The rise of chronic metabolic disease in the U.S. follows the growth of the U.S. sugar industry and increases in per capita sugar consumption.

Today, we consume about 20 times more sugar than our ancestors did, and we have very little control over the amount since what was once a condiment has now become a dietary staple added to countless processed and fast foods.¹

Yet, if you were to visit with a conventional nutritionist, you'd likely still hear rhetoric that's been parroted since the 1950s — incorrect and misleading rhetoric at that — that "a calorie is a calorie" and obesity is the result of consuming more calories than you expend.

Gary Taubes, co-founder of the Nutrition Science Initiative and the author of "The Case Against Sugar," wrote in The New York Times:²

"When it comes to weight gain, the sugar industry and purveyors of sugary beverages still insist, a calorie is a calorie, regardless of its source, so guidelines that single out sugar as a dietary evil are not evidence-based.

Surprisingly, the scientific consensus is technically in agreement. It holds that obesity is caused 'by a lack of energy balance … '"

Yet, as Taubes pointed out, researchers have known since the 1960s that your body metabolizes different types of carbohydrates, like glucose and fructose, in different ways, causing very different hormonal and physiological responses that absolutely may influence fat accumulation and metabolism.³

"In light of this research, arguing today that your body fat responds to everything you eat the exact same way is almost inconceivably naïve," Taubes said, "But don't blame the sugar industry for perpetuating this view. Blame the researchers and the nutrition authorities."⁴

'Energy Balance' Theory Perpetuated by Nutritionists, Soda Industry

Many conventional nutritionists are among the top supporters of the energy balance theory, which still suggests that weight gain is simply a matter of consuming more calories than you burn off.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute is among those prominent government organizations still perpetuating this myth⁵ — alongside soda giants who obviously have a vested interest in keeping sugar's "OK-in-moderation" reputation.

In 2015, for instance, Coca-Cola Co. was outed for secretly funding and supporting the Global Energy Balance Network, a nonprofit front group that promoted exercise as the solution to obesity while significantly downplaying the role of diet and sugary beverages in the weight loss equation.⁶

Public health authorities accused the group of using tobacco-industry tactics to raise doubts about the health hazards of soda, and a letter signed by more than three dozen scientists said the group was spreading "scientific nonsense."⁷

By December 2015, the Global Energy Balance Network announced it would be shutting down, with Coca-Cola claiming it was working on increased transparency.

However, as reported by CrossFit bloggers Russell Berger and Russ Greene, the soda industry maintains many close ties with organizations that continue to promote the energy balance myth (and directly funds such organizations).⁸ Among them:

• The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (AND), which was funded by Coca-Cola until 2015.

They also founded a program called "Energy Balance 4 Kids With Play" in partnership with the Healthy Weight Commitment Foundation (HWCF), "an industry organization representing Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Nestle, General Mills and other distributers of sugar-sweetened products."⁹

"The program promotes the concept of energy balance among children and parents through registered dietitians," Berger noted.¹⁰

• The International Food Information Council Foundation, which is funded by Coca-Cola and PepsiCo, promotes the idea that "when it comes to weight management or weight loss, it's the total calories that matters most."

• The National Institutes of Health "We Can!" Campaign. Coca-Cola has channeled millions of dollars to the NIH Foundation. The campaign advises drinking soda only "once in a while" and suggests balancing out days when kids eat lots of high-sugar foods/drinks with more physical activity.

• The American College of Sports Medicine, which is also funded by Coca-Cola, suggests that while water should be your first choice of beverage, "there is no harm in drinking juice or even soda in moderation."

• The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which also receives funding from Coca-Cola via the CDC Foundation, also promotes "energy balance," assuring that: "Healthy eating is all about balance.

You can enjoy your favorite foods even if they are high in calories, fat or added sugars. The key is eating them only once in a while … "

How the Soda Industry Downplays the Health Risks of Excess Sugar

While leveraging the energy balance theory via public health organizations, the soda industry also uses a variety of other smoke-and-mirrors tactics to distract the public from the true health risks of consuming sugary beverages.

One of their favorites is blaming obesity on lack of exercise and suggesting that you can somehow out-exercise the effects of a poor diet, which you cannot. Berger noted:¹¹

"Perhaps the biggest trick of Big Soda nutrition science is to promote physical activity instead of fitness and weight loss. Weight loss and fitness require limiting the intake of sugar-sweetened beverages.

Generic references to physical activity, however, may actually encourage the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages, especially when the same organizations promote the idea of "earning" sugar by burning off additional calories through daily activity."

There are other stealthy tricks too, like industry-funded health organizations suggesting metabolic syndrome is the result of obesity and can be remedied with physical activity.

But independent studies have suggested insulin resistance, caused by overconsumption of sugars, especially fructose, may, in fact, be a primary cause behind metabolic syndrome.

For instance, a meta-review published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings found that once you reach 18 percent of your daily calories from added sugar, there's a two-fold increase in metabolic harm that promotes pre-diabetes and diabetes.¹²

Moreover, research suggests sugary beverages are to blame for about 183,000 deaths worldwide each year, including 133,000 diabetes deaths, 44,000 heart disease deaths, and 6,000 cancer deaths.

By focusing on obesity and physical activity, the soda industry very carefully avoids bringing attention to the role sugar and insulin resistance play in this increasingly common chronic condition.

Another common tactic, as Berger pointed out, is describing chronic disease and obesity as "complex" issues. While it's true that disease can be complex, the soda industry uses this term as a form of false nutritional propaganda. Berger wrote:¹³

"Big Soda speaks of the complexity of addressing and identifying the causes of chronic disease. The label of complexity rules out simple treatments like 'stop drinking sugar' and makes models of chronic disease based on overconsumption of sugar seem oversimplified and rash."