In my message below I described the background to a blog entry titled ‘Attack of the Chocolatier’ on David Gillespie’s site: www.raisin-hell.com
There are now more than 70 comments on that site, of which about 30 are from me.
I wouldn’t expect anyone to try to read all the comments (unless they are suffering from insomnia), but you may be interested in the following comment which has gone to several of Gillespie’s other blog entries. It will also go to the Nutritionists Network and to Gillespie’s entries on Crikey, among other places.
If any journalist is interested in writing an article about this, I would pleased to assist in any way I can.
Chris Forbes-Ewan
19 Hedley St
Scottsdale Tas 7260
Phone: 03 6352 2092
COMMENT
Readers of David Gillespie’s blogs may be interested to know that it is now more than two weeks since I first attempted to get David to reply to a series of questions in a comment about his blog entry titled ‘Attack of the Chocolatier’.
My questions cut to the core of David’s treatment (or rather mistreatment) of the science that he claims underpins his book ‘Sweet Poison’. David hasn’t answered any of my questions.
By refusing (or perhaps more appropriately not being able) to answer those questions, David is tacitly admitting that the science behind his book ‘Sweet Poison’ is fatally flawed.
As I have demonstrated in other comments on ‘Attack of the Chocolatier’ and in my Ockham’s Razor program (ABC Radio National) of 10 Jan 10, David Gillespie is not a reliable source of information on the health effects of fructose.
The questions are:
(i) In light of the evidence provided by Rosemary Stanton that there has either been no increase or a slight decline in food intake in the last 30 years (see my comment sent on January 29, 2010 at 8:48 PM), do you still believe that food intake has increased by 30% in Australia in the last three decades?
(ii) Taking into account your claim that average Australian intake of fructose is about two-thirds the average intake in the US, and that the US intake accounts for 9-10% of total energy intake (references provided in my comment sent on January 29, 2010 at 10:10 PM) do you still claim that almost 20% of our energy intake is now derived from fructose?
(iii) Noting that the authors of the 1985 paper by Reiser et al. [Am J Clin Nutr. 1985 Aug;42(2):242-51] refer (more than once) to a ‘… lack of relationship between the onset of the abnormalities and the type of dietary carbohydrate’, do you still claim that fructose consumption was the cause of severe heart conditions in four participants in that study?
(iv) Noting that at least 19 human fructose-feeding studies were conducted after 1985 (references provided in my comment of January 30, 2010 at 6:02 PM) do you still claim that no further human studies were conducted following that date?
(v) Noting that the World Health Organisation recommends that the maximum safe intake of added sugars is 10% of total energy (or rather just short of 10%); that the NHMRC dietary guideline is to ‘consume only moderate levels of sugars and foods containing added sugars’; that the American Heart Association sets safe upper levels of intake of 35 g of added sugar for men and 25 g for women, and that 12 of the 19 references to human studies conducted in the period 1985-2007 reported positive or, at worst, neutral effects attributable to fructose, do you still believe that added fructose is a poison in the diet at any dose?
(vi) Given that the NHMRC in Australia and ACSM in the US (and other national health authorities) recognise the value of physical activity in weight control, do you still believe that physical activity has no role to play in weight control?
(vii) Noting that the conclusion of the most recent meta-analysis (in the December 26 edition of Clinical Nutrition) concludes that ‘There is no support from the human literature for the hypothesis that sucrose may be physically addictive …’, do you still insist that fructose-the relevant component of sucrose in this context-is addictive in humans?
From: asc-list-bounces@lists.asc.asn.au [mailto:asc-list-bounces@lists.asc.asn.au] On Behalf Of Chris Forbes-Ewan Sent: Saturday, 30 January 2010 10:47 PM To: asc-list@lists.asc.asn.au Subject: [ASC-list] Fructose and obesity
Around the middle of last year an Ockham’s Razor program by David Gillespie was briefly discussed on this list.
Gillespie, who is a lawyer, not a nutritionist or scientist of any other kind, has also written a book, Sweet Poison. In his book and Ockham’s Razor program Gillespie claims that there is overwhelming scientific evidence that fructose consumption is the cause of both the obesity epidemic and most chronic diseases. The URL for his program is:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/ockhamsrazor/stories/2009/2621415.htm
Three weeks ago I presented an Ockham’s Razor program in which I argued that Gillespie has grossly exaggerated the case against fructose. The URL for my program is:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/ockhamsrazor/stories/2010/2770728.htm
Gillespie responded to my program with an entry on his blog. His blog entry repeats many of the errors contained in his book and Ockham’s program and adds a few new ones. From the early comments about his blog entry and my program, he appears to have strong supporters.
I have also contributed comments, and will continue to do so for a few days yet (there is still a lot to say about David Gillespie’s lack of understanding of nutritional science, his misrepresentation of the results of scientific studies, and his selective use of evidence).
If you are interested in this subject, the blog and comments are available at:
Chris Forbes-Ewan
_______________________________________________ ASC-list mailing list list@asc.asn.au http://www.asc.asn.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=97&Itemid=115