Our new columnist quit the white stuff, and it changed everything.
By Steve Nash
Last winter I was talking with a friend about what I needed to do to stay healthy out on the court. (At 35 it’s not getting any easier.) When the topic of nutrition came up, he urged me to go see his naturopath, Dr. Suneil Jain, here in Arizona. Now, I have tons of people looking after my well-being — coaches, doctors, trainers, my wife — so I’m always skeptical about seeking new advice. But I’m glad I went.
Jain pushes a whole-foods diet, one that consists of lots of raw fruits and vegetables. Okay, but I’m not giving up my steak dinner. Then Jain started talking about how important it is to cut sugar out of your diet. What? My first thought was that that would be impossible, but he made a convincing case. Jain told me that the average American eats about 92 grams of sugar a day, when the human body needs only about eight grams for energy, an amount that should always be satisfied through natural sugars from fresh fruits, vegetables, and grains. Refined sugars, he told me, impair your immune system. In fact, one teaspoon of refined sugar suppresses our white blood cells for up to six hours, making it a lot easier to catch a cold. I really can’t afford colds during the season, so that’s all I needed to hear: I cut out refined sugars cold turkey. No M&M’s at the movies, no energy bars, no Gatorade — I even had to be more careful when going to Jamba Juice, because sometimes they use sugar-filled juice from concentrate. After a few months, I stopped craving sugar entirely.
The difference was instantaneous: I slept better, I recovered from workouts more easily, and I had more energy. When we started training camp in September, we were doing two-a-days — four or five hours on the court — and I never got sore. Even more telling is the fact that this summer I traveled all over the world for my foundation, bringing team sports to war-ravaged countries. I was missing out on sleep and still training the whole time, but I never got sick. I’ve got to think it’s because sugar wasn’t wearing me down.
No doubt, this lifestyle is not easy — sugar gets sneaked into just about everything, so I have to pack my own food. But it doesn’t bother me, because the way I feel is so worth it.
—
This article originally appeared in the December/January 2009 issue of Men’s Journal.
Print this article
December 4th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Yes, sugar is bad for us, no doubt here, but how can you prove the connection with the white blood cells (which in my opinion is total bullshit)?
[Reply]
RootCause Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 10:06 am
Clinical Research connecting sugars with decrease in white blood cell activity:
1. Sanchez, A., et al. Role of Sugars in Human Neutrophilic Phagocytosis, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. Nov 1973;261:1180_1184
2. Ringsdorf, W., Cheraskin, E. and Ramsay R. Sucrose, Neutrophilic Phagocytosis and Resistance to Disease, Dental Survey. 1976;52(12):46_48.
3. Bernstein, J., al. Depression of Lymphocyte Transformation Following Oral Glucose Ingestion. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.1997;30:613
“Lick the Sugar Habit” by Dr. Nancy Appleton, PhD is a great resource of the complied literature regarding sugar’s effect on your health
[Reply]
Alexandru Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 10:37 am
Thank you very much for this info. Very interesting data!
[Reply]
Sarah B Reply:
December 10th, 2009 at 1:40 am
Alexandru-you forget Steve Nash is an athlete, he does not care about selling magazines. Please don’t ever just associate anything he says with “bullsh*t” because some articles choose to stretch the truth.
[Reply]
Tom Reply:
December 15th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
Isn’t the internet wonderful? Do a google search on the 3rd article listed above (Bernstein et al) and you’ll find dozens of pages that reference this article… and not a single creator of those web pages has actually read the article.
How do I know?
Because it doesn’t exist.
Volume 30 is 1977, not 1997, and in either case (1977 or 1997), there is no article beginning on page 613. I’m sure it’s a typo, but apparently nobody ever tried looking it up. If somebody has the actual reference, please post the correct info.
In any case, it’s always best to read the original article to see what they did. If we look at the first article (Sanchez et al), you will find several things that make it difficult to believe that refined sugars are so bad for your immune system, as Jain claims in the MJ article.
1. The research compared *all* simple sugars to complex carbs, and all simple sugars had the same effect. The did not single out refined white sugar. Doesn’t matter whether it comes from Snickers bars (sucrose) or orange juice (fructose) or honey (mixture).
2. Speaking of snickers bars, the test used 100 g of sugar - the equivalent of eating 5 snickers bars. I’m guessing this is not how most of us eat sugar, and it’s certainly more than the “teaspoon” (~ 4 g) mentioned in the MJ article.
3. The test studied how white blood cells eat bacteria - nothing to do with viruses (i.e. cold, seasonal flu, H1N1 flu). More specifically, it only studied one type of bacteria that exists on our skin.
4. To be slightly wonky, the test was done in vitro (in a test tube), not in vivo (in the body). Tests done in vitro have so many factors that make it impossible to draw conclusions as to what happens inside the body - for example (not to be sarcastic), cells in a test tube have a tendency to die much sooner than cells in your body.
Like everybody here, I’d like to be healthy… but I like to make decisions based on evidence and fact.
[Reply]
the Analyzer Reply:
December 18th, 2009 at 10:18 am
Simply put: The over-consumption of refined sugar is one of the contributing factors to the rise in chronic disease. As two-time Nobel Prize winner, Linus Pauling said, “Sugar is the most hazardous foodstuff in the American diet.” And according to Harvard School of Public Health: ”Your body doesn’t need to get any carbohydrate from added sugar.”
1. Average American adult eats 22 tsp (92.4 grams) of added sugar a day.
Average American teen eats 34 tsp. (142.8 grams) of added sugar a day.
2. Wikipedia: Glycemic index (GI) is a measure of the effects of carbohydrates on blood sugar levels. Carbohydrates that break down quickly during digestion, releasing glucose rapidly into the bloodstream, have a high GI; carbohydrates that break down more slowly, releasing glucose more gradually into the bloodstream, have a low GI. For most people, foods with a low GI have significant health benefits.
3. Refined sugar is a type of simple carbohydrate, specifically a refined carbohydrate, and has a high GI.
4. There is a role between white blood cells, specifically neutrophils as mentioned in the above studies by RouteCause, and VIRAL infections. Here are two specific examples:
The Journal of Immunology, 2009, 183, 7441 -7450
Neutrophils Ameliorate Lung Injury and the Development of Severe Disease during Influenza Infection.
In addition to thymic atrophy, lymphopenia, and viremic spread, depletion of neutrophils led to exacerbated pulmonary inflammation, edema, and respiratory dysfunction. While it is well established that neutrophils contribute to lung injury in a range of pathological conditions, reduced numbers or impaired neutrophil function can facilitate progression of mild influenza to severe clinical disease.
Blood, 1 September 2008, Vol. 112, No. 5, pp. 2028-2034.
Toll-like receptor–mediated activation of neutrophils by influenza A virus
These studies demonstrate neutrophil activation by influenza virus.
** However, even if the argument was about bacteria, so what? A potential complication from influenza/H1N1 virus is bacterial pneumonia!
5. More “Evidence and Fact” to debunk the wonkiness…
Cancer Causes Control. 2002 Dec;13(10):937-46.
Increased risk of early-stage breast cancer related to consumption of sweet foods among women less than age 45 in the United States.
Increased risk was observed for high intake of a food group composed of sweet items, particularly sodas and desserts. Risk increased linearly with percent of calories from sweets and frequency of sweets intake.
Med Hypotheses. 1983 Jul;11(3):319-27.
Diet and breast cancer: the possible connection with sugar consumption.
An epidemiological study of 21 countries suggests that high sugar intake is a major risk factor toward breast cancer.
Nutr Health. 2009;20(2):135-66.
Preventing diet induced disease: bioavailable nutrient-rich, low-energy-dense diets.
Primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and mental ill health starts, crucially, with maternal nutrition before the inception of pregnancy and continues throughout life of the new born and includes consuming more DHA and EPA omega-3 fats (and their cofactors) and other bioavailable brain nutrients and less high-energy-dense (>2 kcal g(-1)) foods (e.g. land-based cereal, chocolate, alcohol and REFINED SUGAR, fat and oil), so tissues synthesize less inflammatory mediators and to lower transient short-lived meal-induced oxidative stress, inflammation, proliferation and impaired nitric oxide (e.g. approximately 0.35-3.5 g DHA/ EPA day(-1) dependant on energy intake and noting the importance of cofactors).
Nutr Clin Pract. 2005 Apr;20(2):244-61.
Prebiotics and synbiotics in clinical medicine.
Pharmaceutical medicine has thus far been unable to stop the increasing global morbidity and mortality both in acute and chronic diseases. Typically, medical practice has focused on reducing the aggressor with treatments such as antibiotics; little interest has been given to efforts to increase the individual’s resistance to disease. The increased morbidity has occurred in parallel to a deviation from a large consumption of fresh fruits, vegetables, and tubers rich in live lactic acid bacteria (LAB), plant fibers, and natural antioxidants to an industry-produced diet rich in fat and REFINED SUGAR but containing little fiber, antioxidants, and LAB
Altern Med Rev. 2009 Sep;14(3):258-67.
Nutritional approaches to prevention and treatment of gallstones.
There is evidence that dietary factors influence the risk of developing cholesterol gallstones. Dietary factors that may increase risk include cholesterol, saturated fat, trans fatty acids, REFINED SUGAR, and possibly legumes.
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2009 April; 6(4): 1335–1340.
Dietary Patterns Associated with Alzheimer’s Disease: Population Based Study
Compared eating patterns of Alzheimer’s patients to healthy patients; Alzheimer patient diets were loaded heavily with, meat, butter and cream as well as different fat, eggs, and REFINED SUGAR vs. healthy control diets which were high in grains and vegetables
Am J Clin Nutr. 2008 Mar;87(3):627-37
Glycemic index, glycemic load, and chronic disease risk–a meta-analysis of observational studies.
Low-GI and/or low-GL diets are independently associated with a reduced risk of certain chronic diseases.
J Am Dent Assoc. 2009 Feb;140(2):178-84.
Potential mechanisms underpinning the nutritional modulation of periodontal inflammation.
The scientific community is starting to realize the health benefits of diets containing foods naturally rich in antioxidants and omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids, as well as the dangers of diets that are high in refined carbohydrates.
J Am Diet Assoc. 2009 Jan;109(1):64-71.
Total antioxidant content of alternatives to refined sugar.
Refined sugar, corn syrup, and agave nectar contained minimal antioxidant activity.
CONCLUSION: Many readily available alternatives to refined sugar offer the potential benefit of antioxidant activity.
Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2008 Oct;18(5):509-23.
Nutritional habits of Flemish adolescent sprint athletes.
Few athletes reached all nutrient RDIs. Unhealthy food habits with regard to refined sugars, fat, and micronutrients were observed. These adolescent sprinters should be encouraged to consume more nonsweetened beverages, fruits, and vegetables.
Eur J Clin Nutr. 2005 Dec;59(12):1429-38.
Prevalence of dental caries and sugar consumption among 6-12-y-old schoolchildren in La Trinidad, Benguet, Philippines.
CONCLUSION: The results indicate that dental caries is highly prevalent and increase with augmented sugar consumption. This maybe due to a widespread neglect of oral health and an increased availability of refined sugary products.
Br J Nutr. 2009 Apr;101(8):1209-17. Epub 2008 Aug 28.
Sucrose in the diet of 3-year-old Finnish children: sources, determinants and impact on food and nutrient intake.
The study implied that a high proportion of added sucrose in the diet had mainly an unfavourable impact on the intake of recommended foods and key nutrients in Finnish children. The rationale for the recommendation to reduce the intake of refined sugars to ensure adequate intakes of nutrients seems reasonable.
Nutr Health. 2007;19(1-2):21-55.
The mineral depletion of foods available to us as a nation (1940-2002)–a review of the 6th Edition of McCance and Widdowson.
Over the past 60 years there have been fundamental changes in the quality and quantity of food available to us as a nation. The character, growing method, preparation, source and ultimate presentation of basic staples have changed significantly to the extent that trace elements and micronutrient contents have been severely depleted. This trend, established in a review of the 5th Edition of McCance & Widdowson’s The Composition of Foods, is still apparent in this review of the 6th edition of the same work. Concurrently there has been a precipitous change towards convenience and pre-prepared foods containing saturated fats, highly processed meats and REFINED CARBOHYDRATES, often devoid of vital micronutrients yet packed with a cocktail of chemical additives including colourings, flavourings and preservatives. It is proposed that these changes are significant contributors to rising levels of diet-induced ill health. Ongoing research clearly demonstrates a significant relationship between deficiencies in micronutrients and physical and mental ill health.
Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Sep;86(3):s889-93.
Prostate cancer prevention by nutritional means to alleviate metabolic syndrome.
In 1987 when Reaven introduced syndrome X (metabolic syndrome, or MS), we were studying skeletal muscle insulin resistance and found that when rodents were fed a high-fat, refined-sugar (HFS) diet, insulin resistance developed along with aspects of MS, including hyperinsulinemia, hypertension, hypertriglyceridemia, and obesity.
Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Oct;86(4):1210-8.
Dietary carbohydrate and the progression of age-related macular degeneration: a prospective study from the Age-Related Eye Disease Study.
CONCLUSION: Persons at risk of Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD) progression, especially those at high risk of advanced AMD, may benefit from consuming a smaller amount of refined carbohydrates.
Indian J Urol. 2007 Oct;23(4):420-7.
Evaluation of children with urolithiasis. (kidney stones)
Children who developed urolithiasis had diets that were low in protein (74%), calcium (55%) and fluids in (55%), high in oxalate (55%), sodium (39%), purines (42%) and refined sugar (41%).
Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2007 Sep 6;127(17):2259-62.
[Sugar intake and public health]
BACKGROUND: Sugar is present in simple forms such as sucrose, lactose and fructose, and in the more complex forms starch and fibre. Complex carbohydrates in foods like vegetables and less refined grain products provide energy and important additions of vitamins, minerals and fibre. We have reviewed the effects of sugars on overweight, diabetes Type 2 and caries, and the intake of carbohydrates in simple and complex forms in the Norwegian population. METHOD: Literature was found in the databases PubMed and Bibsys, and in public statistics. RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION: Sugars in beverages and candy only contribute with energy that can lead to an increased amount of fat in the body. High sugar intakes contribute to development of overweight, diabetes type 2 and caries. Glucose from sucrose and starch increase blood glucose levels and stimulate insulin secretion. Lack of insulin response after fructose intake can result in adverse effects on lipid metabolism and satiety regulation. Norway is one of the countries in the world with the highest intake of sweetened beverages. Preventive health measures aimed at decreasing sugar intake in pre-school and school children must include increased availability of fruits and vegetables, water and better canteens. The increased sugar intake among adolescents requires measures from politicians and authorities.
Surgery. 2007 May;141(5):654-9. Epub 2007 Feb 6.
High dietary carbohydrates decrease gallbladder volume and enhance cholesterol crystal formation.
Animal and human data suggest that a diet high in refined carbohydrates leads to gallstone formation.
Dan Med Bull. 2007 Feb;54(1):55-7.
International nutrition and health.
With rural-urban migration, and access to refined sugar and fat, overnutrition and chronic diseases are becoming an increasing problem, also among the poor.
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2006 Nov;1089:110-8.
Adjuvant diet to improve hormonal and metabolic factors affecting breast cancer prognosis.
Western lifestyle, characterized by reduced physical activity and a diet rich in fat, refined carbohydrates, and animal protein is associated with high prevalence of overweight, metabolic syndrome, insulin resistance, and high plasma levels of several growth factors and sex hormones. Most of these factors are associated with breast cancer risk and, in breast cancer patients, with increased risk of recurrences
Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2005 May;26(5 Suppl 1):10-6.
Dental caries: an infectious and transmissible disease.
By definition, dental caries is an infectious and transmissible disease because it is caused by bacteria colonizing the tooth surfaces. Unlike most infectious diseases affecting humans, caries is the result of an imbalance of the indigenous oral biota rather than a nonindigenous, exogenous pathogen. The introduction of REFINED SUGAR into modern society’s diet has tipped the balance from health to disease. New insight into the natural history of the leading cariogenic bacteria, the mutans streptococci, may contribute ways to control or prevent this infectious disease. Here, we use the host-parasite model as a platform for viewing the pathogenicity of the caries process in contrast to other infectious diseases.
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006 Aug 15;48(4):677-85. Epub 2006 Jul 24.
The effects of diet on inflammation: emphasis on the metabolic syndrome
Dietary patterns high in refined starches, sugar, and saturated and trans-fatty acids, poor in natural antioxidants and fiber from fruits, vegetables, and whole grains, and poor in omega-3 fatty acids may cause an activation of the innate immune system, most likely by an excessive production of proinflammatory cytokines associated with a reduced production of anti-inflammatory cytokines.
Handb Exp Pharmacol. 2005;(170):231-61.
Carbohydrates and dietary fiber.
It seems that eating too much ‘fast’ carbohydrate [i.e., carbohydrates with a high glycemic index (GI)] may have deleterious long-term consequences. Indeed the last decades have shown that a low fat (and consecutively high carbohydrate) diet alone is not the best strategy to combat modern diseases including atherosclerosis. Quantity and quality issues in carbohydrate nutrient content are as important as they are for fat. Multiple lines of evidence suggest that for cardiovascular disease prevention a high sugar intake should be avoided.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2006 Feb 1;173(3):264-70. Epub 2005 Oct 20.
Prospective study of dietary patterns and persistent cough with phlegm among Chinese Singaporeans.
CONCLUSION: A diet rich in meats, sodium, and refined carbohydrates may increase risk of developing cough with phlegm, independently of the apparent beneficial effects of a diet high in fiber in this Singapore Chinese cohort.
Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2004 96(3):229-233; doi:10.1093/jnci/djh020
Dietary Glycemic Load and Risk of Colorectal Cancer in the Women’s Health Study
Dietary glycemic load was statistically significantly associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer
Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Oct;86(4):1160-6.
Dietary glycemic index, glycemic load, and the risk of breast cancer in an Italian prospective cohort study.
A high-GL diet may increase the risk of breast cancer in Italian women. The effect is particularly evident in premenopausal women and those with BMI < 25.
Cancer Causes Control. 2005 Dec;16(10):1165-9.
Glycemic load, glycemic index, and the risk of breast cancer among Mexican women.
High intake of rapidly absorbed carbohydrate appears to play an important role in the risk of breast cancer in Mexican women.
One possible “positive” finding regarding sugar is that it might be reducing drug addictions:
A study titled Intense Sweetness Surpasses Cocaine Reward in, PLoS One. 2007 Aug 1;2(1):e698, may also suggest that the current, widespread availability of sugar-rich diets in modern human societies may provide an unsuspected, though highly costly, shield against the further spread of drug addiction.
[Reply]
Tom Reply:
December 23rd, 2009 at 12:33 am
Perhaps I was not clear in my earlier post - I was less concerned about the health effects of excess sugar intake as I was about people’s opinions masquerading as scientific fact.
I was particular disturbed by the claim in the MJ article that 1 tsp of refined sugar can suppress the immune system for 6 hours. The author (Steve Nash) then made the leap (reasonable but wrong) that sugar intake would increase the probability of his catching a cold.
To be clear, for a scientific health claim to be made, you really have to have a double blind study. This involves a control group taking a placebo. This also involves human experimentation (in vivo), not experiments in a test tube (in vitro) or even mice or monkeys.
(As an aside, this is one reason why drug discovery is so expensive. The vast majority of compounds that show promising effects in the test tube, mice, monkeys, etc fail miserably when it comes to humans)
If somebody can provide such a study, that would be great.
As two other examples of the importance of double-blind, in vivo, etc studies…
1. to address your comment regarding pneumonia (which referenced my earlier comment about an earlier paper by Sanchez)…
a. the most important point is that the experiment was done in vitro (test tube), so NONE of the results can be carrier over to humans
b. to address your specific comment about pneumonia - the test was done on a type of bacteria that exists on your skin, not a bacteria that exist in the lungs, so even here, NO extrapolation can be made from the effect on one bacteria to another (just as the common cold virus is different from the AIDS virus, bacteria are also different). I can see how one would make the leap, but it is an erroneous leap.
c. within the article, two other weakness (besides lack of double blind testing and control groups) are that (i) they only test only level of sugar - so how do you know that the effect doesn’t vanish at a slightly lower level, and (ii) they do not provide any context to their numbers. To explain “context” - let me ask this - is a million dollars a lot of money? To me, yes. But in the context of the federal debt, no.. The authors did not do any analysis of their figures. They simply listed them
2. You listed many references. I read the first one (Journal of Immunology). Again, the test was not done in vivo, so NONE of the results can be applied to humans. What is more interesting is that they first wiped out the neutrophils in the mice. This is like saying, “hey, let’s wipe out all your white blood cells and then see how your body reacts to an infection”. While it’s interesting science, it certainly doesn’t come close to replicating the life of a normal mouse.
There is a corollary to “read the paper before making judgements”. It is “judge the evidence, not the man”. The Linus Pauling quote above is an example of an opinion, not a fact. It’s reasonable to think that since Pauling is a smart guy that all his opinions must be facts. Again, this would be a wrong leap of logic. He also believed that Vitamin C cures cancer (not proven to date. however, there have been studies showing there is NO evidence that Vitamin C cures cancer). Ironically, he died of prostate cancer. To date, his cancer views are only opinion.
Just because something is opinion (not scientific fact) doesn’t mean that it’s not true, but opinions should not be presented as fact (i.e. as the MJ comment about 1 tsp of sugar suppressing the immune system was presented)
Trust, but verify.
Anonymous Reply:
January 9th, 2010 at 2:55 am
I don’t know which field you’re from, Tom, but the world definitely needs more people like you.
scott Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 8:54 am
good job, tom. i study public health at the johns hopkins bloomberg school of public health, and it’s refreshing to see someone present a sophisticated, compelling rebuttal in lay terms. there’s too much “headline” health these days, whereby people who read titles of newspaper and scholarly articles and conclusions in scholarly abstracts fancy themselves as experts, despite little or no understanding of epidemiological and biostatistical methods.
December 5th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Steve - saw your article via http://www.TopSellingMagazines.com I’m wondering what specific foods you’re now eating? For example, what do you eat now instead of a energy bars?
[Reply]
December 6th, 2009 at 10:19 am
Great Article………Would love to see more by Nash….Incredible role model for my sons…….Sunnie Templeton/Atlanta
[Reply]
December 6th, 2009 at 10:25 am
Stevie - Love the insight and approach, but HOW do you do it? I’m 40 and as someone who is not paid to take care of his body, but plays 8 hours a week I’d be curious.
I’m all for Nutrition and a wholistic lifestyle, but what is the reality when balancing kids, work, etc.
Thank you!
[Reply]
jeff Reply:
December 16th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
i think that is a legitimate case re kids, etc… we had 8 children, one every other year…they are now gone… I am 60 years old….I think it is very tough and I was not always in shape during those years but I was close…one of the things that saved me is that i refused to eat a lot of things because of their content…reading lables is very important… it is also hard to fight the wife on what we eat but i figure it this way…it is me or them… and I have to take care of myself even if it offends people at times… i tried to be gracious and taste the food at parties, etc… but people really don’t care what you eat as long as you don’t say what you do for your diet… so, i learned to keep quiet a lot, eat a little of the food to look like i was normal and then eat correctly on my own. At parties i ate no ice cream, cake, candies, cookies, cup cakes. etc… it is amazing how people don’t even notice… now as we are getting older the relatives are either way over weight (80% of them) or they stayed the same or close to the same (20% of them)…. they can’t believe that I still am active and can wrestle with the kids, run down the block, skateboard, play tennis, etc… well, long story short, I would rather live healthfully with all of the challenges than to give in to the norm of eating all kinds of junk… food for thought
[Reply]
anthony Reply:
January 9th, 2010 at 11:43 am
Thank you, you are giving anecdotal ‘evidence’ for a healthy lifestyle, however you did not say, because I ate this way it proves its healthy and the rest of the family is unhealthy. You expressed your opinions but don’t try to use it as hard evidence.
EVERYONE needs to take courses in critical thinking so they can see/read/understand the difference between important facts, cause or correlations.
ie. a study by Mr. XYZ PhD implied there may be a link between sugar consumption and ……
A study- just one — not a lot of real evidence
MAY BE, not is a link and even if there is what is the cause and effect.
Is mr XYZ qualified to even make a statement and what is his PhD in Music Theory.
[Reply]
December 7th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
Agreed, nice work Steve. Sugar is pure poison. It’s a failure of our entire medical community that they even allow sugar on the food pyramid, no amount of the white stuff whatsoever is good for you.
It can be tough to kick, for sure, but after a couple of months apples begin to taste like marshmallows and sweet potatoes like cheesecake!
[Reply]
December 9th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
Another significant factor that I have found minimizing the amount of processed sugar in my diet is that…well…the bowl movements don’t smell as bad. I know , I know. I am sure that it is not coincedence though and may benifit the G.I. system in ways undetected.
[Reply]
December 13th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
I respect steve nash and all, but i am not very convinced by this article that sugar is the cause of all the improvements he listed in his life. Sure, sugar may affect white blood cells, but there are more environmental factors at play on the immune system than just sugar. We have no idea what other changes he made to his lifestyle, so citing those improvements as evidence that sugar is hampering your immune system is sort of weak reasoning
[Reply]
December 14th, 2009 at 3:10 am
I totally agree with Steve Nash. I workout 5 days a week and never take in any soda or sweets on workout days. Since Sundays are my break day, I’ll go to the store and treat myself. The funny thing is, it takes me literally 15 minutes to choose a soda since I don’t drink it all the time. LOL
[Reply]
anthony CDP, ECD Reply:
January 9th, 2010 at 11:46 am
Aha, No sugar and you can’t make a decisions therefore:
Without sugar in your system, your brain cannot function properly enough to make a simple suggestion ergo: you must drink soda to keep your brain functioning properly. LOL
[Reply]
anthony CDP, ECD Reply:
January 9th, 2010 at 11:47 am
Of course this is meant tongue in cheek, but it demonstrates the problem with armchair scientists making connections of cause and effect.
[Reply]
December 14th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Hi, how are you supposed to maintain during the game, i love gatorade, and it helps me get through the final mins of the 4th.. If i give up sugar what do i drink during training and the game?????
regards dan from uk….
[Reply]
December 14th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
亲爱的纳什：
您好！我是中国球迷，看了你写的文章，真的感觉挺有用的，以后我也一定要注意饮食了，呵呵。对了，我很喜欢看你的比赛，只要有你在场上，就会叫人疯狂，你的速度，你的突破，你的妙传，哇噻，太让人过隐了，你就是球场上的杀手，哈哈，不知道这个形容够不够恰当。如果你能回复我，那我将倍感珍惜，哈哈。还有，圣诞节就要到了，提前祝您圣诞节快乐！
[Reply]
December 14th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
Steve Nash is telling us how to be healthy and happy, of course, not only on the court, but in life as well. A smart guy! Your intelligence has been strongly testified and demonstrated on the court at the moment when you create some many beautiful passes. Good Luck!
[Reply]
January 11th, 2010 at 6:03 pm
I am very interested in living sugarfree but where the hell can I find some meal plans, cooking ideas, snack tips, etc to try this. As someone who has diabetics in the family I feel this would be a smart pre-emptive strike on my part. Help a brotha out.
[Reply]
January 18th, 2010 at 2:01 pm
Good article, my fiancee and I have started going sugar free. But we’re confused about how restrictive we should be. We know not to eat honey, chocolate, sweets, etc. But should we still be eating bananas, potatoes, skim milk, cereal, carrots, pineapple, beer, wine? Can anyone (or Steve) help to let us know which non-obvious foods we should be avoiding. Thanks
[Reply]
January 22nd, 2010 at 9:20 pm
Tom, the abstract of the article you assert doesn’t exist was quite easy to find. Search for the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition and on their site search for the words in the title. You’ll then be able to access a PDF with all of the abstracts from the issue in which that article was published.
Here is the reference to the article from the site: Am J Clin Nutr 30 (4): 611.
It _does_ exist.
While it’s true that we can’t with complete assurance translate findings from various models to humans, to assert that no scientific health claims can be made without a double-blind placebo study is ludicrous. Why?
First of all, we’ve not double-blinded every possible scientific claim that can be made about human health, scientific or otherwise.
Second, double-blinded studies can be wrong. Or at the very least, extremely difficult to interpret. And biases can affect how the data are interpreted. And as we’ve seen in the news recently, even the vaunted peer review process is subject to corruption. And often is.
Third, there’s something called the adherer effect that stymies these types of studies.
Fourth, this is Men’s Journal, not an academic publication, written by a lay person, not a scientist, who was given practical advice by a medical practitioner in an area that’s not yet mainstream. Nothing in this article ought to be construed by anyone as authoritative.
Fifth, medical practitioners might employ knowledge and techniques that are not double-blinded but their priority is to their patients, not to science. Science is an incredibly powerful tool in helping others heal and optimize their help but it’s not the only one. Doctors have been treating obesity by recommending patients cut sugar from their diets long before studies ratified the practice with good results. After how many patients could such a physician make a scientific health claim? Yet it would be irresponsible to withhold such recommendations after even one patient had seen remarkable results. Same with patients with diabetes, cancer, and heart disease, all of which are treated well with less carbohydrate consumption. Mechanistic studies tend to come after long periods such observations accumulate, not before. Else what is the basis for committing the funds?
While I agree that it’s the gold standard, it’s folly to not accept _anything_ as fact until the comprehensive double-blind study is published. If you want to parse this and say that you weren’t saying that, you were only saying one could not make a scientific health claim, well, I hear you but what you say is definitional and therefore tautological. And too narrow. I’m afraid many would be mislead by such a statement. Where’s the double-blind study on daily water intake? While science (whatever that is. It’s not so easy to find a definition that includes what we want to include and excludes what many of us think of as pseudo-science, oddly enough. While philosophers of science may have trouble defining it, that doesn’t stop scientists from working, thankfully, just as we need not wait for scientists to give us mechanisms for positive effects to benefit from lifestyle changes and adopting other recommendations, which I know is not what you’re suggesting) is good at giving us observations, what finally matters to each of us is how the substances in question affect us individually, which is why even double-blind studies aren’t the final answer.
I have no idea whether a teaspoon of sugar depresses one’s immune system for six hours. Your point is taken. But do I believe the positive effects of Nash dropping sugar from his diet? Absolutely, because I’ve experienced them myself. Do I believe it’s possible that the information he was given is correct? I do. It might not turn out to be true, but given our current state of knowledge, it is plausible. And while _in vitro_ studies and animal models are not _prima facie_ evidence that translates to humans, these studies at least don’t contradict the idea, which gives the idea some credence upon which more inquiry might be fruitful. Certainly, for good or ill, if animal models and _in vitro_ experiments were contradictory the line of inquiry would be dropped. And since we don’t have any evidence to the contrary, if it helps nudge some people away from high sugar consumption, what’s the harm in suggesting the possibility? At least the source was given, if not the study. And maybe this naturopath has information that is not yet accessible to us. There is a reality beyond what’s available on PubMed, no?
Further, to be fair, Nash didn’t claim it was a scientific fact. He merely said what was said to him by a naturopath, who practically by definition don’t base their recommendations on double-blinded studies. (Most surgeries and medical advances aren’t based on double-blinded studies, at least not initially, incidentally.
Technology is developed, tried and refined. It’s usually after some controversy develops or a drug or medical device is involved that double-blind studies come in.) So ease up, Tom. And get better at searching the web! Ha!
[Reply]
January 23rd, 2010 at 4:28 pm
Tom owned The Analyzer
[Reply]
yajeel Reply:
January 23rd, 2010 at 6:07 pm
Tom was owned by The Last Man. haha
[Reply]
January 24th, 2010 at 7:09 pm
My wife and I have been no-added-sugar for at least a year now (except for 2 meals a week & the odd special occasion). The point of it is to reduce the total amount of sugar you eat and the concentrations you consume it at. We avoid sugar, honey and even dried fruits, but we don’t take it to extreme, ie we eat bread, soy sauce etc even though it has a small amount of added sugar.
The result is that we eat a lot more fresh fruit, veg and complex carbs. Everything tastes so much sweeter now. Lactose foods like milk, cheese and unsweetened yogurt even seem really sweet and delicious. I find I can pretty much eat anything I like and not put on weight (unlike before). Looking back, I can see sugar warped my appetite: first, my bodies didn’t tell me when I had had too much sugar, so it was easy to overdo it - but when I eat proteins, fats, complex carbs I feel satisfied when I’ve had enough, ie natural portion size control; second, sugar is kind of addictive, once you break its hold you don’t even want as much anyway. Good for your teeth too.
My opinion is simply that the human body really isn’t meant to rely on added sugar for nutrition, and my experience is that my body just feels a lot better without it.
[Reply]
January 25th, 2010 at 12:07 pm
Doesn’t Vitamin Water of sugar in it?
[Reply]
January 28th, 2010 at 9:53 am
Personally I think eating fruits and raw veggies would be the best substitute for sugar cravings. Plus it helps in lowering the blood pressure reducing the risk of having heart diseases. I eat fruits every morning during breakfast to help with my digestive system, prevents the build-up of gas in the stomach.
[Reply]
January 28th, 2010 at 9:57 am
I make sure my kids have fruits in their lunchboxes. Nowadays, junkfood is everywhere.
[Reply]
February 9th, 2010 at 12:33 am
I kicked the sugar habit in November 2008 at the encouragement of my personal trainer. For me it is no white or brown sugar, honey, dates, chocolate, or anything that lists added sugar or fruit concentrate on the label. I also go very easy on grapes and dried fruit. I have to admit it was not easy at first, and was successful only by permitting no exceptions whatsoever for the first four months. Four months to me is the time it takes to form or break a habit. I explained to all of my colleagues at work, my friends, and my family, how important it was to me to give up the habit, and for the most part they supported my efforts (sometimes they forgot and I had to thank them, but remind them gently). I did it without expecting any noticeable benefits, but was surprised after a month or so to find the following delightful improvements in health:
• My hair got shinier
• My skin got softer and my cheeks rosier
• My teeth got whiter
• My fingernails got tougher
• My sense of taste got sharper; natural food started tasting really delicious
• I lost 8 pounds the first two months without even trying (an additional 20 since)
• I started sleeping a lot better at night
• I started handling stress better
• I started being able to focus better at work; my memory became less sluggish
• I have not been sick with ANYTHING, since giving up sugar
Sugar IS poison, and I don’t need any studies (any more) to convince me of that.
What do I eat instead? I’ve discovered Mother Nature’s table. I shop without a list and just go to the market to find out what Mother Nature (with the help of a very dedicated farming community) has prepared for me that week - she gives a great variety throughout the year! I eat vegetables at every meal, including (and especially) breakfast. My vegetable steamer is my most-used pan. My rice cooker is a close second. I eat organic lean meat and fish of high enough quality that they don’t need much preparation or fuss - just fresh herbs with sea salt, sometimes served with sauteed onions and mushrooms. For snacks, I make sure I eat protein in combination with a fruit or vegetable. Here are some of my favorites:
• Tomatoes with fresh mozzarella and fresh basil
• Apples or oranges with whole pecans/walnuts/almonds
• Thin rice cakes spread with organic peanut butter, topped with cucumber or bananas
• Organic lunchmeat tossed with chicory
• Red grapes with cheese cubes (very small portion)
• Celery stuffed with soft cheese mixed with garlic and/or herbs
• Natural or Greek-style yoghurt topped with berries, fresh mint, and chopped nuts
• Apples halved/cored and stuffed with peanut butter and raisins
An added benefit of those snacks is that they are also gluten-free!
Here’s a useful phrase to use at restaurants and when visiting friends: “I’m very careful about my sugar intake. Can you please help me choose the things that are free of sugar?”
I can’t thank my personal trainer enough for helping me turn my diet around. Life is so much richer now with my new level of health!
[Reply]
February 19th, 2010 at 12:36 pm
Tom,
Thank you for sparking a very substantive debate. I am very happy you pointed out the subtlety of letting opinion appear as fact and checking sources of data.
Also, thank you to the Last Man for pointing out that the LACK of evidence is not sufficient to discredit something and that in the absence of wonderfully pure data (which pretty much never exists) it is acceptable to pursue an alternative hypothesis (stop eating sugar).
I’d recommend Gary Taubes book Good Calorie, Bad Calorie and Diet for America by Robbins. Both contain tons of references to data and what is interesting, is they derive some different conclusions. The jury is still out on nutrition.
One item rarely mentioned (I haven’t seen it mentioned once) is the idea that more natural is better. We ate naturally 10,000 years ago and had a lifespan of ~40 years. Now it’s ~80. It is POSSIBLE that modern changes in our diet are contributing POSITIVE effects. I doubt we really ever had 3 square meals 10,000 years ago when following animals around and dodging predators…is it possible that changing to that style of eating is good? Or maybe bad? Should we eat little handfuls of stuff for 2-4 days in a row and then gorge on a huge steak? Who knows?
Lastly, to really drive home some points Tom made, be wary about listing journal articles as fact. It ignores the journal articles not listed (which may be contradictory) and erroneously gives the public the idea that a journal is a) reputable b) testing humans in a manner that is accurate towards what a person does in the real world. To echo The Last Man: this is Steve Nash. Take his advice as a personal reflection, not scientific fact, but be open to the idea that he may actually be right. Or maybe, he’s right just for himself…
[Reply]
February 23rd, 2010 at 10:24 am
I am very interested in a sugar-free living. I currently have a sweet-tooth, and am finding it difficult to find meal plans, what to eat for snacks, etc. While diabetes is not something that runs in my family, I am still concerned and would like to be smart and take a proactive approach to my health. Any tips or advice?
[Reply]
February 23rd, 2010 at 2:43 pm
Poor Steve must have had some gummy bears last night.
PHOENIX (AP)—Steve Nash(notes) didn’t make the Phoenix Suns’ trip to Oklahoma City in order to rest his sore lower back and abdomen.
The two-time league MVP has been bothered by the pain in recent games, so coach Alvin Gentry said it was an easy decision to keep Nash out of Tuesday night’s game against the Thunder.
Otherwise, Gentry said, the Suns risk losing Nash for a more extended period of time.
[Reply]
February 23rd, 2010 at 2:44 pm
Poor Steve must have had some gummy bears last night
HOENIX (AP)—Steve Nash(notes) didn’t make the Phoenix Suns’ trip to Oklahoma City in order to rest his sore lower back and abdomen.
The two-time league MVP has been bothered by the pain in recent games, so coach Alvin Gentry said it was an easy decision to keep Nash out of Tuesday night’s game against the Thunder.
Otherwise, Gentry said, the Suns risk losing Nash for a more extended period of time.
[Reply]
March 21st, 2010 at 10:21 pm
This was one heck of an impressive little internet discussion. Refreshingly thinking on display, for sure!
“One item rarely mentioned (I haven’t seen it mentioned once) is the idea that more natural is better. We ate naturally 10,000 years ago and had a lifespan of ~40 years. Now it’s ~80. It is POSSIBLE that modern changes in our diet are contributing POSITIVE effects.”
The confounding variables - changes in health care, safety, lifestyle, etc. - are what make the question of “what SHOULD we eat?” so interesting (and maddening).
Though as far as sugar goes, I have yet to hear of anyone who has cut way back and experienced NEGATIVE health effects (in the long term). From a personal health choice standpoint, it’s surely one of the more solid recommendations out there.
[Reply]