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

31–40 of 77 posts

Re: Is sugar toxic?

#31

Post by barry-cotter »

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.

It is sufficient to make it much more probable that we can't process it very well assuming one believes in evolution.

Re: Is sugar toxic?

#32

Post by pbreit »

Alex3917 wrote: post #10

Is there seriously anyone left at this point who doesn't think sugar is toxic?

I think "toxic" is a strong word. Sugar occurs naturally in fruit which is relatively healthy and sugar in moderation (ie, not added) is completely fine.

Re: Is sugar toxic?

#33

Post by [deleted] »

latch wrote: post #22
lhnn wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[deleted]

Re: Is sugar toxic?

#34

Post by nazgulnarsil »

ams6110 wrote: post #11
nazgulnarsil wrote: post #5

I do a ton of review of nutrition studies and here's the conclusion I've come to: The primary concerns are the biggest killers: cancer and CVD. The main causal pathway by which carbohydrates (of which simple sugars have the largest effect) affect CVD incidence is via the simultaneous lowering of HDL and raising of blood serum triglycerides. This is much more important for predicting CVD episodes than the 'low LDL' yo…

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…

have you tried prunes? cheap, keep forever (powdered prunes are added to other foods to make them last longer) and loaded with antioxidants and fiber. I found it much easier to keep a bag of prunes around than trying to find decent quality berries.

Re: Is sugar toxic?

#35

Post by wisty »

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.

Nah, just try to use whole ingredients were possible, and read the label if you aren't sure.

Most pre-made foods have terrible ingredients. Manufactured foods are made of filler (water, flour, emulsifiers), a bit of "flavor" (preferably salt, cheap oil, sugar, and weird chemicals), and preservatives (some of which can be quite harmful).

The priorities of food manufacturers are shelf life, cost, marketing, and tastiness. Tastiness is usually their lowest priority. Unless they want to look healthy, health isn't even a priority.

Pan-frying some in-season vegetables with a bit of chilli and garlic is usually a lot healthier. A big ol' steak is less healthy, but tastier.

Try eating a tomato which was picked green (so it keeps better, and is easier to handle without bruising it), then had its skin artificially ripened. Then try a ripe tomato (you can generally tell just by how soft it is). There's a big difference.

Re: Is sugar toxic?

#36

Post by dgallagher »

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.

If it grows on a plant, or eats plants, or eats things which eat plants, it's not processed food.

If it didn't exist 150 years ago, or you cannot find it in nature, it's processed food.

Re: Is sugar toxic?

#37

Post by nazgulnarsil »

revolvingiris wrote: post #24
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.

do you have a source on that claim? not that I don't believe you, I just haven't heard it before and it sounds pretty interesting.

Re: Is sugar toxic?

#38

Post by espeed »

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.

Fructose is the main problem, according to Lustig. Whole fruits aren't bad because they also contain fiber, which counteracts the fructose, but fruit juice is a problem because the fiber has been removed.

Re: Is sugar toxic?

#39

Post by mbell »

latch wrote: post #22
lhnn wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> There are food products that are more chemical than anything

The problem is that even this statement is ambiguous. All foods, processed or not, are almost all chemical by any proper definition of the word chemical I know of.

Of course the point your trying to make is that they contain large amount of "human added chemicals" some synthesized, some not. If you look at the ingredient list of a rockstar energy drink you'll find almost everything in it is "natural", that is a chemical that exists in nature and is part of a diet that would be considered healthy (in some amount / combination).

The argument should really be based on healthy amounts and combinations of chemicals and just because it exists in nature, doesn't make it healthy (see red meat and recent studies regarding it).

I find this discussion to be fascinating in regards to evolutionary development. Humans 'like' sugars and meats for strong evolutionary reasons. They were rare when the average age of death was like 30. Getting cheap calories was very beneficial to successful life and hence child bearing in the era.

Whats really interesting is that I don't see those traits going away. Evolution requires selective pressure. There would have to be a selective mechanism that resulted in those who "eat well" to contribute more to the gene pool than those who do not. While I have no studies at hand to back this up, my personal observation doesn't indicate that this pressure exists. As a result I don't think we'll see the enjoyment of such food disappear any time soon.

Re: Is sugar toxic?

#40

Post by derleth »

wisty wrote: post #35
lhnn wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nah, just try to use whole ingredients were possible, and read the label if you aren't sure. Most pre-made foods have terrible ingredients. Manufactured foods are made of filler (water, flour, emulsifiers), a bit of "flavor" (preferably salt, cheap oil, sugar, and weird chemicals), and preservatives (some of which can be quite harmful). The priorities of food manufacturers are shelf life, cost, marketing, and tastine…

> preservatives (some of which can be quite harmful).

Citation needed.

Specifically, I want you to support the assertion that preservatives used in modern, Western food are currently known to be potentially quite harmful in the usual amounts consumed.

Post reply on HN