors.

The conclusion includes:

'The findings confirm an “Australian Paradox” — a substantial decline in refined sugars intake over the same timeframe that obesity has increased. The implication is that efforts to reduce sugar intake may reduce consumption but may not reduce the prevalence of obesity.'

Until better evidence comes along, I will accept that sugar (and therefore fructose) intake has decreased in Australia and the UK while the obesity epidemic has been surging ahead. This directly contradicts David's claims that fructose intake has increased in parallel with the obesity epidemic. """"""

May 6, 2011 9:08 PM
http://www.raisin-hell.com/2010/01/attack-of-chocolatier.html

So a couple of further questions for Chris. Why are you now so coy about telling us exactly what you think about Australian Paradox? Last year the paper you were so looking forward to seeing published was excellent. Now not? Did "better evidence" come along?

Awkwardly, Chris's observations above introduce a bit of a puzzle, though perhaps not a paradox. Chris, were you surprised when the authorship of that much-anticipated paper changed?

After all, it appears that the junior author was removed and a new lead author installed? How does that work? Were there two separate papers?

I only ask out of ignorance. After all, as you are all aware, I've never published in a peer-reviewed journal, or acted as a "Guest Editor" of such a journal, let alone both at the same time. It's all part of a robust-quality control process, right?

Rory - how about exposing this myth " David's claims that fructose intake has increased in parallel with the obesity epidemic. "

Where's that data?

You may also want to do some more reading on Glycemic index as adding protein and fat will also lower the number - fructose isn't the only thing!

Most professionals know and recommend to use GI as a guide, not an absolute - but to someone who has probably scared his neighbours into avoiding him and asking how he is for fear of him breaking into an Australian Paradox rant - it may not be that well known?

David, You say (and ask): "" Rory - how about exposing this myth " David's [Gillespie?] claims that fructose intake has increased in parallel with the obesity epidemic. " Where's that data? ""

Since you asked so nicely, David, the evidence that sugar/fructose consumption certainly did not decline "over the past 30 years", let alone decline substantially - as claimed by your friends Dr Barclay and Professor Brand-Miller - is in their OWN published charts. That's what makes their misreading of the available data so obvious. Four out of four of their valid indicators of sugar consumption show upward trends NOT declines in the relevant timeframe (1980 to 2010). These four charts are reproduced on pages 2-3 at: http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/TimeforNeweditor24052012.pdf .

So the available valid data do indeed seem to suggest that the trend is up rather than down, David, wouldn't you agree?

Rory - a word of health advice.

If you persist with this obsession, you will lose whatever blood pressure benefit you got from losing all that weight.

Sue, spare me your health advice. After all, the other day you couldn't tell me if a steep line in a chart trended up or down.

But since you claim to be wise in the ways of modern science - and that I am ignorant in such weighty matters - let me run this one by you. Okay, so there's a paper co-authored by two scientists that was presented at a conference in 2010 and reportedly submitted to a journal for publication, but then not published. What would you say if in 2011 the paper - or maybe a similar paper - was published with a new lead author - after the one author was demoted to helper - and published in the journal where the new lead author also happened to be the "Guest Editor"? ("This study was a Masters of Nutrition and Dietetic project conducted by Laura Owens and co-supervised by AWB and JBM"; http://www.mdpi.com/journal/nutrients/special_issues/carbohydrates )

Then, Sue, what if someone competent critiqued the paper's sloppy time-series analysis and found it was dominated by errors? And what if in response to that critique the scientists claimed that they are right because the cars not humans have ben consuming a big chunk of the sugar via the well-known rapid growth in ethanol production. The problem then being that sugar is not used in ethanol production in Australia (Table 6.1 at http://www.accc.gov.au/content/item.phtml?itemId=961783&nodeId=c5006d5e6145ec6c55231148c819855e&fn=ACCC%20Petrol%20Monitoring%20Report%20Chapter%206.pdf ; also, the claim that the cars ate up to 14kg pp pa of sugar is at the bottom of page 2 in http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/RESPONSE-TO-ROBERTSON.pdf )

After getting yet another fact wrong, Sue, would you have expected the scientists to maybe concede a few points? I certainly assumed that they were going to correct or retract the paper. And yet they chose to proceed as follows: http://www.smh.com.au/business/pesky-economist-wont-let-big-sugar-lie-20120725-22pru.html

Is all of the above okay with you, Sue, or do you see a troubling issue or two in all that?

In my opinion, the key question is WHY the exact moment in March that Dr Alan Barclay and Professor Jennie Brand-Miller agreed with each other that it was time to quietly retract/delete without acknowledgement their false made-up claim about ethanol production/cars consuming a big chunk of the available sugar, somehow was NOT also the right moment to agree to formally correct or retract their error-ridden Australian Paradox paper?

The unreasonable delay in removing the clearly false but supposedly twice-verified claim of an “Australian Paradox!" - an extraordinary "inverse relationship" between sugar consumption and obesity - from the scientific record increasingly has reasonable people wondering when a series of inadvertent errors deliberately left uncorrected becomes scientific misconduct? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct )

Any thoughts, anyone?

David,

If an overweight or formally overweight individual is having good health outcomes by restricting sugar, do you think they should one day just throw their hands in the air, concede their personal positive outcomes are not scientifically proven and go back to their old ways? As far as I can tell there are no negative health outcomes from restricting sugar (as could be argued about some high saturated fat diets, and others), considering this, it is a bit strange that the Nutrition Australia website dedicated two pages to Fructose/David Gillespie, and only short critiques of some other diets out there. Now you have invested considerable time on this new website, for what? To improve health outcomes of society? Would reducing fructose be bad for the health of our society (even if the claimed reasons to reduce fructose are not proven or wrong as you claim)?

There is some evidence that high red meat consumption could have negative health outcomes. Where is the multiple pages from Nutrition Aust. against the CSIRO diet? Where is you website against the CSIRO diet? Surely the CSIRO diet has the potential to do more harm to society than a low fructose diet?

Hi Gary,

Those are great points.

Unfortunately, though Mr Driscoll claims to be interested in nutrition, it is clear from his comments and the 'website' he directed Tim to read, that his main interests are point scoring and advanced pedantry.

As you point out, there are NO health consequences of restricting added fructose/sugar from the diet. As many have noted they are at best just 'empty calories' at worst their 'sweetness' drives over consumption of many foods (particularly fats and refined carbohydrates) and there is a growing body of research that suggests metabolic problems from consumption of fructose/sugar both from the fructose itself and the over consumption of food generally that eating fructose/sugar tends to encourage.

One argument that a few have raised is the idea that if you abstain from added fructose/sugar (ie deny yourself sugary experiences) you will have some wild binge outbreak as a consequence.

What that argument ignores is that the desire for sweet experiences and the cultural acceptance of this may reflect nothing more than the long standing nature of the abuse of added sugar in our diet. Severely reducing added fructose/sugar or abstaining completely may be the best recommendation for a substance that indisputably has no nutritional content and at the very least habit forming tendencies.

Personally, i find the occasional sweet thing is a bit like the occasional encounter with KFC. An excellent reminder of what I am avoiding and what I am not missing.

Of courses Mr Driscoll agrees with this, but it just sticks in his craw to admit it (other than in his boiler plate "I don't approve eating lots of sugar") because it may involve giving some credit to Mr Gillespie (an ex-lawyer heavens forbid) for playing a significant part in raising the profile of this issue.

Severely restricting added fructose/sugar in the diet or abstaining is not the only thing you should do to improve your health but it is an excellent place to start and in many cases will make many of the other things you should consider doing much easier. ( for example: limit refined carbohydrates, limit total energy intake, engage in moderate forms of exercise, increase consumption of vegetables).

Cheers
Paul.

"Then maybe you need to read that evidence and put it into context."

Yes perhaps. But most people who get exposure to the CSIRO diet, get it from the book they published. I read it and thought it was telling me to eat more meat - how else would I get my prescribed energy intake if I were eating low carb? I know of others who have gone out and stocked the freezer with meat after reading the book. The general public are not diet/nutrition scientist, they/we shouldn't be expected to read all the evidence and put it into context.

"would you like to apply all of above statements to vegetarians or paleo diets and then ask the same questions?"

Last evidence I read on vegetarian is that in general they live longer than non-vegetarian, but if this is untrue or if there is clear evidence that eating vegetarian or paleo has negative health consequences, where are the two or more pages from Nutrition Australia to inform me, where are your websites? Surely us non-nutrition scientists would be better served if we were informed of dangerous diets, rather than scientifically incorrect diets.

David, it's fine that were unable to find any errors. Don't worry about it. No-one else will find any (non-trivial) errors either. And it won't be for lack of trying, or wishing there were some to find. Sorry, but the serious errors are in the peer-reviewed and published "Australian Paradox" paper, authored by two of the University of Sydney's highest-profile scientists. Importantly, neither they nor anyone else in the past six month has laid a glove on my devastating critique of that error-dominated paper.

The good news is that the critique now is available in PowerPoint at http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/AUSTRALIAN-PARADOX-101-AUGUST.pdf

New readers might like to check out Slides 9 and 10 for starters.

David, I almost dare not ask you to join me in calling for the error-ridden "Australian Paradox" paper's correction or rebuttal. But on your website you claim to be "a fan of science and the scientific process and dislike the dishonest or convenient use of research to support and agenda or sell a product". So how about it, David, please will you join me in arguing near and far for the correction or retraction of this deeply flawed but rather "convenient" paper?

Let me assure you, David, that if you find any serious errors in my devastating critique of Australian Paradox, you will find me very responsive. And if somehow you prove that my devastating critique of Australian Paradox is absolutely mistaken, I will give you $20,000 and I will give $20,000 to Professor Jennie Brand-Miller's favourite charity, as promised here three months ago: http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/SydneyUniVC%20LETTER070612.pdf

No, I'm not holding my breath or saving my pennies. The reason I can confidently state that you have not found - and will not find - any serious errors in my critique, David, is that I did the hard slog before I "published". I spent week after week investigating the topic, and got deep into the nitty-gritty of the relevant datasets. Importantly, I rang the ABS official on the cover page of the dead ABS dataset several times (on 02 6252 5337) to make sure I had my facts straight. And I rang and emailed with the FAO to confirm that I had my facts right on the pretend made-up invalid FAO data series on which Australian Paradox mistakenly relies.

Crucially, David, I also made sure I knew the difference between up and down. As we have seen with Figure 5A especially, being able to tell the difference between up and down is critical in this dispute. After all, the authors published the claim that sales of sugary softdrinks decreased by 10% between 1994 and 2006, yet their data in their own published Figure 5A says it INCREASED 30%. Ouch!

That's a serious if basic error that needs to be acknowledged and corrected, as embarrassing as that will be for Dr Alan Barclay and Professor Jennie Brand-Miller.

David, the reason I know that neither you, nor Dr Barclay nor Professor Brand-Miller have found any non-trivial errors in my critique of Australian Paradox is that my $40,000 has already been up for grabs for three months. And after all that time - like Old Mother Hubbard - the University of Sydney's cupboard is bare.

The reason no-one has been able to find any important errors, David, is because I wrote my critique, then I checked it, and checked it again. And then I double-checked it again.

That's also what I would have done if I were publishing an important article claiming an Australian Paradox in a science journal. I would have checked whether the dataset underlying my preferred series had been abandoned as unreliable after 1998-99. (Yep.) And I would have checked if the valid sugar indicators trended up not down. (Yep.)

Unfortunately, the authors of Australian Paradox seem to have been in a bit more of a hurry than proved prudent. Like Chris, they seem to have been overwhelmed by the urgent need to "Get Gillespie" and forgot to look carefully at the facts before they rushed to print.

Then, unfortunately, the quality control at the Nutrients journal - overseen by the lead author/"Guest Editor" - turned out to be non-existent or incompetent, as can be seen within two minutes of looking at Slide 9 and Slide 10 at http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/AUSTRALIAN-PARADOX-101-AUGUST.pdf

David, as you now know, the Australian Paradox paper is an academic disgrace and a menace to public health. Since you have been - and are - unable to put a dent in my devastating critique of this deeply flawed paper, please join me in arguing near and far for its correction or retraction by the University of Sydney.

Yes, David, it is fascinating that the "nutrition science" and academic communities apparently find it difficult to criticise the University of Sydney's incompetent obesity paper.

I'm less surprised that the University of Sydney authors are not inclined to respond. After all, what can you say when pretending that your paper has no errors has become a farce. Most obviously, the ridiculous interpretation of Figure 5A - up is down! - is an academic disgrace.

Anyway, for new readers, the Australian Paradox dispute is documented in great detail in PowerPoint here: http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/SydneyUniVC%20LETTER070612.pdf

Sorry, David, that neither you nor your University of Sydney friends have been able to fault my critique of the Australian Paradox paper.

Does anyone have a credible argument why this sloppy and factually flawed paper should not be corrected or retracted?

Regards,
Rory

Oops, wrong link. Here is the correct one: http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/AUSTRALIAN-PARADOX-101-AUGUST.pdf (That's more evidence why we should not rush to write things in airport lounges.)

By the way, is anyone else amused by those nutritionists who belatedly have conceded that sugary softdrinks might be a health hazard (no kidding!) but - almost in the same breath - argue that added sugar/fructose is NOT a health hazard and that David Gillespie is an idiot for saying it is. It's the added water in softdrinks that is the problem, right, not the added sugar!

[Actually, I wasn't thinking of Chris when I wrote the paragraph above, but to keep this contribution strictly relevant to his topic, I should note that Chris in his original piece above wrote: "But there is evidence that, when taken in liquid form (such as soft drinks or fruit juices), consumption of fructose is associated with higher energy intake, increased body weight, and the onset of metabolic syndrome." "...INCREASED BODY WEIGHT AND THE ONSET OF METABOLIC SYNDROME". That's all! So it's not a problem?]

Yep, it's the added water in softdrinks that is the problem, not the added sugar/fructose! I bet that (like me) those nutritionists with kids devote themselves to minimising their own kids' intake of sugary softdrinks and concentrated fructose from fruit juices. (And think that maybe added sugar in general - not just in beverages - might be a problem?)

Yet where is the nutrition "profession's" devotion when it comes to educating less-informed parents across Australia who are letting their kids suck down sometimes litres of sugary softdrinks in a single day? Time spent attacking Gillespie's "Sweet Poison" message is time spent working against lessening the risks of obesity and diabetes faced by Australia's parents and kids.

Chris, what do you think when you see a budding young fatty sucking on a big softdrink? I think, sadly, "there's another diabetes statistic in production". But then I stop myself because "There is an absolute consensus in that sugar in food does not cause diabetes", according to the same two University of Sydney scientists who stared at a change in sales of sugary softdrinks in Australian Paradox's Figure 5A - from 35(ish) litres per person per annum in 1994 to 45ish litres per person per annum in 2006 - before describing it as a 10% decrease. Amusingly, they will not concede this simple error, despite the obviously clownish level of competence evident in this "peer reviewed" and published analysis.

Chris and David, when is the University of Sydney going to be true to its long, proud history of academic and scientific excellence by pulling the rug out from under Dr Barclay and Professor Brand-Miller's Australian Paradox charade?

David, you seem to think I have overstated Gary Taubes's focus on sugar/fructose as the single-most important driver of global obesity and diabetes. I don't think so. The following piece has been around for several years: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Moreover, last week, Gary Taubes and Cristin Kearns Couzens in the magazine Mother Jones documented how US "Big Sugar" set out from the 1950s to scramble and mislead science on the links between refined sugar and chronic diseases: http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2012/10/sugar-industry-lies-campaign

Of course, what Big Sugar did would be of no consequence if sugar in modern doses were harmless. It is not, and that's why the Australian Government - against your inclinations, David - is in the process of toughening its nutrition advice against added sugar. (And why the now-discredited Australian Paradox paper is part of a growing scandal.)

According to Gary Taubes, the head of the Harvard nutrition department in the 1960s and 1970s - Professor Fred Stare - was corrupt, via funding from the sugar and other food industries. He became America's "most public defender" of "modern sugar consumption" as harmless. Closer to home, I'm not arguing corruption - what I've observed is "persistent negligence" involving formal science publications and the possibility of scientific fraud.

The University of Sydney's highest-profile nutritionists also are Australia's highest-profile academic defenders of added sugar in food as harmless: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/a-spoonful-of-sugar-is-not-so-bad/story-e6frg8y6-1226090126776

David, you repeatedly have refused to acknowledge the important distinction between the need for facts in popular books and the need for facts in supposedly "peer reviewed" published papers. I'm not jumping up and down about the false information in the University of Sydney scientists' popular low-GI diet books, including the reckless statement that "There is absolute consensus that sugar in food does not cause diabetes".

But I was - and am - alarmed by the University of Sydney's poisoning of the scientific record and the public debate with false information on the critical issue of sugar and obesity. You claim not to have noticed, David, but what I have done is documented "persistent negligence" involving the formal publication of Australian Paradox and Australian Paradox Revisited, and the possibility of scientific fraud.

David, the disturbing facts are set out in my contributions to last week's discussion on “The place of sugar in Australia’s Dietary Intake Guidelines” at Parliament House, Canberra - 29 October 2012: http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/23OpeningStatementinCanberrasugardebate.pdf and (start with Slides 20-23, then 9-19 and 30-38 in) http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/22Slideshowaustraliangoestoparadoxcanberrafinal.pdf

So Australian Paradox is wrong, so what? Well, David, the bogus Australian Paradox conclusion - "an inverse relationship" between (added) sugar consumption and obesity - is important because it’s been used as a spearhead for the University of Sydney’s and the food industry’s campaigns for the once-a-decade update of official dietary advice to “stay soft” on sugar: http://www.smh.com.au/national/health/research-causes-stir-over-sugars-role-in-obesity-20120330-1w3e5.html

The (bogus) “scientific observation” - "an inverse relationship" between (added) sugar consumption and obesity - in a formally published science paper out of the prestigious University of Sydney provides a critical (false) intellectual justification for putting Heart Foundation ticks and LowGI stamps on sugary junkfoods and claiming they are “healthy”.

The (bogus) scientific observation of “an inverse relationship” between sugar consumption and obesity suggests “Eat more sugar, get leaner”. Yeah, right. It’s somewhat of a hoax, in my opinion, given the increasingly clear scientific evidence that added sugar in modern doses is a serious health hazard: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=

Disturbingly, the University of Sydney scientists who published Australian Paradox - falsely identifying "an inverse relationship" between sugar consumption and obesity - also operate a "Low GI" business that endorses sugar and various sugary products as "healthy"; some of these "health foods" are pictured at p.10-11 of http://www.gisymbol.com/cmsAdmin/uploads/Glycemic-Index-Foundation-Healthy-Choices-Brochure.pdf

**The University of Sydney's serious but-still undisclosed "lowGI"/fructose conflict of interest is discussed in the “Australian Paradox goes to Canberra” chartset above.

**The University of Sydney's disingenuous defence of its "shonky sugar study" is here: http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/Sept2012-Conversations.pdf

**The authors of Australian Paradox and Australian Paradox Revisited for over six months have refused to address let alone correct the serious errors that dominate their work: http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/8-QUESTIONS-FOR-AWB-&-JBM-BANNED.pdf

**The Australian sugar industry recently commissioned a “new” sugar series that took the Australian Paradox scandal to another level: https://greenpoolcommodities.com/news/sugar-consumption-in-australia-a-statistical-update/

**RR responds to the bogus “new” sugar series: http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/New-nonsense-based-sugarreport.pdf

**RR responds to University's silly false declaration of victory, based as it is on the sugar industry's bogus "new" information: http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/university-sydney-falsely-declares-victory.pdf

So, yes, David, I am arguing near and far for the correction or retraction of the deeply flawed Australian Paradox papers and their bogus scientific conclusion of "an inverse relationship" between sugar consumption and obesity.

The dispute would end today if the University of Sydney scientists simply corrected their basic errors, as they should. The University of Sydney management's disingenuous defence of the shonky paper's misrepresentation of key facts is a disturbing part of the scandal. Sorry, but refusing to correct obvious errors collapses the credibility of the University on matters regarding academic and scientific integrity.

It's time for the University to cut its losses, and make a public correction involving "an unfortunate FAO/ABS sugar series mix-up".

Paul,

What I found most disturbing is the extent to which Harvard University's "scientific facts" on sugar back then appear to have been made-to-order and paid for by Big Sugar. Given that history, when clearly false information turns up in formal science papers produced in nutrition departments with deep links to sugar and other food industries, our antenna should be working overtime.