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

Is Sugar Toxic?

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 144 posts

Re: Is Sugar Toxic?

#111

Post by teach »

"Because each of these sugars ends up as glucose and fructose in our guts, our bodies react the same way to both, and the physiological effects are identical."

I find this statement, as written, to be almost willfully misleading. In sucrose, the glucose and fructose molecules are bound by an acetal bond, which must first be broken. The bond is broken with water, which donates a hydroxide to the fructose molecule (and a hydrogen to the glucose, of course).

With HFCS 55, the fructose and glucose are unbound, so the fructose molecule can be absorbed without first being "broken off" and slightly changed via hydrolysis.

This almost certainly affects the metabolization of the fructose.

Source: my wife, who has a PhD in nutrition.

Re: Is Sugar Toxic?

#112

Post by waterhouse »

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.

I was amused when I realized that any substance with nonzero mass is "toxic" in sufficiently large amounts (even if, say, it gets removed from your body as fast as you ingest it): enough of it will collapse into a black hole that swallows you up.

Re: Is Sugar Toxic?

#113

Post by oconnor0 »

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?

Why was I downvoted for asking for clarification?

Re: Is Sugar Toxic?

#114

Post by teyc »

teach wrote: post #111

"Because each of these sugars ends up as glucose and fructose in our guts, our bodies react the same way to both, and the physiological effects are identical." I find this statement, as written, to be almost willfully misleading. In sucrose, the glucose and fructose molecules are bound by an acetal bond, which must first be broken. The bond is broken with water, which donates a hydroxide to the fructose molecule (and…

The assertion was about the chemical pathways. i.e. same enzymes, same intermediate products, same end products.

But you are right. The physiological effects are generally identical, not exactly identical.

Re: Is Sugar Toxic?

#115

Post by Saavedro »

smhelp wrote: post #110
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 !

I was severely depressed a month or two ago, and I went ahead and bought two 2 pound chocolate rich cakes in succession and ate them over a period of 24 hours. Though it didn't kill me, but it was definitely not too upsetting. I still have the urge to just eat huge quantities of sugar, and I am not sure how to control it, but yea it definitely did not kill me or make me sick. I am otherwise an extremely fit individua…

Incidentally there are some studies with rats showing that sugar/sweet addicted + cocaine addicted rats prefer their sugar hit over their cocaine hit, and plain sugar-addicted rats when removed from sugar/sweet had opiate-withdrawal like symptoms.

Re: Is Sugar Toxic?

#116

Post by hcurtiss »

teach wrote: post #111

"Because each of these sugars ends up as glucose and fructose in our guts, our bodies react the same way to both, and the physiological effects are identical." I find this statement, as written, to be almost willfully misleading. In sucrose, the glucose and fructose molecules are bound by an acetal bond, which must first be broken. The bond is broken with water, which donates a hydroxide to the fructose molecule (and…

I suspect Lustig knows that (notwithstanding the fact he says something similar in his lecture, and Taubes repeats it), but decided it's not important for his thesis. Or, at the very least, he doesn't want to wade into the sucrose/HFCS debate. Evidently, he thinks the fructose is sufficiently available in both to be problematic. I'd be super interested in your wife thought something different. I suspect Lustig would too.

Re: Is Sugar Toxic?

#117

Post by jerf »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #107
jerf wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's time you give in and read the primary materials. As someone who has read both the major Taubes books, I am yet to see you successfully characterize his arguments. Please note I did not say "successfully attack his arguments", because that is something else; characterizing them correctly is a necessary first step. You think you understand them, but when you try to explain them to someone else you are wrong about…

I don't claim to know much about Taubes, nor did I claim to characterize his arguments. Perhaps you noticed that I explicitly disclaimed any direct knowledge of his book? My only direct knowledge of him is reading one of his blog posts and finding it very misleading, attempting to make a reducto ad absurdum against the standard calories in/calories out theory while ignoring about 90% of the calories in. Not exactly a…

Here's a reason: Based on reading your other posts, I think you may be very surprised and end up liking his writing. Taubes' science writing is the best I've ever encountered. (And no, that's not because it's the only science writing I've ever encountered, not by a long shot.) Whether he ends up right or wrong in the end, you can not accuse him of not having done his homework, especially in GCBC. I won't guarantee it will convince you, but I am asserting to you that you have misjudged him very badly and I have only rarely seen people show their work more thoroughly, and that only in PhD theses. (That said about the depth of GCBC, start with the latest one. It's shorter and sharper.)

Re: Is Sugar Toxic?

#118

Post by hcurtiss »

hcurtiss wrote: post #116
teach wrote: post #111

"Because each of these sugars ends up as glucose and fructose in our guts, our bodies react the same way to both, and the physiological effects are identical." I find this statement, as written, to be almost willfully misleading. In sucrose, the glucose and fructose molecules are bound by an acetal bond, which must first be broken. The bond is broken with water, which donates a hydroxide to the fructose molecule (and…

I suspect Lustig knows that (notwithstanding the fact he says something similar in his lecture, and Taubes repeats it), but decided it's not important for his thesis. Or, at the very least, he doesn't want to wade into the sucrose/HFCS debate. Evidently, he thinks the fructose is sufficiently available in both to be problematic. I'd be super interested in your wife thought something different. I suspect Lustig would…

. . . IF your wife . . . !!

Re: Is Sugar Toxic?

#119

Post by jacoblyles »

kenjackson wrote: post #89
rflrob wrote: post #51

"In Lustig’s view, sugar should be thought of, like cigarettes and alcohol, as something that’s killing us." I don't smoke, but I do drink alcohol in moderated amounts, and I'd disagree that alcohol is "killing us" [1], and feel that even if it were proved beyond a doubt that alcohol monotonically decreases lifespan, it helps make life enjoyable enough to be worth it. The same is true for processed sugar, in moderate…

I think all addictive drugs that decrease lifespan seem worth it to the person doing it. Ask a crackhead if crack is worth dying for and he'll say "hell yes" -- then rob you.

The same description applies to following a sedentary lifestyle, participating in risky sports (like skiing), living in a city, and being single. All the more reason to let adults with free will do what they want with their lives.

Re: Is Sugar Toxic?

#120

Post by [deleted] »

JonnieCache wrote: post #22
Splines wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True enough, but people should know how much bleach and water is needed to hurt themselves; death and/or pain provides immediate feedback. The problem with sugar is that the benefits are so immediate and the drawbacks so distant that it requires a strong will to avoid.

The problem is that the question "Is sugar toxic?" is inherently meaningless. Bandying the word around like this in a publication like the NYT dilutes public understanding of the issue. Scientifically responsible journalists would have chosen an accurate term to discuss the issue rather than shooting for maximum emotional impact.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN