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

41–50 of 77 posts

Re: Is sugar toxic?

#41

Post by DanBC »

hristov wrote: post #13
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 harmful, unfortunately. Sucrose gets split by the body into one fructose and one glucose molecule. And it is the fructose that is harmful because it cannot be properly processed by the liver in large quantities. Sucrose is only harmful in as much as it produces fructose. It is true that fructose appears naturally all over the place. And that is the tricky part. The liver can actually process fructose fine…

> The liver can actually process fructose fine if it gets a little at a time and simultaneously receives fiber.

Dietary fibre gets to the liver?

Re: Is sugar toxic?

#42

Post by derleth »

dgallagher wrote: post #36
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.

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.

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

Tell that to people who go bugnuts about GMO foods.

> If it didn't exist 150 years ago, or you cannot find it in nature

Start checking on when your favorite variety of apples was first created.

Re: Is sugar toxic?

#43

Post by derleth »

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.

Everything is 100% chemical.

Re: Is sugar toxic?

#44

Post by eostyx »

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?

The coke I've drank in the past has been loaded with salt. But salt isn't really the most dangerous ingredient in coke... is it

Re: Is sugar toxic?

#46

Post by hristov »

DanBC wrote: post #41
hristov wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fructose is harmful, unfortunately. Sucrose gets split by the body into one fructose and one glucose molecule. And it is the fructose that is harmful because it cannot be properly processed by the liver in large quantities. Sucrose is only harmful in as much as it produces fructose. It is true that fructose appears naturally all over the place. And that is the tricky part. The liver can actually process fructose fine…

> The liver can actually process fructose fine if it gets a little at a time and simultaneously receives fiber. Dietary fibre gets to the liver?

The liver gets nutrients from dietary fiber which help it process fructose. I believe the nutrient in question was phosphorus, but am not absolutely sure.

Re: Is sugar toxic?

#47

Post by droithomme »

driverdan wrote: post #23

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.

Yes, here's an article promoting this from last year:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.htm...

And from earlier this year:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2094812/Sugar-cont...

Re: Is sugar toxic?

#48

Post by wisty »

derleth wrote: post #40
wisty wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sodium nitrate is a raging carcinogen if you char grill it.

Sulfur dioxide can cause problems in some people. It's relatively safe (as in, as safe as you can get for a preservative), but can induce asthma in some people. See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7426352.

Re: Is sugar toxic?

#49

Post by chc »

dgallagher wrote: post #36
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.

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.

This doesn't seem all that useful. I can't find salads in nature. I can't find bread in nature. I can't find smoothies in nature. I can't find noodles in nature. Are those all bad, processed foods?

Re: Is sugar toxic?

#50

Post by latch »

derleth wrote: post #43
latch wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Everything is 100% chemical.

Sorry, of course that's right. I meant the list of ingredients.
Post reply on HN