Evidence From 1970 On Sugar’s Effects On Health

Michael Scally MD

Doctor of Medicine
10+ Year Member
[OA] Evidence From 1970 On Sugar’s Effects On Health Never Saw Light Of Day

In 1965, the Sugar Research Foundation (SRF) secretly funded a review in the New England Journal of Medicine that discounted evidence linking sucrose consumption to blood lipid levels and hence coronary heart disease (CHD). SRF subsequently funded animal research to evaluate sucrose’s CHD risks.

The objective of this study was to examine the planning, funding, and internal evaluation of an SRF-funded research project titled “Project 259: Dietary Carbohydrate and Blood Lipids in Germ-Free Rats,” led by Dr. W.F.R. Pover at the University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom, between 1967 and 1971. A narrative case study method was used to assess SRF Project 259 from 1967 to 1971 based on sugar industry internal documents.

Project 259 found a statistically significant decrease in serum triglycerides in germ-free rats fed a high sugar diet compared to conventional rats fed a basic PRM diet (a pelleted diet containing cereal meals, soybean meals, whitefish meal, and dried yeast, fortified with a balanced vitamin supplement and trace element mixture). The results suggested to SRF that gut microbiota have a causal role in carbohydrate-induced hypertriglyceridemia.

A study comparing conventional rats fed a high-sugar diet to those fed a high-starch diet suggested that sucrose consumption might be associated with elevated levels of beta-glucuronidase, an enzyme previously associated with bladder cancer in humans. SRF terminated Project 259 without publishing the results.

The sugar industry did not disclose evidence of harm from animal studies that would have
(1) strengthened the case that the CHD risk of sucrose is greater than starch and
(2) caused sucrose to be scrutinized as a potential carcinogen.

The influence of the gut microbiota in the differential effects of sucrose and starch on blood lipids, as well as the influence of carbohydrate quality on beta-glucuronidase and cancer activity, deserve further scrutiny.

Kearns CE, Apollonio D, Glantz SA. Sugar industry sponsorship of germ-free rodent studies linking sucrose to hyperlipidemia and cancer: An historical analysis of internal documents. PLOS Biology 2017;15(11):e2003460. Sugar industry sponsorship of germ-free rodent studies linking sucrose to hyperlipidemia and cancer: An historical analysis of internal documents
 
If that "further scrutiny" comes in the form of more rat data then what a complete waste of funding that would be.

The carbohydrate metabolism of rats vs humans drastically differs (for example, they have a greater DNL contribution to triglyceride levels) so the information we gain from the data is completely and utterly irrelevant to us from a practical standpoint.
 
Last edited:
Sugar is an opiod like substance isn't it? Didn't read the passage.
Not even remotely related.
Sugar, as well junk food in general, acts via dopamine channels (D2 mainly IIRC) in order to create that rewarding feeling from food. Perfectly normal reaction that comes from any food source you enjoy.

Sugar "addiction" does not exist. It is something that the media jumped on based off an animal model (which means jackshit to us because of what I said in my previous post). Data has since clarified the issue by making sure we understand that it is a behavioural, rather than substance, addiction focused primarily on food in general. In other words - food addiction is an interesting debate, sugar addiction is bullshit:
"Eating addiction", rather than "food addiction", better captures addictive-like eating behavior. - PubMed - NCBI
Sugar addiction: the state of the science. - PubMed - NCBI
 
Last edited:
Not even remotely related.
Sugar, as well junk food in general, acts via dopamine channels (D2 mainly IIRC) in order to create that rewarding feeling from food. Perfectly normal reaction that comes from any food source you enjoy.

Sugar "addiction" does not exist. It is something that the media jumped on based off an animal model (which means jackshit to us because of what I said in my previous post). Data has since clarified the issue by making sure we understand that it is a behavioural, rather than substance, addiction focused primarily on food in general. In other words - food addiction is an interesting debate, sugar addiction is bullshit:
"Eating addiction", rather than "food addiction", better captures addictive-like eating behavior. - PubMed - NCBI
Sugar addiction: the state of the science. - PubMed - NCBI
That's what they're pushing here at work in our health and wellness break outs! Ill have to show them these articles.
 
Back
Top