0:00

Something's happening outside. I think there's like a

0:02

a saw blade or something? Ring! One

0:05

of those? Wait, hang on. Is it the vacuum

0:07

lady? Oh no, it's the fucking leaf blower! God damn

0:09

it! Ah! Give

0:12

me a second, I'm gonna look out the window. Ooh!

0:16

Oh, there's fucking nothing to blow! Ha

0:18

ha ha ha ha ha ha!

0:20

Would you like to kick

0:23

us off?

0:32

I

0:35

spent hours thinking of one and I could

0:37

not come up with a good one. I was gonna say, God

0:40

knows we've had the fucking time

0:43

in the lead up to this episode. I have postponed

0:45

this one two times, I think. But

0:47

that makes this

0:47

one worse. Uh oh. Good. You

0:50

don't want people to know how much time you have. And I

0:52

actually had time to think about it.

0:53

Welcome to Maintenance Phase,

0:55

the podcast that spikes your glycemic

0:58

index. No. No. We're talking about

1:00

today. Like, glycosis? This

1:03

is, I will say, an argument that I

1:05

have that is ongoing with a member of my family

1:07

who says, oh, I can feel that that spikes

1:09

my glycemic index. And

1:12

my response to him is

1:14

the glycemic index is a document.

1:17

So what you're saying is like my dictionary hurts.

1:19

Oh,

1:19

I can't believe you're about to tell me that

1:21

some piece of health information is false on

1:24

the show. I feel betrayed. Rude. Uh,

1:26

I'm Michael Hobbs. I am Aubrey Gordon. If

1:29

you would like to support the show, we're

1:32

back to tiny repeating machine. I'm trying to do it

1:34

alongside you. If

1:37

you would like to support the show, you can get t-shirts,

1:40

mugs, tote bags, all manner of things at Tea

1:42

Public. You can subscribe

1:45

at Patreon or at Apple

1:47

Podcasts. They're the same audio.

1:49

Same audio. And today,

1:52

Michael. Aubrey. We are talking

1:55

about myths about sugar.

1:57

Take me on a journey. There

1:59

are so many. So

2:00

many places this can go. I am a

2:02

bursting with things to tell you. You

2:04

are bursting. You all, you've texted in the last

2:07

like two weeks. It's like, I'm

2:08

excited. I'm excited. I'm excited.

2:11

I can't tell you any of the things. Yeah. But

2:13

like, I definitely had a conversation with a friend

2:15

of mine yesterday and she was like, is this going

2:17

to be about the fucking rat study again? Oh. Like

2:20

I've been yelling at my friends about

2:22

the stuff that I have been learning nonstop

2:25

to the point that they are tired of it. The

2:27

little sugar rats. to little

2:29

sugar rats.

2:30

I'm excited to meet them. So we're

2:32

going to focus on three big

2:35

ideas. One, the idea that

2:37

sugar makes kids hyperactive.

2:39

OK. Two, that we can

2:42

predict how different foods

2:44

impact most people's blood sugar.

2:47

OK. And three, that

2:49

sugar is addictive. And particularly

2:51

the claim that gets made most frequently

2:54

is sugar is as addictive

2:57

as cocaine. This is a discourse that

2:59

has been around for a while, which I have complicated

3:02

thoughts on, so I'm excited to get into this. So Michael,

3:04

I thought that we should

3:06

start with a little conversation about what sugar

3:09

is. Please do. I went

3:11

to my favorite, as you know, Cafe

3:13

Gratitude. Oh, Jack, God. In Los Angeles.

3:16

And they had a key lime pie that they

3:18

were like, it's raw and it's sugar-free. And

3:20

I was like, oh, how do you sweeten it? And they were like, maple

3:22

syrup. And I was like, then that is not

3:25

sugar-free. I remember reading somewhere

3:27

that anything you see

3:29

on the ingredients list that

3:31

ends with osu! Like dextrose,

3:33

sucrose, lictose, nactose,

3:36

it's all sugars. They

3:38

hide sugar in the ingredients lists

3:41

as like evaporated cane juice.

3:44

Yeah, absolutely. This is also where we get the

3:46

idea that agave is like

3:48

better for you, quote unquote. It's for us, it gave.

3:50

So when people think

3:52

about sugar, they think about those images

3:55

of like a Coke bottle and and then

3:57

a bunch of teaspoons full of white granulated

3:59

sugar.

4:00

right folks are thinking of sugar

4:02

you put in your coffee. It is worth noting

4:04

that multiple kinds of sugar exist

4:06

and all of them exist naturally. Glucose

4:09

occurs naturally in honey, agave

4:12

and fruit, especially dried fruit.

4:14

It can also occur in cured meats like

4:17

salami because they will use

4:19

a salt and sugar pack to draw the

4:22

moisture out of the meat, right? Fructose

4:24

is a sugar that's found in fruits and

4:27

vegetables. Lactose

4:29

is the sugar

4:30

that's found in dairy. Oh, yeah. Maltose

4:32

is a sugar that is found in sprouting

4:35

grains. There's also logos. Pathos.

4:38

Pfft. Ephos. Ephos in school.

4:40

Yes. So different sugars are

4:43

processed differently. Glucose, for

4:45

example, is absorbed through your intestines

4:47

and directly into your bloodstream.

4:50

Fructose, on the other hand, is processed

4:53

in your liver and doesn't appear

4:55

to increase blood sugar or create the same

4:57

kind of insulin response as glucose

4:59

does. So different sugars operate

5:02

differently. According

5:04

to Harvard, quote, for most

5:06

people, one type of sugar isn't

5:08

better than another. This entire episode

5:11

is a cafe gratitude sub-tweet. You're

5:13

like, I'm just, I'm still mad about this. Michael,

5:15

every episode of the show is a cafe gratitude

5:18

sub-tweet. I know. Dude,

5:22

I quit eating

5:23

all sugars after I watched

5:25

that YouTube video. This was in like 2011 or something?

5:29

I don't know this YouTube video that you're talking about. Oh, the Robert

5:31

Lustig one, Sugar the Bitter Truth.

5:34

I know about Lustig, but I haven't seen the video.

5:36

I watched it and then I was like, okay, for

5:38

a month, I'm gonna try like

5:39

eating no sugar. So like no berries, no

5:42

desserts. And like I did in fact

5:44

lose a bunch of weight. And then the minute I started

5:46

eating sugar again, I gained it all back. Just like everything.

5:48

Okay, great. Just like everything.

5:52

It's like, I don't know what the point of that was. I was trying to

5:54

think of a name, Like,

5:55

what would be the name for the Robert Lustig

5:57

video? and the closest I can.

6:00

came up with was an inconvenient truth

6:02

about have that

6:04

are way better than know i was

6:06

only about a dental effects you know

6:09

other edit them

6:13

okay are

6:14

you ready

6:16

to dive in to our first

6:18

big cultural idea about sugar give me

6:20

rats legal ah

6:23

no a

6:27

i'm okay so first stop

6:29

we're going to talk about the idea that sugar

6:31

makes kids hyperactive

6:33

yes i grew up

6:36

believing that i mean this is the life kind of like in the

6:38

background of like don't feed the get sugar

6:39

is that we like ramped up all day which total

6:41

i gotta say anecdotally like really

6:44

feels thrill almost all

6:46

of these are really ride the coattails

6:49

of it feels true yea

6:51

i like that's how this stuff gets as far as

6:53

it does this one was huge

6:55

when we were coming up and it's only gotten bigger and

6:57

the years since there are damn schools

6:59

now that have rules about only bringing sugar

7:02

free snacks oh interesting or the first

7:04

time we here in scientific literature a

7:06

connection between sugar and behavior is

7:08

nineteen twenty two okay

7:11

idea was first floated in a paper

7:13

that was looking for dietary causes

7:15

of behavioral issues it

7:17

suggested that sugar consumption could

7:19

lead to becoming quote the

7:21

neurotic

7:22

child oh or from

7:24

there it genuinely just kind of sat on a shelf

7:27

for fifty years and didn't really go anywhere people

7:29

aren't super concerned about it didn't really

7:31

hang on until it

7:33

resurfaced in the nineteen

7:35

seventies when researchers

7:37

started looking into a d h d

7:39

ah the biggest boost that this

7:42

idea gets his in

7:44

a book called why your child

7:46

is hyperactive by doctor ben

7:48

fine gold and ben

7:51

fine gold creeds the feingold diet

7:53

and rates this book about

7:54

children and hyperactivity and

7:56

both of those books really

7:58

point the finger at sugar,

8:01

artificial sweeteners, and

8:04

artificial additives. The

8:06

Washington Post actually wrote an obituary

8:09

of Dr. Feingold that includes a pretty good

8:11

synopsis, and I am going to

8:13

send it to you. I get to do

8:15

my little audio book voice. Hmm. Dr.

8:19

Feingold

8:19

proposed that at least half of the children diagnosed

8:21

as hyperactive would be helped if they eliminated

8:24

factory-produced soft drinks, cake,

8:27

candy, pudding, processed cheeses,

8:29

and luncheon meats. He also said

8:31

foods such as cucumbers and mini-fruits

8:33

containing salicylates

8:38

contributed to hyperactivity,

8:39

as did tea, mint, and

8:41

wintergreen. That's a gum. He

8:44

said treatment of hyperactive children with amphetamines

8:47

was doubtful therapy and should be used

8:49

only as last resort. So

8:52

this is this dumb shit where

8:54

it's like, it's not the like very

8:56

well established thing that your child

8:58

has been diagnosed with. It's like his diet. Yeah.

9:01

It's like taking baths to cure autism shit.

9:03

It is sort of mobilizing parental

9:05

discomfort with the idea of giving

9:07

your kids drugs. And

9:10

it is sort of giving folks who have

9:12

that discomfort somewhere else to go with

9:14

it. And that place to go with it is

9:17

no soda, no cake, no cucumbers.

9:19

Cucumbers? Right?

9:22

Tea. Fuck you, tea. Someone's

9:27

finally saying

9:27

it. The idea essentially was that

9:30

eating sugar triggered insulin spikes,

9:32

which led to adrenaline spikes

9:35

and hyperactivity. But

9:37

the data was regarded with some skepticism

9:41

by other scientists because it was pretty

9:43

weak, right? Yeah. Fine

9:45

Gold's book wasn't based on

9:47

randomized controlled trials. It wasn't

9:49

based on meta-analyses. It wasn't really

9:52

based on any hard and fast research,

9:55

it was based mostly on his own anecdotal

9:57

observations in his own clinical.

10:00

practice as a pediatric

10:02

allergist. Yeah. So the

10:04

fix is kind of in on Fine Gold's

10:06

work starting in the 80s in earnest.

10:11

There's a 1983 research

10:13

review in the Journal of Learning Disabilities

10:15

on this idea of sort of quote unquote the

10:17

Fine Gold hypothesis.

10:20

They looked at 23 studies

10:23

and found that quote, diet modification

10:26

is not an effective intervention for

10:28

hyperactivity as evidenced

10:30

by the negligible treatment effects which are only

10:32

slightly greater than those expected

10:34

by chance. We

10:36

also get a research review in 1986

10:38

that finds that quote, "...although

10:42

the results of correlational studies suggested

10:44

that high levels of sugar consumption may

10:46

be associated with increased

10:49

rates of inappropriate behavior, the

10:51

results of dietary challenge studies

10:53

have been inconsistent and inconclusive.

10:57

studies have failed to find any effects

11:00

associated with sugar ingestion, and

11:02

the few studies that have found effects have

11:04

been as likely to find sugar improving

11:06

behavior as making

11:08

it worse. So does this mean the

11:10

entire idea of like sugar highs

11:13

and sugar making kids hyperactive

11:15

is based on this idea that it causes ADHD? That

11:18

is sort of the root of it, right? And

11:20

then it becomes more generalized. It sort of seeps

11:23

out. It leeches out into culture more broadly.

11:26

folks develop this association that is like

11:28

any high energy or frankly,

11:31

just like irritating behavior from kids.

11:33

Yeah. Is likely a result

11:35

of any sugar they may have eaten. So

11:38

we get these couple of

11:40

sort of research reviews and people are like, I don't

11:42

know about this. Right.

11:44

But there is a moment when you talk

11:46

to people who know ADHD research and

11:49

who know sugar research.

11:51

If you ask them

11:53

when this was debunked, they will say 1994. Oh

11:56

yeah. There's a study published

11:59

in the New England J-

12:00

of medicine. They're looking

12:02

at both sucrose or sugar

12:04

and aspartame. The

12:06

sample size is half preschool

12:08

age kids who are three to five and

12:11

half elementary school age

12:14

kids who are six to ten. All of

12:16

the kids involved are described by their

12:19

parents as being quote-unquote sensitive

12:21

to sugar. Kids and

12:23

their families followed three

12:25

different diets for three weeks

12:28

each. One

12:30

was high in sugar but had no

12:33

artificial sweeteners.

12:34

One was low in sugar

12:37

but used aspartame as a

12:39

sweetener.

12:41

One was low in sugar

12:43

and used a placebo. They used saccharin

12:46

as their sweetener. Essentially

12:48

what they did was clear out these families

12:50

cupboards and replace

12:52

them with totally new food each week. So

12:55

it's a home invasion but in reverse. Yep, totally.

12:57

They're putting things in. They also found

13:00

a way to test whether

13:02

or not people were sticking to the

13:04

diet. Okay. They added high

13:07

amounts of ascorbic acid

13:09

to the aspartame, which is vitamin C,

13:11

and they added high levels of

13:13

riboflavin to the sucrose.

13:16

Oh, and they pee tested people

13:17

because it all comes out on your pee. And

13:19

then they would be like, okay, you really did it or you really didn't.

13:22

Dude. In addition to that,

13:25

they also took fasting blood

13:27

work. They did behavioral

13:29

assessment and they did cognitive

13:32

assessment every week of

13:34

this experiment. It is kind of funny

13:36

to me that they think having

13:37

a good methodology will prevent like the

13:40

woo-woo weirdos online

13:42

from still being like, oh, it causes

13:44

ADHD. Are you ready for their findings? Yes,

13:47

I think that it's the cucumbers. It

13:50

is the cucumbers. They didn't cut out cucumbers.

13:52

Actually the cucumbers. They found that

13:55

neither sugar nor aspartame

13:58

quote adversely affects the bay.

14:00

behavior or cognitive functioning of

14:02

children. But they also found

14:04

this, quote, cognitive or

14:06

behavioral differences were as likely to be

14:08

found between sham diets

14:11

as they were between experimental

14:12

diets. And the few

14:15

differences associated with the ingestion

14:17

of sucrose were more consistent

14:19

with a slight calming effect than

14:22

with hyperactivity.

14:22

Interesting. So like,

14:25

A, people were reporting bigger differences

14:27

around the fake made up diets. are

14:29

like cosmetic changes. Yeah. And

14:32

B, if there was any effect,

14:34

it wasn't really statistically significant.

14:37

But it appeared that it was actually like chilling

14:39

kids out a tiny bit. So give kids sugar

14:41

if you want them to calm down. The maintenance

14:43

phase endorsement. Yeah,

14:45

exactly. Around the same

14:48

time, there is an editorial

14:50

in the New England Journal of Medicine from Dr. Marcel

14:52

Kinzborn, who's

14:55

a pediatric neurologist, and

14:57

says that actually like, this is kind

14:59

of a chicken or the egg situation, right? Like,

15:02

does sugar consumption make you

15:04

less inhibited or does disinhibition

15:07

lead to an increase in sugar consumption,

15:09

right? Right, right. And ultimately,

15:12

Dr. Kinsborne includes this

15:14

pretty like

15:15

mic droppy quote. He says, there

15:17

is no evidence that sugar alone can turn

15:19

a child with normal attention into a hyperactive

15:22

child. The same applies to aspartame,

15:24

which has also been suspected of causing behavior disorders

15:27

in some children.

15:28

Sugar clearly does not induce psychopathology,

15:31

where there was none before, but it may on occasion

15:34

aggravate an existing behavior disorder.

15:37

Sugar-free diets can be burdensome and socially

15:39

inhibiting, and they should not be endorsed purely

15:41

on the basis of anecdotal evidence. So

15:44

basically,

15:44

there might be some

15:47

conditions that maybe your kid has

15:49

that makes them hyperactive, but

15:51

at the population level,

15:53

we just can't say that there's any link between

15:56

sugar and hyperactive behavior or like

15:59

hyperactive disorder. or other mental

16:01

conditions. Right, at this point we're talking about 10 years

16:04

of research reviews, RCTs,

16:07

all of this kind of stuff that keep looking for

16:09

this link and keep not finding

16:11

it. Right. I remember reading a super

16:13

fascinating study years ago on the effects

16:16

of alcohol. We often think

16:19

that things like bar fights

16:21

are kind of the way that people act when they're

16:23

drunk in Western societies. We think of

16:25

those as the biological effects of alcohol.

16:28

But what this

16:29

study pointed out was that alcohol effects

16:32

are actually very cultural. And

16:34

there's some societies where it leads to a ton

16:36

of violence. And there's some societies where

16:38

it doesn't. Like where it's like, I love you,

16:40

man, kind of drinking. Totally. And

16:43

what they said was basically there's like societal

16:45

expectations about how to behave

16:48

when you're drunk that actually affect your

16:51

behavior when you're drunk. And I do wonder if

16:53

there's something like that with sugar. I

16:55

remember as a kid, I was always told that

16:57

sugar will make you hyperactive. So maybe

17:00

it did make me hyperactive because somewhere

17:02

in my brain, it was like, you just have some sugar, you should have

17:04

hyperactive now. I mean, Michael, you

17:06

are handing me a segue on a silver

17:08

platter. Most

17:11

of the explanations that they're now exploring

17:13

for this are social. One

17:15

of them is that this is, as you noted, a self-fulfilling

17:18

prophecy. Parents express so much

17:20

anxiety about kids' behavior

17:23

around sugar that it cues

17:25

kids to act

17:26

that way. Children are basically

17:28

that horse that tapped its foot to

17:30

do math. Horse math.

17:32

Like that is one of the possible explanations

17:34

here. Another of the possible

17:37

explanations is like, think about where you're getting

17:39

sugar when you're a kid. It's usually

17:42

birthday parties, celebrations,

17:44

big gatherings. If you

17:46

have ever seen a child at a birthday

17:48

party, you know that emotions run high.

17:51

That's not sugar. That's children.

17:53

But one of the most popular explanations

17:56

for this is that it may actually

17:58

be a response.

18:00

to restriction of sugar. Oh.

18:03

One dietician told the New York Times,

18:05

quote, the psychological effect

18:07

of food restriction cannot be

18:09

overstated. When we restrict

18:12

children's access to sugar, they are

18:14

naturally going to become more preoccupied

18:16

with and drawn to these foods and

18:19

overreact and have erratic behavior

18:21

when they do get them. It is very possible

18:24

that essentially what we're seeing in like families

18:27

that are nervous about sugar is that those

18:30

parents are expressing a high level of anxiety

18:32

around their kids having sugar. They're restricting

18:34

it really heavily. Their kids are only

18:37

getting it when they're in sort of social settings

18:39

with other kids. Right. Kind of all

18:41

of these explanations are coming into play for

18:43

some families. Dude, that's how

18:45

I was with MTV.

18:46

What are you talking about? We

18:49

didn't have cable. And so I would go over

18:51

to friends houses and all I wanted to do

18:53

was watch music videos. No, that was our

18:55

family too. My parents would talk about like,

18:58

we can't have TV in the house. If we

19:00

have TV, all we do is watch TV. And

19:02

there wasn't any recognition of like, when you

19:04

have it all the time, the bloom

19:07

is off the rose. Right, and you have actual willpower

19:09

around it.

19:10

I had no MTV willpower.

19:12

I know I can't have this thing, so I'm gonna be like

19:14

a camel filling up my hump with

19:17

TV. Or maybe the Bjork videos

19:19

were just really good and it was worth it. I mean, the

19:21

Bjork videos are good. Gondry Hive.

19:22

It is worth noting just to close out

19:24

this section, that today most

19:27

mainstream professional associations and

19:29

health organizations do not recommend

19:32

any dietary interventions for people

19:34

with ADHD. There just

19:37

isn't enough evidence to suggest

19:39

this is an effective treatment for most kids

19:41

with ADHD. Kids may

19:43

have ADHD and food allergies

19:45

or sensitivities, but ADHD isn't

19:48

treated or caused by dietary

19:51

sources. Just like full stop,

19:52

right? And yet it is the first place

19:54

that we go as a society because we think of this as

19:57

like personal responsibility shit. There's always

19:59

a lot of anxiety.

20:00

about children among

20:02

middle age and older people, just because the mores

20:04

and the music and the behavior of kids

20:07

is just a total mystery to everyone who's a little bit older.

20:09

And so things like autism

20:11

and ADHD, there's this little thing

20:14

in the back of your little middle age brain that

20:16

goes, maybe this is fake. Yeah, absolutely. It

20:18

allows people who don't have ADHD to

20:21

dismiss people who do have ADHD, right? Yeah,

20:24

my

20:24

kids don't have ADHD. Yeah, absolutely. It's probably

20:26

just the cucumbers or something. Michael.

20:30

Are you ready for our next big

20:32

idea about

20:32

sugar? I want the rats. Give me the rats. I'm here

20:34

for the rats. The

20:37

next big idea we're going to dig

20:39

into is the idea that we can predict

20:41

how different foods impact most

20:44

people's blood sugar. Is this the glycemic

20:46

index section? This is the glycemic

20:49

index section. Thank you. I'm excited. Have

20:52

you heard of the glycemic index from anybody other than me? than

20:54

me for the last like

20:56

three years you've

20:58

done to do the glycemic episode

21:01

for so long. My understanding is that it's

21:03

like

21:03

a real thing that like certain foods

21:06

spike your blood sugar and then some

21:08

of them spike it more. So this

21:10

is the whole thing of like eating brown rice rather

21:13

than white rice and eating high fiber foods

21:15

rather than low fiber foods rather

21:17

than spiking your insulin like a little

21:19

Everest. They flatten the curve.

21:22

Yes, they make it a little hill. Yeah, it's like a

21:24

it's like the hill from the Windows desktop

21:26

background. I mean, you kind of nailed it, right?

21:29

The glycemic index is also where we

21:31

get these like very Internet

21:33

kind of claims that potatoes are worse

21:36

for you than a Snickers bar or

21:38

an apple is worse for

21:39

you than ice cream. Those are all

21:42

just people parroting out results from

21:44

the glycemic index, which really does

21:46

rank ice cream as being a lower

21:49

glycemic choice than an apple. Oh. It

21:51

really does rank carrots as having more

21:54

sugar than table sugar. Is that because

21:56

the ice cream has fat mixed with sugar?

21:58

And so. it like slows

22:00

down how much it hits your body skipping

22:03

ahead mcgloin could you

22:05

stubbs giving her a lot of people

22:07

seem to think that are show is like scripted

22:10

what they think this whole thing is fake as

22:12

i i really

22:14

don't know where are breeze going with this which is why keep ruining

22:16

the epithet yeah

22:18

totally i don't we both keep doing

22:21

i know so just to get into

22:23

like the next level of detail

22:25

with the glycemic index it's basically

22:27

a scale that is plotted

22:29

from zero to one hundred breda

22:31

the guy who

22:33

created the glycemic index

22:35

is a welsh position and

22:37

six generation doctor named david jenkins

22:40

he went to oxford he's

22:42

invested into the order of canada

22:44

for his contributions as a nutrition scientist

22:47

here is the study design

22:49

for coming up with the initial glycemic

22:52

index is published for the first time in nineteen eighty

22:54

one they have volunteers

22:56

fast for twelve hours as you

22:58

do with investing bloodwork great he

23:01

would then feed a group of volunteers

23:04

one food on it's

23:06

own

23:07

just potato

23:09

or just strawberries are

23:11

just mill right and then

23:13

two hours later he would measure

23:16

their blood sugar to see how that food

23:18

had impacted their pledge okay this

23:21

is where we get to the first

23:22

problem with the study would you

23:24

like to guess how big

23:26

the groups of volunteers were for each of these

23:28

foods so a like to people and ones like his

23:30

cousin or something five to ten

23:33

people and is there big variation

23:35

between the people and how much it's biking it totally

23:37

there's individual variants the

23:39

other part of the study design is the way that they are

23:41

feeding people these foods is if you're

23:43

eating potato or an

23:45

apple they want to have the same

23:48

quantity of carbohydrates

23:50

oh they're feeding people fifty

23:52

grams of carbohydrate in a given

23:55

food wait what how much as fifty grams of

23:56

carbs is that like more than we would typically

23:59

eat in a day Oh my God, Michael,

24:01

here's some examples. A small bottle

24:03

of Coke, like 16 ounces of Coke, 50 grams

24:06

of carbs. A cup of white rice, 50

24:09

grams of carbs.

24:10

10 cups of popcorn, 50

24:13

grams of carbs, 20 cups

24:16

of cucumber, 50

24:18

grams of carbs. That gives me ADHD. So

24:20

people are sitting there eating 20 cups

24:23

of cucumber. Yeah, that's a lot of cucumbers,

24:26

man. People also don't usually fast for 12

24:28

hours and then only eat one food,

24:30

right? This is like dry toast without jam,

24:33

it's popcorn without butter, and

24:35

then it's not eating anything else for two hours.

24:38

So when you eat potatoes

24:40

alone, your blood sugar does one

24:42

thing.

24:43

When you eat potatoes with a steak, the

24:46

fat and the protein in that steak

24:48

slow down your digestion, and

24:51

they kind of flatten the curve of the

24:53

glycemic index, right? So potatoes will

24:55

have less of an effect if

24:57

you are eating them with something with a lot of

25:00

fat, a lot of fiber, some protein, whatever,

25:02

same thing is true if you put some avocado

25:05

on some toast, right? Right. Avocado

25:07

has a ton of fat and fiber

25:09

in it, both of which slow down digestion

25:12

and change the impact,

25:13

the glycemic sort of impact

25:15

of the bread, right? Mm-hmm. So basically,

25:18

you can't really say that

25:20

like potatoes have 35.7 glycemic in this because

25:24

it depends on what you're eating them with and

25:26

what you've eaten before and how much you're eating,

25:29

et cetera. Yes. And that is

25:31

the first problem of five

25:33

problems with the glycemic index

25:35

that I'm listing out here.

25:36

The second sort of issue here is

25:39

that lots of things influence

25:41

the glycemic index of a food, right?

25:44

Potatoes come in different shapes and sizes.

25:47

If you are frying potatoes in oil,

25:49

those potatoes are going to have more fat. They're

25:51

going to be digested differently and have a different

25:53

glycemic index than a baked potato

25:56

or a boiled potato, right?

25:58

the type of sh-

26:00

sugar that a given food contains

26:02

can change its clay simic a next frutos

26:06

for example has a score of twenty three but

26:08

maltose has a score of one o five

26:10

the structure of the starch

26:13

in the food can impact its

26:15

clay simic index it's ripeness

26:18

of course because of sugar yeah totally

26:20

so and unripe banana has a glycemic

26:23

index of thirty and in overwrite

26:25

banana has ugly simic index of forty eight

26:27

how of food is processed

26:29

can impact it's crazy make index for

26:31

example rolling oats disrupts

26:34

the structure of it's starches ah

26:37

right and makes them easier to digest

26:39

and therefore

26:39

raised its clay simic index and

26:43

how much weed chew food

26:46

can impact its place to make it back

26:48

now rate minors any is that like is

26:50

the very first diet

26:52

was the like chew your food

26:54

dye share your food a hundred times to maybe he

26:56

was onto something and like he was a leg and

26:58

or whatever that was not only

27:00

thing three with big like

27:02

simic index we now know that

27:04

individuals responses to different foods

27:06

vary widely from person to person

27:09

of food that doesn't really move the needle

27:11

on my blood sugar might make yours

27:13

go through the roof this is true of two diabetic

27:16

friends that i had years ago

27:18

one of whom could eat popcorn

27:20

all day and will like it's totally vinyl a popcorn

27:23

and the other one could have one handful

27:25

and her blood

27:25

sugar would go bananas rape

27:27

or yeah but this is like not very

27:30

well known to people who are not sort

27:32

of managing their blood sugar for medical reasons

27:34

right there is not a

27:37

diet or a dietary intervention

27:39

for people with diabetes or insulin

27:41

resistance that is considered to be evidence based

27:43

ah there's nothing so how do they tested for

27:45

people

27:46

with diabetes how they figure out how much it spiking

27:48

to they just do it on an individual basis and

27:50

then go from there you get a blood sugar monitor

27:52

you test your blood sugar and i think

27:54

in many cases folks are instructed by

27:56

their health care providers to try out different things

27:59

and test your blood

28:00

and see what it does. Wow. Problem

28:02

number four, the glycemic index is

28:05

billed

28:05

in popular diets as a

28:07

method of weight loss, but research

28:09

consistently shows it does not

28:11

deliver weight loss. One meta-analysis

28:14

of randomized controlled trials on low

28:16

glycemic diets followed for up

28:19

to 17 months that looked at 2,300

28:22

fat people found no

28:24

difference in body weight and waist

28:26

circumference. Another

28:29

review from Cochrane analyzed

28:31

six RCTs with 202 participants

28:34

who followed low GI diets

28:36

for five weeks to six months.

28:39

And they found that they lost an average

28:42

of one kilogram more

28:44

than people on other diets, right? And sounds

28:46

like every diet study. And then the last thing

28:48

to know about the Glacemic Index is

28:51

that it isn't actually recommended

28:53

for individual use. Oh. Medical

28:56

associations and institutions don't actually

28:59

recommend generally that individuals

29:01

use the glycemic index as a standalone

29:04

tool to decide what to eat. The

29:06

NHS has this to say, quote, foods

29:08

with a high GI are not necessarily

29:11

unhealthy and not all foods with a low

29:13

GI are healthy. For example,

29:15

watermelon and sometimes parsnips are

29:18

high GI

29:18

foods, while chocolate cake

29:20

has a lower GI value. Also,

29:23

foods that contain or or are cooked with fat

29:25

and protein, slow down the

29:28

absorption of carbohydrate, lowering

29:30

their GI. For example, crisps

29:33

have a lower GI than potatoes cooked

29:35

without fat. In the UK, they use the

29:37

word crisps to mean elevator. Tinfoil.

29:41

The last thing I'll say on this point is

29:43

that the glycemic index also isn't

29:45

recommended for individual use by the American

29:47

Diabetes Association for people

29:49

with diabetes. They rate the current

29:51

data as poor quality. There

29:54

is some evidence that the glycemic index may

29:56

be helpful in prevention, but

29:58

it is not recommended. in treatment.

30:01

So again, the folks who ostensibly

30:04

need it the most are not recommended

30:07

to use this as their tool for

30:09

deciding what to eat, right? So basically

30:11

it's like any other framework

30:13

I guess where it's like maybe useful in certain circumstances.

30:16

I mean maybe people use it and like it

30:18

and that's fine, but

30:20

as a sort of population level of recommendation

30:23

it just isn't very meaningful. Yeah and it's hard

30:25

to figure out. It's not very intuitive.

30:27

You have to have these tables with all these

30:29

pages and pages of results. And then,

30:31

of course, all

30:32

this stuff breaks down to as soon as you go to a fucking

30:34

restaurant. These conversations are mostly

30:36

happening among people who are not diabetic, don't

30:39

have PCOS, and don't necessarily have insulin

30:41

resistance. So they're

30:43

mostly people as a result who have a

30:45

very imprecise understanding

30:48

of blood glucose and how it all

30:50

works, right? Like me. Like

30:53

you. But you haven't taken me to

30:55

the rats yet. Myth three is where we get to

30:57

the rats. Let's do small mammals.

31:00

Saving the best for rats.

31:01

Oh. Oh,

31:04

that's actually pretty good. You've

31:06

topped yourself. So Michael, our third

31:09

and final big idea that

31:11

we're gonna tackle today about sugar is

31:13

the idea that sugar is addictive and

31:16

particularly that sugar is

31:19

as addictive as cocaine. I

31:21

know

31:22

where you're going with this shit. I always

31:24

hate this where oftentimes you hear this

31:26

rhetoric that's like it affects the

31:28

same part of your brain as

31:30

heroin or whatever. That just seems

31:33

like the pleasure part of the brain. Yes,

31:35

absolutely. I think particularly this

31:37

claim that sugar is as addictive as

31:39

cocaine has really gained

31:42

traction in the last five or so

31:44

years, right? I wanted

31:46

to start us out by saying that this is kind of

31:48

a tough one because feelings run high

31:50

about this one, right? Focus cocaine is so fun.

31:53

I genuinely would not know. I have not done

31:55

cocaine. I thought due

31:58

to the DARE program... that I

32:00

would constantly get offered cocaine.

32:02

And like, I am not cool enough to have ever

32:05

been offered cocaine in my whole life. And like, I absolutely

32:08

would have done cocaine if someone had offered it to me.

32:10

So listen, I had a coworker at one point who

32:12

described me as having a two drink personality.

32:15

That's good. Right?

32:19

He was like, it's like you've already had a couple of drinks. That's

32:21

kind of your vibe. I might

32:23

say there is already a whisper of

32:25

cocaine

32:26

in your default setting,

32:28

right? Yeah, a little bit. up the volume on that

32:30

is really something. Imagine

32:32

my little voice and personality.

32:34

So I sent you a little clip

32:36

of how this is getting sort of billed

32:39

in mainstream media outlets. This is a clip

32:41

from Good

32:41

Morning America from about two years ago.

32:44

The fucking title is studies

32:47

show added sugar can be just as addictive

32:49

as street drugs. Street drugs.

32:52

Again, I'm living that I've never been offered cocaine

32:54

on the street.

32:55

All right, everybody. Time to

32:57

check your sweet tooth. Are you

32:59

addicted to sugar? Some studies

33:02

in the field of nutritional science and medicine show

33:04

that diets high in added sugar can

33:06

be as addictive

33:08

as some street drugs like cocaine. So

33:10

cutting added sugar from your diet if you're

33:12

consuming too much can have some powerful

33:15

and significant and positive effects

33:17

on your overall health. There's

33:19

actually been a very significant

33:22

body of medical research,

33:24

nutritional science research that shows

33:27

using a test called a functional MRIs,

33:29

that when people ingest foods that are

33:31

high in added sugar, that the same

33:34

part of their brain that gets stimulated

33:36

when they get exposed to cocaine,

33:38

also gets triggered

33:40

and stimulated with foods that are high in added

33:42

sugars. In general, the

33:45

more added sugar in a food, the

33:47

more that brain reward center will

33:49

be triggered, making you want more

33:52

and more of it.

33:55

Okay, so I should stop doing cocaine and I should stop eating

33:57

sugar. And at first, not eating sugar. sugar that will have the same

33:59

benefit. with this cocaine. We should say that the

34:01

research that exists around sugar

34:03

and the dangers of sugar are all about added

34:06

sugars. So we're not actually talking

34:08

about the sugar that exists in a

34:11

nectarine or the sugar

34:13

that exists in oats or

34:15

whatever, right? Like we're not talking

34:17

about sort of naturally existing sugars. We're

34:19

talking about in the preparation of a food, someone

34:22

adds cane sugar,

34:24

honey, fructose, whatever,

34:27

and sweetens a

34:28

food. That's what we're talking about with most

34:30

of this research, but

34:33

we're not very good at making those distinctions

34:35

individually and it has allowed quite

34:38

a few diets and quite a few spurious

34:40

claims about any form of

34:42

sugar. This is a tough

34:44

one because again, like feelings run high

34:46

here. I know and love

34:49

a number of people who consider themselves,

34:51

like deeply consider themselves to be addicted to

34:53

sugar. I also

34:55

know and love people who are in

34:58

recovery from addiction to drugs and alcohol,

35:01

who are profoundly frustrated

35:03

with this discourse around sugar addiction.

35:06

My goal here isn't to get in between

35:09

anyone and their understanding of their own body,

35:11

but to take a look at what the research says

35:13

about this thing that's popping up more and more as

35:15

kind of a buzzword and a really snappy

35:18

kind of claim. I think one of the problems

35:20

is that the term addicted has

35:22

a bunch of different kind of individual and social

35:24

meanings, and also has this element

35:26

of physiological addiction,

35:29

like you go through actual withdrawals,

35:31

but then there's also psychological addiction.

35:35

I remember years ago I interviewed a psychologist about sex

35:37

addiction, and what he said is that on

35:39

some level you can get addicted to anything. You can get

35:41

addicted to skiing to the point where it disrupts your

35:44

work life and your social life,

35:45

and that's a real thing, and you

35:47

don't want to take that away from people if they say that

35:49

they're addicted to something, but it's also

35:52

distinct from physiological

35:54

symptoms of addiction. Yeah, absolutely.

35:56

I mean, like there are lots of ways to

35:58

talk about addiction.

36:00

dependency. And sugar

36:02

addiction as a concept in the research

36:05

is debated. There was one 2016 review

36:09

in the European Journal of Nutrition

36:11

that reviewed the available data.

36:13

And here

36:15

is what they

36:18

said. I'm sending you a brick. It says, we find

36:20

little evidence to support sugar addiction in humans.

36:23

And findings from the animal literature suggest that

36:25

addiction like behaviors such as binging

36:27

occur only in the context of intermittent

36:29

access to sugar,

36:31

not the neurochemical effect of sugar."

36:34

Okay, so we don't find it in humans and when

36:36

we find it in animals, it's like

36:38

if you restrict their sugar

36:40

intake for a while, then they kind of like

36:42

binge on it when they finally get access to it. Right.

36:45

So that's a 2016 review. Here's

36:49

a 2018 review from the British Journal of Sports

36:51

Medicine. It says, consuming sugar

36:54

produces effects similar to that of cocaine,

36:56

altering mood, possibly through its ability

36:58

to induce reward

36:59

and pleasure leading to the seeking

37:02

out of sugar." It's not a great sentence. It's

37:04

not a great sentence. That's true. When

37:07

this study came out, one of the authors

37:09

went even further and told the Guardian,

37:11

quote, in animals, it is actually

37:14

more addictive than even cocaine.

37:16

So sugar is pretty much probably the

37:18

most consumed addictive substance

37:21

around the world, and it is wreaking

37:23

havoc on our health. OK. That 2018

37:27

meta-analysis that says sugar

37:30

is as addictive as cocaine led

37:32

to really significant backlash

37:34

with nutrition researchers. But

37:37

the sound bite, sugar is

37:39

as addictive as cocaine,

37:42

made it much further than the backlash,

37:44

which is more nuanced, more reasoned,

37:47

you have to talk to more people, versus

37:49

somebody makes a graphic on Instagram and

37:51

is like, sugar is as addictive as cocaine and it gets share

37:53

it a hundred thousand times and then there you are, right? Here

37:57

is what appears to have happened.

38:00

Okay. It appears that the authors

38:02

of the 2018 study may

38:04

have straight up misunderstood the

38:06

animal studies. Oh, those

38:09

studies restricted rats

38:11

to having sugar for two hours every day. Okay.

38:15

But

38:15

when you take away the restriction, the

38:17

quote unquote addictive behaviors also

38:20

went away. Oh, okay. The rats did

38:22

the same thing. They had the same quote

38:25

unquote addictive behaviors for

38:27

saccharin

38:28

for the artificial sweetener. Oh.

38:31

So this appears to be about sweetness,

38:33

not about sugar per se. Or like the

38:35

taste sensation. In this study

38:38

rats were offered sugar water,

38:40

saccharin water, or cocaine water.

38:43

Dude seriously? Yeah.

38:44

I've never been offered that either. I'm

38:48

livid. These rats

38:50

are offered these different things and then they're given levers

38:52

right to get more of the thing. And

38:55

the evidence here is is the sugar

38:57

rats wanted the most of the sugar, but

38:59

also so did the saccharin rats, and the cocaine

39:01

rats didn't necessarily want

39:04

a huge amount of cocaine water.

39:06

The cocaine rats were too busy explaining the podcast

39:08

they're about to launch.

39:11

There's a piece in The Guardian

39:13

about this called Is Sugar Really As Addictive

39:15

As Cocaine? Scientists row over

39:17

effect on body and brain. Row

39:20

was invented

39:21

to help headline writers fit

39:23

their headlines. In this piece, they talked to a Cambridge

39:25

psychiatrist who was like, yeah,

39:28

I mean, rats are gonna eat food and not

39:30

cocaine? Yeah. Fair point,

39:32

Cambridge psychologist.

39:38

Yeah, man. Yeah. I should say

39:41

that this one is debated in part because

39:43

the data just isn't there yet. Multiple

39:46

reviews on this topic describe the data as

39:48

nascent or in its infancy. Right.

39:51

Many of the studies that we're talking about are

39:54

mouse and rat studies, they're

39:56

animal studies, There are some human studies,

39:58

but not as many as there are.

40:00

are rat studies, it's

40:02

also debated because dopamine

40:04

and brain response alone may

40:07

not actually constitute the same

40:09

kind of dependency as drugs

40:12

or alcohol. The core

40:14

argument about sugar addiction is

40:17

that sugar consumption leads

40:19

to dopamine release lighting

40:22

up the same part of our brain

40:23

as drug use. As

40:25

you noted, that is kind

40:27

of just a pleasure center of the brain. Sugar

40:30

has a little bit more of an impact,

40:32

right? It creates more of that

40:35

response, but lots of foods create

40:37

that response in your brain, right? It

40:39

appears that drugs like cocaine,

40:41

like heroin, like opiates sort of writ large,

40:44

actually hijack the controls

40:47

of that reward center and make it stop

40:49

working or work less effectively over

40:51

time. We don't really have

40:53

data that shows that with sugar. I get

40:55

a dopamine response every time I get a poke on Facebook.

40:58

Who's poking? Are we getting in

41:00

the time machine going back to 2007? I

41:03

wanted to see what reaction that would get from you. Nothing.

41:06

You gave me nothing. I gave you nothing.

41:08

I have nothing to say about. This

41:12

episode has about one million sources,

41:15

but there are two books

41:17

that were particularly helpful and

41:20

both of them are forthcoming later this

41:22

year. Oh, how did you read them? How did you get

41:24

these? I'm fancy. Ooh.

41:26

Because of our show, people sometimes email us

41:29

and say, hey, do you want to read this book before it comes out?

41:31

And I say, yes. Will you open those

41:33

emails?

41:34

I don't know about those emails. Also,

41:36

one of them is a book that I read and ended up blurbing

41:38

because I liked it so much. What you read?

41:41

Wow.

41:43

Betrayal. Like a chump. Wow.

41:47

So those two books that are coming out later

41:50

this year our fat

41:52

talk, Parenting in the Age of Diet

41:54

Culture by Virginia Oh Virginia, yeah. We

41:59

love Virginia.

42:00

And the second is by someone

42:02

I don't know. It is called

42:04

Sugar Rush, Science, Politics,

42:07

and the Demonization of Fatness. It's

42:10

by Karen Thrasby and it's out

42:12

in August. I'm livid that you didn't rely

42:14

on any

42:14

YouTube videos for this. This is

42:16

a quote from Fat

42:19

Talk, Parenting in the Age of Diet Culture

42:21

by Virginia Soullsmith. Virginia.

42:24

Out later this month, by the way, pre-order

42:26

it, team. She says,

42:27

Dopamine is also known as the feel-good

42:30

hormone. It surges in our brains whenever

42:32

we experience pleasure and defenders of the sugar

42:34

addiction model

42:35

cite this as evidence because the sugar dopamine

42:37

response can look like the response seen in

42:39

the brains of people using narcotics. But

42:41

we also get dopamine responses from purely

42:43

benign activities

42:44

like seeing a puppy, hugging

42:46

a loved one, or feeding our babies. People

42:48

who feel addicted to sugar interact with it quite

42:51

differently than people who struggle with alcohol or

42:53

drug dependency. So-called food addicts

42:55

don't endanger their children or lose their life

42:57

savings to obtain their highs. So even

42:59

the chair of the

43:02

UK organization Action on Sugar acknowledges

43:06

that sugar is fundamentally different

43:08

than other substances

43:09

that we consider addictive.

43:12

In 2014,

43:12

Graham McGregor, who's

43:14

the chair of Action on Sugar told the Times,

43:17

quote, "'I agree that sugar is

43:19

not like tobacco. "'It's not as addictive,

43:22

"'but it's a major source of hidden calories.

43:24

"'And if you get it down, it will

43:26

help with obesity.

43:28

It's an overstatement. Sometimes

43:30

to get your point across, you need to make it stronger.

43:33

This is the thing we've confronted

43:34

a lot before, where

43:36

it's like a lot of this stuff that sort of seems like scientific

43:39

messaging is actually like policy

43:40

messaging. Yeah, it's social. Yeah,

43:42

it's designed to be rhetorical or to like

43:45

reach a goal. Part of what happens when you

43:47

invoke an addiction model is

43:50

that you also invoke all the trappings

43:52

of that model, right? Right. And

43:54

the main way, certainly in the

43:56

US that we engage with addiction is abstinence.

44:00

Right. And it is not

44:01

very feasible for people

44:03

to fully abstain from all

44:06

forms of sugar. And it's also not great

44:08

for your body to not have any kind of

44:11

glucose

44:11

entering your system. Yeah. In the absence

44:13

of a clear sort of scientific consensus

44:15

here, our cultural attitudes

44:17

about sugar and addiction both have sort

44:20

of moved in hard to like

44:22

fill the gap.

44:23

Right. Sugar has long

44:25

been discussed as a possible

44:27

sort of dietary cause of people

44:29

getting fat. It's been long discussed

44:32

as a dietary cause of people getting diabetes,

44:33

all kinds of stuff that we heavily

44:36

stigmatize. Addiction

44:39

is also something that we heavily

44:41

stigmatize, right? Right. So when someone

44:44

proposed that sugar was addictive,

44:47

it reinforced two very

44:49

deeply held sets of biased

44:52

beliefs that fat people can't

44:54

control themselves and that

44:57

addicts are sort of like wretched and

44:59

to be pitied and don't have self-control

45:01

and they sort of did it to themselves, sort of the vibe,

45:03

right, with addiction? And

45:06

what it's rhetorically trying to do

45:08

is bring some of the suspicion

45:11

and fear and alarmism that we bring

45:14

to conversations about drugs to

45:16

sugar now. But again, we

45:18

don't actually have research that bears that

45:21

out. We might at some

45:23

point, who knows? But as it

45:25

stands, we don't have research

45:27

that very clearly

45:29

illustrates any kind of like, again,

45:32

scientific consensus that sugar is an addictive

45:34

substance. Yeah, I don't understand why people are doing

45:36

this. I think they're doing it for like marketing

45:38

or like public relations purposes. Cause

45:41

like it doesn't seem

45:43

like it's supported by the biological

45:45

evidence at all. It seems like they're doing this maybe

45:48

as a way of like reducing stigma.

45:50

like, oh, they can't help it. They're addicted

45:53

or something. But like, I don't think this is going to have

45:55

that effect. I think this is probably

45:57

coming from a similar place as the

46:00

redefinition of quote unquote obesity

46:02

as a disease, right? Which is sort of

46:04

the desire to garner more attention

46:07

to an issue that some researchers feel like

46:09

isn't getting the attention that it deserves. It's

46:12

messaging that's designed to kind of grab you

46:14

by the lapels and shake you, right? It

46:17

has the side benefit, quote

46:20

unquote benefit, right? Of reinforcing

46:24

how we already feel about food,

46:26

making more fear about food in a

46:28

time when

46:29

we're sort of moving in a slightly

46:31

more anti diet direction or have

46:33

been. Right. This is a

46:36

way that you can reclaim your deep

46:38

fear and discomfort around food that feels

46:40

beyond reproach. Right. And

46:43

it's a way that you can think and talk about

46:45

fat people without

46:46

explicitly saying fat people. You

46:48

can talk about sugar addicts and sugar addiction

46:50

and the scourge of sugar addiction. I

46:52

think there is this idea that that might be less

46:54

destructive. Right. That like an addiction frame

46:57

is less stigmatizing. I would say have

46:59

some conversations with some addicts. I

47:01

just don't think

47:02

that these like very superficial

47:05

relabeling of the terminology

47:07

around widely stigmatized

47:09

groups like really does anything. I

47:12

think you can call like fatness a disease or

47:15

not call it a disease, but like fat people are very

47:17

stigmatized in our society. Yeah. So the only

47:19

thing that's going to happen is they're just going to attach the stigma

47:21

to the new term.

47:22

I am of a mind that if there are new

47:24

terms coming about to describe a particular

47:26

minoritized community, that that should

47:28

be the decision of that community, not

47:31

the decision of doctors who are like, I've

47:33

decided this is what's best for you. And

47:36

any sort of

47:37

rhetorical move that you use to

47:40

amplify your message has some

47:42

consequences, some of which you will foresee and some

47:44

of which you will not. I mean, this is clearly

47:47

a rhetorical move to get people to

47:49

think differently about sugar. But

47:51

what it has done is created a really

47:54

fundamental misperception of

47:57

the sort of like

47:58

chemical functions of sugar. in

48:00

your body, right? This sort of use

48:02

of an addiction parallel really

48:05

lends a sense of urgency,

48:08

right? That this is like a matter of life

48:10

and death, that we can't fuck around.

48:13

And that's not actually what's happening with sugar,

48:16

right? There is no such thing as one

48:18

day you have too much sugar and then you die if you're

48:20

not like diabetic or something else, right? Yeah,

48:22

there's no opioid

48:23

overdose analogy to

48:25

sugar. Right, what we're talking about is for

48:27

say the onset of diabetes

48:30

years and years and years of creeping

48:33

up blood sugar that can be caused

48:35

by lots of things. And as we learned earlier,

48:38

different things for different people and

48:41

different sugars for different people.

48:43

Right? Caused by cucumbers. That's what

48:45

I

48:45

learned in the last hour. That's what you, that's where we left it.

48:47

Right? Oh, that's why I'm fat. I

48:49

keep drinking tea. Hahahaha

49:20

You