Is Sugar Toxic? • Hacker News Board

Re: Is Sugar Toxic?

#131

Post by getpost » Thu, Apr 14, 2011, 3:44 AM UTC

smhelp wrote: post #130

Saavedro wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I guess I will need to get this sorted out sooner rather than later then.

Eating sweets does improve mood. There are several known mechanisms. e.g., carbs facilitate amino acid transport across the blood-brain barrier [1], and wheat stimulates endogenous opiate receptors [2]. But, if you want to influence brain chemistry therapeutically, eating sweets is probably not the best approach. Good luck!

[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3527063 [2] http://www.heartscanblog.org/2011/01/heroine-oxycontin-and-w...

Re: Is Sugar Toxic?

#132

Post by count » Thu, Apr 14, 2011, 4:09 AM UTC

bromley wrote: post #123

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

I wonder this as well. Lustig seems to say that fruit is fine - the sugar in fruit is nature's way of getting you to eat the healthy fibre or some such - but I've yet to see a scientific explanation of why sugar is bad but sugar in fruit is OK. Sure there are good things in fruit, but if sugar is bad then surely you'd be better off getting those good things from other sources, like vegetables.

Sugar isn't 'bad', too much sugar is bad. Lustig says that the sugar in fruit is fine, and is the same sugar found elsewhere. It's fine in fruit because it's wrapped up in a fiber package, that prevents your body from absorbing most of it.

Re: Is Sugar Toxic?

#133

Post by burgerbrain » Thu, Apr 14, 2011, 4:28 AM UTC

3am wrote: post #65

burgerbrain wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 patholo…

"Do you object out of hand to non-peer reviewed science articles regardless of quality?"

In general? I find it distasteful but I don't really give that much of a shit.

Topics like nutrition or medicine have a large potential to cause bodily harm however, and I firmly believe that non-rigorous studies should not be shared with populations that don't have the capacity to understand the limitations present.

Example: Shoddy studies about vaccines and the general public mix with disastrous results.

All so this journalist can make a quick buck, instead of finding something more appropriate to "report" on.

Re: Is Sugar Toxic?

#134

Post by jon_dahl » Thu, Apr 14, 2011, 5:22 AM UTC

oconnor0 wrote: post #113

oconnor0 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which means?

Why was I downvoted for asking for clarification?

Probably because the parent was a detailed, well-researched answer, and your request for clarification didn't explain what sort of clarification you were looking for.

The second one, on the other hand, was downvoted for asking why you were downvoted. ;)

Re: Is Sugar Toxic?

#135

Post by nikcub » Thu, Apr 14, 2011, 5:39 AM UTC

bgentry wrote: post #32

For those who haven't watched the video lecture referenced early in the article, I highly recommend checking it out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM Lustig does a fantastic job explaining the cellular processes at work, which appealed to my engineering side. I'm not usually passionate about biochemistry and this lecture is definitely long, but if you make it through the first 15 minutes you will be hooked.

I am one of those people who is hard to convince to watch something, so if there is anybody else out there reading this comment thread and wondering if you should watch that video - please do.

It is informative in parts, and his style is excellent, but watch if with an open mind and a pinch of skepticism

Re: Is Sugar Toxic?

#136

Post by neworbit » Thu, Apr 14, 2011, 7:01 AM UTC

Sapient wrote: post #61

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 peo…

But be careful with table scraps, Xylitol can kill Fido. http://www.healthypet.com/petcare/PetCareArticle.aspx?art_ke...

Re: Is Sugar Toxic?

#137

Post by neworbit » Thu, Apr 14, 2011, 7:11 AM UTC

I see that this article cites "fatty liver = insulin resistance" and correlates that directly to sugar ingestion. Well and good - I don't want to be foie gras. But this article also suggests that going off sugar quickly causes the fatty liver to remediate itself - or at least so in lab animals, such problem "promptly goes away". How prompt is this effect in people? Failure rates on commonplace diets seems to make me think it isn't all that swift a process. Anyone have any good stats/links/refs?

Re: Is Sugar Toxic?

#138

Post by g_lined » Thu, Apr 14, 2011, 8:21 AM 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

Check the Wikipedia article for fructose for a breakdown of how much sugar is Glucose, Fructose and Sucrose in some common fruits. There's not as much fructose as you might have thought. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fructose

Re: Is Sugar Toxic?

#139

Post by g_lined » Thu, Apr 14, 2011, 8:27 AM UTC

nikcub wrote: post #135

bgentry wrote: post #32

For those who haven't watched the video lecture referenced early in the article, I highly recommend checking it out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM Lustig does a fantastic job explaining the cellular processes at work, which appealed to my engineering side. I'm not usually passionate about biochemistry and this lecture is definitely long, but if you make it through the first 15 minutes you will be hooked.

I am one of those people who is hard to convince to watch something, so if there is anybody else out there reading this comment thread and wondering if you should watch that video - please do. It is informative in parts, and his style is excellent, but watch if with an open mind and a pinch of skepticism

Thanks. I watched the video only after reading your comment. I found something new about fructose so it was worth it. I personally am turned off by his presentation style. He tries to hard to convince me of his conclusion, too rhetorically and indeed before he had presented his reasons. Nevertheless I feel that the theory of what he presented is pretty much right and the only question appears to be to what degree you agree with his conclusions.

Re: Is Sugar Toxic?

#140

Post by kragen » Thu, Apr 14, 2011, 9:41 AM UTC

pak wrote: post #37

yread wrote: post #23

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_lethal_dose it is: Sucrose (table sugar) - 29,700 mg/kg (LD50)

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic and pointing out that anything is "toxic" in high quantities. In case you aren't, or for people that did not catch it, 29g/kg is about 2.4kg of sugar for the average 80kg male, which comes out to about 12.5 cups or 3 liters. It should be obvious to most people that filling a two-liter bottle with pure granulated sugar and consuming it in one sitting would have severe health cons…

It surprises me that such a comparatively small amount of sugar could be fatal, or even have severe health consequences. I wouldn't have thought it would be healthy but I wouldn't have expected immediate death as a likely outcome.