Is Sugar Toxic? • Hacker News Board

Re: Is Sugar Toxic?

#61

Post by Sapient » Wed, Apr 13, 2011, 7:47 PM UTC

wnoise wrote: post #6

How can one buy bulk glucose to use as a sweetener instead of fructose or sucrose?

Try Xylitol rather, my wife switched me over to this about a year ago, and I could barely tell the difference.

Possessing approximately 40% less food energy, xylitol is a low-calorie alternative to table sugar. Absorbed more slowly than sugar, it does not contribute to high blood sugar levels or the resulting hyperglycemia caused by insufficient insulin response. This characteristic has also proven beneficial for people suffering from metabolic syndrome, a common disorder that includes insulin resistance, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and an increased risk for blood clots.

Re: Is Sugar Toxic?

#62

Post by oconnor0 » Wed, Apr 13, 2011, 7:47 PM UTC

fanboy123 wrote: post #49

tmcw wrote: post #43

Journalist who hasn't done any research on sugar agrees with doctor who hasn't done any research on sugar. And this happens to be great linkbait. Tell me why I should pay for the New York Times, again?

Dr. Lustig is a nationally-recognized authority in the field of neuroendocrinology, with a specific emphasis on the regulation of energy balance by the central nervous system. He is currently investigating the contribution of biochemical, neural, hormonal, and genetic influences in the expression of the current obesity epidemic both in children and adults. He has defined a syndrome of vagally-mediated beta-cell hyper…

Which means?

Re: Is Sugar Toxic?

#63

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Apr 13, 2011, 7:48 PM UTC

[deleted]

Re: Is Sugar Toxic?

#64

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Apr 13, 2011, 7:49 PM UTC

oconnor0 wrote: post #62

fanboy123 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dr. Lustig is a nationally-recognized authority in the field of neuroendocrinology, with a specific emphasis on the regulation of energy balance by the central nervous system. He is currently investigating the contribution of biochemical, neural, hormonal, and genetic influences in the expression of the current obesity epidemic both in children and adults. He has defined a syndrome of vagally-mediated beta-cell hyper…

Which means?

[deleted]

Re: Is Sugar Toxic?

#65

Post by 3am » Wed, Apr 13, 2011, 7:56 PM UTC

burgerbrain wrote: post #59

3am wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I spent half my undergrad in labs, writing up formal scientific results. I wrote and was graded on plenty of scientific papers. I have a fine understanding of scientific publishing, data analysis, and experimental methods. The fact that you misread me is your problem. I did not write there was conclusive evidence that sucrose is toxic. I said _conclusive evidence of a problem_ - which is different thing and is clearl…

Conclusive evidence of a problem is completely irrelevant. Responding to a comment referring to a specific lack of evidence about sugar/toxicity by saying that there is conclusive evidence of "a problem" implies relevancy, which implies that you are confusing the two issues.

Well, I don't confuse the two issues. I'm glad that is out of the way.

Let me try a different tactic: what is your specific problem with this article? Do you object out of hand to non-peer reviewed science articles regardless of quality? Do you have specific objections to the quality of this article?

From my point of view, there has been a long standing public health problem in the US with obesity and related pathologies. The public has been understandably interested in the outcome, and so there is demand for press coverage. The scientific progress in identifying the cause of the problem has been uneven and there have been some incorrect conclusions about the root cause, even among experts in the field. As a result, the media coverage has also been incorrect. However, this article seems reasonable. It makes clear references to current scientific work, presents the subject evenly (barring the title), and the author makes efforts to explain to an educated but non-scientific audience.

Re: Is Sugar Toxic?

#66

Post by yread » Wed, Apr 13, 2011, 7:57 PM UTC

mirkules wrote: post #60

yread wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was being sarcastic. But I also wanted to post to point to the fact that scientists believe that 50% of the people who ate this much sugar would in fact survive !

...and that they tested it enough to even have an average number.

well they tested it on rats...

Re: Is Sugar Toxic?

#67

Post by skunkworks » Wed, Apr 13, 2011, 7:58 PM UTC

3am wrote: post #19

burgerbrain wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Considering how often past dietary advice has been wrong" ... ...I would argue that writing news articles about things with no conclusive evidence is worse than irresponsible journalism. It's downright harmful, in the most literal sense of the term.

There is conclusive evidence of a problem. The rise in diabetes, heart disease, and obesity are all out there and free to anyone with a web browser. One might say that given a health crisis, sitting back not saying anything would be irresponsible. Ben Goldacre chronicles bad science journalism, and this is not an example of it. (edited)

1. We all agree there is conclusive evidence of a problem with diet and obesity. 2. Author inconclusively argues that sugar is the cause of the problem. 3. Someone says this is irresponsible journalism (scaremongering). 4. In response, you say that that this is not irresponsible journalism because doing nothing in a crisis is irresponsible, even if doing something involves a little bit of misdirection.

As someone that believes in accurate science and honest journalism, I would call that irresponsible.

Re: Is Sugar Toxic?

#68

Post by 3am » Wed, Apr 13, 2011, 8:01 PM UTC

skunkworks wrote: post #67

3am wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is conclusive evidence of a problem. The rise in diabetes, heart disease, and obesity are all out there and free to anyone with a web browser. One might say that given a health crisis, sitting back not saying anything would be irresponsible. Ben Goldacre chronicles bad science journalism, and this is not an example of it. (edited)

1. We all agree there is conclusive evidence of a problem with diet and obesity. 2. Author inconclusively argues that sugar is the cause of the problem. 3. Someone says this is irresponsible journalism (scaremongering). 4. In response, you say that that this is not irresponsible journalism because doing nothing in a crisis is irresponsible, even if doing something involves a little bit of misdirection. As someone tha…

"In response, you say that that this is not irresponsible journalism because doing nothing in a crisis is irresponsible, even if doing something involves a little bit of misdirection."

Did I say that?

Re: Is Sugar Toxic?

#69

Post by shpxnvz » Wed, Apr 13, 2011, 8:07 PM UTC

trustfundbaby wrote: post #52

I'm actually curious about what this says about consuming fruits in large amounts ... since they are pretty much all fructose. Some folks I know (I did for a bit) consume fruits with gusto, erroneously thinking they don't have effects close to what refined sugars have on the body

According to the National Soft Drink Association, average daily consumption for U.S. males age 12 to 29 is about half a gallon of soda per day. There was no data on how much of that is diet soda, but even assuming half of the consumption is sugar-free that's about 66 grams of fructose (just the fructose, not all sugars) per day.

That person would have to eat 11 apples every single day to match the fructose intake in soda alone.

I'm curious how much fruit are you referring to?

Re: Is Sugar Toxic?

#70

Post by yummyfajitas » Wed, Apr 13, 2011, 8:09 PM UTC

pygy_ wrote: post #42

JonnieCache wrote: post #10

Toxicity as a concept is entirely defined by dose. Bleach is not toxic if you take a small enough dose. Conversely, water is toxic if you drink too much of it. Unfortunately toxic, like so many other of our perfectly good scientific words, has been hijacked by quacks trying to deprive the credulous of their money.

Who wants to extort money from whom?.. ...beside the food industry, which thrives by having people overeat?

Quacks selling books certainly want to take money from people wishing they could be thinner (but who are unwilling to eat less and exercise more).

(Another variant is selling books telling you "it's not your fault you are fat." I haven't read it, but the impression I get from people who have is that Gary Taubes book falls into this category.)