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

Is sugar toxic?

cbsnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 77 posts

Re: Is sugar toxic?

#21

Post by paul-woolcock »

baddox wrote: post #17
ams6110 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Refined sugar has only been a big part of our diet for the past couple of hundred years (not even a blink of an eye on an evolutionary time scale). Breads and grain-based foods have been part of our diet for somewhat longer, but highly refined white flour is also comparatively novel in our diet. I cut all added sugar and all flour (bread, pasta, pizza, etc) and most other grains and processed food from my diet about…

I don't think that something being "comparatively novel in our diet" is a sufficient or even useful argument.

Definitely. However, that doesn't mean he is wrong. For more actual evidence of this stuff, The Eades' book `Protein Power'[1] and Robb Wolf's book `The Paleo Solution'[2] offer some pretty compelling evidence of how grains and related foods are detrimental to our health (among other topics). I, too, am a Paleo success story, having gone from 210 to 185 in 2 months, and feeling better than I have ever felt. All I have is anecdotal evidence for myself, though, so I always refer others to these books.

[1]: http://www.amazon.com/Protein-Power-High-Protein-Carbohydrat...

[2]: http://www.amazon.com/The-Paleo-Solution-Original-Human/dp/0...

Re: Is sugar toxic?

#22

Post by latch »

lhnn wrote: post #15
latch wrote: post #6

I found Dr Lustig's talk enlightening because I always thought of it simply as input -> output (sucrose -> glucose). In retrospect, it's obvious that the bio-checmial process your body uses to convert that is pretty darn important. However, as cool as it is to get re-introduced to things like ATP and Krebs Cycle, the driving message we get from experts has been a constant for a long time: avoid processed foods. It's…

What is considered "unprocessed" foods at the grocer? Raw beans, rice, whole grain wheat? Is the ground beef/deli meat "unprocessed" by your definition? Serious question. My impression is that anything not cut from an animal myself is processed by some harmful additive, so I've given up.

I understand that you could take this to an extreme: if it doesn't grow in my garden or die by my hand...

But let's just focus on low hanging stuff for now. There are food products that are more chemical than anything. Oreos, Poptarts, CheezWhiz, pops, frozen meals, Juices "now with 10% real juice"...The list is extensive. Then you have overly refined products (white bread, white pastas).

Fruits and vegetables (fresh, canned or frozen), lentiles and legumes, grains/careals (including breads and pastas), raw meat (fish/chicken/beef/pork/...) are all ok. I'm sure there's more.

I don't think there's much room for confusion between eating Captin' Crunch vs oatmeal, cheetos vs a bowl of plain yogurt with strawberries.

Re: Is sugar toxic?

#23

Post by driverdan »

Dr Lustig has been promoting this idea for many years. The problem is that he's doing it very unscientifically. He vastly overstates his evidence and makes claims of certainty that the science doesn't support.

I'm interested to see what replies his recent Nature publication receives.

Re: Is sugar toxic?

#24

Post by revolvingiris »

revolvingiris wrote: post #7

Good message: "don't over consume and stick to unprocessed sources". It bothers me though that the word sugar is in the title since they really mean sucrose. Both fructose and glucose occur naturally (fruit, veggies, starches) and are not harmful.

Glucose + Fructose = Sucrose; which is why I don't like the title. Cyanide is not in context...

A healthy liver can process roughly 50g fructose before fat storage begins to occur. This would be a tough number to hit since for every 100g of fruit you eat only 7g is fructose (on average).

Please link baby saying "veggies", ty.

Re: Is sugar toxic?

#25

Post by hristov »

jeffdavis wrote: post #12
swang wrote: post #2

Here is a video from Dr. Robert Lustig about sugars. It is an hour and a half long but very informative. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM After watching it, I've considerably reduced my sugar intake. I still drink soft drinks during lunch/dinner, but I am slowly weaning myself off them and onto water/tea and other better alternatives.

I watched that a while ago and I remember him talking about the amount of salt in a Coke, as though it were a conspiracy of some kind. But Coke has very little salt -- about 45 mg. So the rest of the talk seemed to be colored with a conspiratorial tone, from my perspective. Am I wrong to be so dismissive?

I do not know whether 45 mg is a small or large amount of salt. But his main point is that that salt is there to make you feel thirsty after drinking a soda.

In my personal experience he is correct there. Soda does not quench my thirst and leaves me feeling thirsty.

Re: Is sugar toxic?

#26

Post by latch »

meric wrote: post #18

Title can be improved. What is toxicity? "A central concept of toxicology is that effects are dose-dependent; even water can lead to water intoxication when taken in too many doses, whereas for even a very toxic substance such as snake venom there is a dose below which there is no detectable toxic effect. Toxicity is species-specific, lending cross-species analysis problematic. Newer paradigms and metrics are evolvin…

Dr Lustig's argument is that the amount of sucrose the average person takes is toxic. The title could be "Average person eats sucrose in doses of toxicity"...or "Sucrose is toxic"

You are being pedantic.

Re: Is sugar toxic?

#27

Post by [deleted] »

meric wrote: post #18

Title can be improved. What is toxicity? "A central concept of toxicology is that effects are dose-dependent; even water can lead to water intoxication when taken in too many doses, whereas for even a very toxic substance such as snake venom there is a dose below which there is no detectable toxic effect. Toxicity is species-specific, lending cross-species analysis problematic. Newer paradigms and metrics are evolvin…

[deleted]

Re: Is sugar toxic?

#28

Post by pbreit »

lhnn wrote: post #15
latch wrote: post #6

I found Dr Lustig's talk enlightening because I always thought of it simply as input -> output (sucrose -> glucose). In retrospect, it's obvious that the bio-checmial process your body uses to convert that is pretty darn important. However, as cool as it is to get re-introduced to things like ATP and Krebs Cycle, the driving message we get from experts has been a constant for a long time: avoid processed foods. It's…

What is considered "unprocessed" foods at the grocer? Raw beans, rice, whole grain wheat? Is the ground beef/deli meat "unprocessed" by your definition? Serious question. My impression is that anything not cut from an animal myself is processed by some harmful additive, so I've given up.

For starters, everything that doesn't come in a box or a bag is likely unprocessed (which includes the meat you mention). The massive categories you are missing are fruits and vegetables (although excess fruit can also pose a sugar problem). Wheat is tricky because it is typically processed. Whole grains are better.

Re: Is sugar toxic?

#29

Post by DanBC »

hristov wrote: post #25
jeffdavis wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I watched that a while ago and I remember him talking about the amount of salt in a Coke, as though it were a conspiracy of some kind. But Coke has very little salt -- about 45 mg. So the rest of the talk seemed to be colored with a conspiratorial tone, from my perspective. Am I wrong to be so dismissive?

I do not know whether 45 mg is a small or large amount of salt. But his main point is that that salt is there to make you feel thirsty after drinking a soda. In my personal experience he is correct there. Soda does not quench my thirst and leaves me feeling thirsty.

1 teaspoon is (very) approximately 5 grams. There are 1000 mg in 1 g; thus 5000 mg in 5 g.

So 50 mg is 100th of a teaspoon of salt. Roughly.

EDIT: This UK health advice suggests that adults should have less than 6 g of salt per day.

(http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Goodfood/Pages/salt.aspx)

But this Scientific American Article suggests that there's no evidence for that.

(http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=its-time-to...)

Re: Is sugar toxic?

#30

Post by aaronblohowiak »

lhnn wrote: post #15
latch wrote: post #6

I found Dr Lustig's talk enlightening because I always thought of it simply as input -> output (sucrose -> glucose). In retrospect, it's obvious that the bio-checmial process your body uses to convert that is pretty darn important. However, as cool as it is to get re-introduced to things like ATP and Krebs Cycle, the driving message we get from experts has been a constant for a long time: avoid processed foods. It's…

What is considered "unprocessed" foods at the grocer? Raw beans, rice, whole grain wheat? Is the ground beef/deli meat "unprocessed" by your definition? Serious question. My impression is that anything not cut from an animal myself is processed by some harmful additive, so I've given up.

>My impression is that anything not cut from an animal myself is processed by some harmful additive, so I've given up.

There is plenty of simple advice on what to eat, and it isn't the end of the world if you don't follow the guidelines 100%. "Giving up" makes it sound like you're prone to an extremist view, which life has shown me is rarely the most pragmatic view.

Fruit that looks like it is something that would come off a plant > "Fruit roll-ups" Whole-wheat bread > wonder bread strawberries > twinkies

> As Mr. Pollan puts it, “If it came from a plant, eat it; if it was made in a plant, don’t.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/02/health/02brod.html?_r=1

Post reply on HN