The Cult of Anti-Sugar

The anti-sugar cult may decry “metabolic destruction”, but reality steps in with something far less cinematic: sugar is energy

Public Health Dad is a newsletter dedicated to scientific communication, public health discussions, and broadcasting ideas about how people can live a good and healthy life. Sometimes these topics are complex, winding, and difficult to condense. But other times, like today, the topics trend on the simple side.

Today’s topic actually revolves around the definition of a single word.

That word is “poison”.

In the current health zeitgeist of the United States, the word poison is thrown around rather flippantly, being used and applied in ways it was never meant to be used. Case in point: Rob Schneider accused the Kelce brothers of “endorsing poison for our nation’s children!!”

Schneider’s whole post and tone were alarmist, filled with uppercase letters and exclamation marks, which I interpret as sincerity. And to be honest, were he referencing some new children’s product — Cyanide Snaps, Hemlock Gummies, Mercury Mints — I would be the first person to stand in defense of our children.

But Schneider was not referring to any of these imaginary items (at least I hope they’re imaginary…). He was referring to common breakfast cereals; Reese’s Puffs, Lucky Charms, Cinnamon Toast Crunch. The Kelce brothers partnered with General Mills to create a unique cereal blend that included their childhood favorites, and promoted the mix through their “Cereal Training Camp” marketing campaign.

Frankly, I expected public outrage over the noticeable absence of Taylor Swift from the campaign. Instead, we saw accusations lobbed against the Kelce brothers, with Calley Means, a current senior advisor to DHHS and former food lobbyist, declaring that the brothers were “sponsoring food that destroys kids' metabolic health.”

Unpack that for a moment.

A former food lobbyist with no medical training or scientific education accusing the Kelce brothers, Superbowl champions who grew up eating breakfast cereals, of harming children’s health.

Means is not alone in his accusations, as this cult of anti-sugar has numerous acolytes who promote similar messages on all sorts of media. These individuals come from all walks of life; wellness influencers, fitness trainers, suburban moms, suburban dads, actors, and everyone in between. Induction into this special club requires neither training nor critical thought. It simply requires adoption of a singular mantra.

“Sugar is poison”.

Wherever sugar rears its head, be that soda, ice cream, fruit, or cookies, the mantra is chanted.

For the sake of simplicity, sanity, and a few good laughs, here is a point-by-point breakdown of why this is a nonsense phrase. Simple logic, a little data, and a few reasonable questions.

Let us begin.

1) The Basics of Poison

There is no standalone definition of the term “poison” that is universally adopted by all organizations. Instead, they operate under the principles of toxicology which identify a poison as “any substance that can cause harm to the body.”

So here is lesson number one: “poison” is a dynamic term that depends on the dose, the circumstance, and the subject.

Three simple examples can demonstrate this.

Water is essential to life, but if you consume too much within a short time, it causes water intoxication and can kill a human being. That’s a DOSE problem.

Snake venom is cytotoxic and can kill a human being if injected into the bloodstream, but is harmless if swallowed. That’s an issue of CIRCUMSTANCE.

Theobromine is a compound found in chocolate, harmless to humans, but lethal if ingested by dogs. That’s a matter of the SUBJECT.

2) The Basics of Sugar

Let’s talk about the single-unit simple sugars, also called monosaccharides, also called the basic chemical units of carbohydrates.

Monosaccharides are 6-carbon units, typically made up of the chemical formula C₆H₁₂O₆. There are only three that human beings consume and metabolize. Glucose, Fructose, and galactose, and that foremost glucose is king among these within the human body.

Why is glucose the king? Three simple reasons.

1. There is a biochemical pathway embedded into every human being called gluconeogenesis. This pathway produces some glucose for survival when there are insufficient levels detected.

2. Glucose is the primary source of energy for the cells of the human body.

3. All other monosaccharides can be metabolically converted into glucose inside the human body. Hail to the king.

Sugar, the common name for the disaccharide sucrose, is the product of a glucose and fructose molecule bonded together. Most the sucrose consumed in the United States is produced from two crops; sugarcane and sugar beets. Together, high fructose corn syrup (a blend of fructose and glucose) and sucrose are the two most commonly consumed added sugars in the United States.

All sugars used for food are digested down to their monosaccharide form and absorbed into the bloodstream. Galactose and some fructose is converted into glucose, and these simple sugars are picked up by cellular GLUT transporters which carry them into the cells.

3) The Basics of Comparisons

A little while back I heard a clip from an episode of Mike Rowe’s podcast where he hosted Vinnie Tortorich, a self-proclaimed fitness and nutrition expert. You can see the full episode here, but the piece I heard was an exchange where Rowe went back and forth with Tortorich as follows:

What’s killed more people? Alcohol or sugar? [Rowe]
Sugar. [Tortorich]

Fentanyl or sugar? [Rowe]
Sugar. [Tortorich]

Heroin or sugar? [Rowe]
Sugar. [Tortorich]

Cocaine or sugar? [Rowe]
Sugar. [Tortorich]

That is a remarkable claim. Tortorich, as far as I can perceive, is serious in his assertions.

Here is my counter-claim: Sugar, when ingested, has never killed anyone. Ever.

We can compare my claim with Tortorich’s by making practical contrasts between each product mentioned and a sugary beverage. To accomplish this, we’ll use the now discontinued 24-ounce Unicorn Frappuccino from Starbucks, which boasted an astounding 76 grams of sugar, more than twice the daily recommended limit.

2017’s long forgotten Unicorn Frappuccino created by Starbucks

Alcohol is a neuro-depressant which slows communication between neurons, impairs judgment, coordination, and memory, and alters mood and behavior. Every year, 178,000 people die from excessive alcohol use, usually from a motor vehicle crash or alcohol poisoning.

How many people do you think ever crashed their vehicle or lethally impaired their brain activity after consuming a Unicorn Frappuccino?

My reasonable guess is, zero.

Fentanyl is a synthetic opioid, where 1 gram is capable of killing up to 500 people within one hour of ingestion by shutting down their respiratory system.

How many people do you think ever stopped breathing after consuming a Unicorn Frappuccino?

My guess is, again, zero.

Heroin works similar to fentanyl, is highly addictive, and attributed to 9,200 overdose deaths each year. Again, I don’t think Unicorn Frappuccinos have ever done that.

Last but not least, cocaine. Cocaine is a stimulant derived from the coca plant, and despite limited medical uses, is highly addictive and can trigger heart attacks. It kills 24,000 people each year.

Broken record over here, but I don’t think Unicorn Frappuccinos can do this.

The irony to this is how it’s not even the most nonsensical thing Tortorich has claimed. That anti-sugar cult honor of distinction goes to this declaration:

Millions and millions have died at the hands of the sugar industry. Industry knows what it is doing yet continues to do it… A mass murderer, driven by the big exec’s want for economic gain.

…

Right now, at this very moment, there are doomsday preppers who have stockpiled 15 years worth of freeze-dried beef, taught their children Morse code, and recycle their own urine, all in anticipation of a climactic end to humanity, and if presented with this statement they would respond by saying, “Okay… that’s a bit dramatic.”

4) The Basics of Exposure

Let me offer a steelman of the position that sugar can be a poison. It would go something like this.

Excessive added sugar consumption contributes to excess energy, which contributes to obesity, a major driver of chronic diseases like type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and fatty liver, conditions that all together cause millions of preventable deaths worldwide each year.

The problem of added sugar intake is one of association, not direct causation. Sugar is not poison because in an acute setting, all it does is elevate blood sugar. Nobody has ever been killed by consuming too much sugar on one occasion, but the same cannot be said of alcohol, fentanyl, cocaine, or heroin.

The worst thing you can attribute to sugar intake is how persistent and excess doses represent a long-term lifestyle risk factor.

For example, there is strong evidence in support of how high sugar intake, most commonly from sugar-sweetened beverages, is associated with an increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes. Despite this, the relationship is complex, because a large amount of that risk is attributed to excess calorie consumption and weight gain, NOT from any unique effect of the sugar itself.

Furthermore, evidence suggests that excessive added sugar intake serves as a proxy indicator for an unhealthy lifestyle. It’s not simply the added sugar, but a host of other lifestyle behaviors — smoking, poor sleep habits, unmanaged stress, low physical activity — that help contribute to the risk of mortality.

Consider it this way. Who is more likely to die from drowning? An adult who spends every day indoors, or an adult who likes to go to the beach? The beach-goer, of course.

Similar scenario. Who is more likely to die from drowning? An adult who goes to the beach once a year, or an adult who goes to the beach 6 times a month? The one who goes more often, because they are exposed to the possibility of drowning more. Does this mean the beach is “poison” to the frequent beach-goer? No. It’s simply a matter of exposure and association.

As a thought to close this out, here is one more question. Do members of this anti-sugar cult actually believe what they say, that sugar is a poison, a weapon of mass destruction?

If not, why say it? Personally, I would venture two suggestions. First, it’s a rhetorical tool, a use of emotionally charged language meant to assert authority and eliminate discourse. After all, who can argue against the claim that we don’t want our children poisoned? Second, it’s a sale pitch to promote the presumed virtue and scientific authority of the speaker. Human beings often associate virtue with absence or elimination of a practice, so sugar serves as a sweetly self-righteous declaration.

If you’ve made it this far, you now possess more toxicological literacy than half of social media. The anti-sugar cult may decry “metabolic destruction”, but reality steps in with something far less cinematic: sugar is energy.

So go forth, choose your battles wisely, and remember, not every sweet thing is a threat to civilization. Sometimes, it’s just a cookie.