评论
打印
If sugar consumption is a slippery slope, then advocating moderation is not a meaningful concept.
如果糖的摄入在走滑坡，那么提倡适度就不是一个有意义的概念。
In my own mind, I keep returning to a few observations – unscientific as they may be – that make me question the validity of any definition of moderation in the context of sugar consumption.
在我看来，我一直在回想一些观察结果——尽管它们可能不科学——它们让我质疑在摄入糖的情况下任何关于“适度”这一定义的有效性。
The roots of the modern discussion on sugar and disease can be traced to the early 1670s. Thomas Willis, medical adviser to the duke of York and King Charles II, noted an increase in the prevalence of diabetes in the affluent patients of his practice. "The pissing evil", he called it, and became the first European physician to diagnose the sweet taste of diabetic urine – "wonderfully sweet like sugar or honey". Willis's identification of diabetes and the sweetness of the urine happens to coincide with both the first flow of sugar into England from its Caribbean colonies, and the first use of sugar to sweeten tea.
关于糖和疾病的现代讨论可以追溯到17世纪70年代早期。约克公爵和国王查尔斯二世的医疗顾问托马斯·威利斯注意到，在他的诊所里，富裕的患者中糖尿病的发病率有所上升。他称其为“可恶的恶魔”，并成为第一个诊断糖尿病患者尿液甜味的欧洲医生——“像糖或蜂蜜一样的美妙的甜味”。威利斯对糖尿病以及尿液甜味的诊断恰好和糖第一次从加勒比海殖民地流入英国以及糖第一次用来增加茶的甜味这两件事同时发生。
Other observations that resonate with me when I wrestle with the concept of moderation include one of Frederick Slare's comments in 1715, in his article "Vindication of Sugars Against the Charges of Dr Willis". At a time when sugar was just beginning to be more widely consumed in England, Slare noted that women who cared about their figures but were "inclining to be too fat" might want to avoid sugar, because it "may dispose them to be fatter than they desire to be". When Slare made his observation, the English were consuming, on average, perhaps 51b of sugar a year. The US FDA research suggests we now consume 42lb a year.
当我在思考“适度”的概念时，其他一些观察与我产生了共鸣，包括1715年弗雷德里克·斯雷在一篇名为《为糖辩护，驳斥威利斯博士的指控》的文章中的一段评论。当时糖在英国刚开始流行，斯雷指出，那些在意身材但“有发胖倾向”的女性可能会避免吃糖，因为糖“可能会让她们变得比自己希望的更胖”。斯雷在做他的观察时英国人平均每年消耗大约5磅(约4.5斤)的糖。而美国食品和药物管理局的研究表明，现在我们每年消耗的糖达42磅(约38斤)。
We have to acknowledge that the evidence against sugar is not definitive, compelling though I personally find it to be. Let's say we randomly assigned individuals in our population to eat a modern diet with or without sugar in it. Since virtually all processed foods have sugar added or, like most breads, are made with sugar, the population that is asked to avoid sugar would simultaneously be avoiding virtually all processed foods as well. They would dramatically reduce their consumption of what journalist Michael Pollan, author of books on food, agriculture and drugs, has memorably called "food-like substances", and if they were healthier, there would now be a host of possible reasons why. Maybe they ate fewer refined grains of any type, less gluten, fewer trans fats, preservatives or artificial flavourings? We would have no practical way to know for sure.
我们必须承认，反对吃糖的证据并不明确，尽管我个人认为很有说服力。假设我们在人群中随机分配一些人，让他们吃含糖或不含糖的现代饮食。因为几乎所有的加工食品都添加了糖，或者像大多数的面包一样都是用糖做的，所以被要求不吃糖的人群实际上也在同时避免吃所有的加工食品。迈克尔·波伦专著于食品、农业和药品方面的书籍，同时也是记者，他将这种食物称为“类食物物质”，这一称呼令人印象深刻。如果它们更健康，现在有很多可能的原因。或许他们少吃任何类型的精制谷物，少吃麸质，少吃反式脂肪，少吃防腐剂或人工调味料？我们没有实际的方法来确定。
