So it's the level of consumption that's the problem.. not the substance itself? If [er capita carrot/potato/blueberry consumption increased by 45-fold form 1700 levels we'd see different health implications, but I'm sure there'd be implications.Durgan wrote: The amount of sugar consumed is often hidden from the individual.
Refined Sugar Consumption Trends in Past 300 Years:
In 1700, the average person consumed about 4 pounds of sugar per year.
In 1800, the average person consumed about 18 pounds of sugar per year.
In 1900, individual consumption had risen to 90 pounds of sugar per year.
In 2009, more than 50 percent Americans consume 1/2 pound of sugar per day, which is 180 pounds of sugar per year.
In 1890, obesity rate in US for white males, age group 50's only, were 3.4%. In 1975, the obesity rate in US of all population was 15%. In 2009, 32% of Americans are obese.
In 1893, there were fewer than 3 diabetes per 100,000 people in US. Today, there are 8,000 diabetes per 100,000 people in US.
The answer will never be to scaremonger with banners declaring, "Sugar is toxic!". People won't believe you, people like sugar.
Very nice collection of statistics, but no causative link and a bit of a shotgun approach to listing them (it's not a well written article/website that you've linked to). You could also link in consumption of fat and total caloriific intake and declining calorific expense.
No matter how bad sugar may be, I'm still not drining the potato juice.