Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sugar industry withheld possible evidence of cancer link 50 years ago

pbs.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 329 posts

Re: Sugar industry withheld possible evidence of cancer link 50 years ago

#3

Post by microcolonel »

Fruits and vegetables are full of sucrose, it is the most commonly occurring sugar in plants. If splitting more sucrose (or is fructose really the problem?) increases your chance of cancer, it means very little on its own. Would you get the same results if they matched the starches to the glucose equivalent, rather than the same mass?

Which is why I don't see why they would bother to suppress a result like this, but I guess the public interpretation would likely be the outrageous "specifically refined table sugar gives you cancer", so I can't exactly blame 'em for wanting to.

Re: Sugar industry withheld possible evidence of cancer link 50 years ago

#6

Post by otakucode »

microcolonel wrote: post #3

Fruits and vegetables are full of sucrose, it is the most commonly occurring sugar in plants. If splitting more sucrose (or is fructose really the problem?) increases your chance of cancer, it means very little on its own. Would you get the same results if they matched the starches to the glucose equivalent, rather than the same mass? Which is why I don't see why they would bother to suppress a result like this, but…

Yeah, and given that the study was specifically about the metabolic output of the gut bacteria of mice, I am very suspicious of anyone jumping to the conclusion that this has even a decent chance of having any relevance to humans. Overall, of course sugar increases likelihood of cancer. Everything which provides energy to the body is because it might provide that energy to dividing cancerous cells. Anything which increases cellular activity increases the risk of cancer, whether it be heat, friction, calories, whatever. Reducing caloric intake is the only proven reliable means of life extension for a reason. But beyond that basic contribution it would be very hard to see how such basic molecules could contribute significantly.

Re: Sugar industry withheld possible evidence of cancer link 50 years ago

#7

Post by Tharkun »

microcolonel wrote: post #3

Fruits and vegetables are full of sucrose, it is the most commonly occurring sugar in plants. If splitting more sucrose (or is fructose really the problem?) increases your chance of cancer, it means very little on its own. Would you get the same results if they matched the starches to the glucose equivalent, rather than the same mass? Which is why I don't see why they would bother to suppress a result like this, but…

Fruit & vegetables full of sucrose? That seems a little exaggerated. An onion, for instance, is 90% water, 4% sugars, 3% other carbs and 2% fibre. A coke, on the other hand, is 90% water, 10% sugar (either HFCS or sucrose, depending on your locale) and not an iota of fibre.

Re: Sugar industry withheld possible evidence of cancer link 50 years ago

#8

Post by ashark »

DoodleBuggy wrote: post #2

Makes you wonder what we'll find out is being withheld right now, 50 years from now.

I sometimes wonder which materials I directly interact with on a regular basis that people in a few decades wouldn't touch for anything short of large amounts of money. History tells us there are probably a few. Guessing at least a couple are plastics or plastic additives/coatings of some kind. Maybe whatever they replaced BPA with. Possibly gasoline will qualify. Probably one or two things currently on/in our food.

Re: Sugar industry withheld possible evidence of cancer link 50 years ago

#9

Post by microcolonel »

Tharkun wrote: post #7
microcolonel wrote: post #3

Fruits and vegetables are full of sucrose, it is the most commonly occurring sugar in plants. If splitting more sucrose (or is fructose really the problem?) increases your chance of cancer, it means very little on its own. Would you get the same results if they matched the starches to the glucose equivalent, rather than the same mass? Which is why I don't see why they would bother to suppress a result like this, but…

Fruit & vegetables full of sucrose? That seems a little exaggerated. An onion, for instance, is 90% water, 4% sugars, 3% other carbs and 2% fibre. A coke, on the other hand, is 90% water, 10% sugar (either HFCS or sucrose, depending on your locale) and not an iota of fibre.

Would a coke onion (84% water, 10% sugar, 5% fibre, [1% other stuff {caramel colouring, deactivated coca leaf extract, etc.}]) be a bad source of sucrose?

Pineapple is about 6% sucrose, red delicious Apples are about 2% sucrose (the rest being mostly fructose, and some glucose), bananas have more than 5% sucrose (As do mangoes, nectarines, and varieties of apple like pink lady).

Post reply on HN