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

51–60 of 77 posts

Re: Is sugar toxic?

#51

Post by chc »

mbell wrote: post #39
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 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 yo…

There is selective pressure beyond simply "Does this individual get to reproduce?" For example, if unhealthy people are less able to care for their kin, that can put their genes at a disadvantage.

Re: Is sugar toxic?

#52

Post by chc »

barry-cotter wrote: post #31
baddox wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You seem to have an odd idea of how evolution works. If it were the way you seem to think, we'd have a harder time picking up water bottles (which are very recent) than water outside of a bottle (which has existed for millions of years). In fact the opposite is true.

Re: Is sugar toxic?

#53

Post by mc32 »

mbell wrote: post #39
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 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 yo…

>They were rare when the average age of death was like 30.

When lots of people died before their first birthday‡, the average age being thirty meant that lots of people who made it past their first birthday would live longer than thirty.

‡Estimates vary from 30 to 50% rate, in the old world.

Re: Is sugar toxic?

#54

Post by cottonseed »

> Americans are now consuming nearly 130 pounds of added sugars per person, per year.

I have always found this statistic utterly astounding, esp. considering that sugar is a new world product. In 1500 England, say, the average person consumed 0 pounds of added sugar per year.

Re: Is sugar toxic?

#55

Post by MSexton »

derleth wrote: post #42
dgallagher wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Newer varieties of fruit actually have much more sugar than many heritage breeds. I wouldn't go as far as to say you should avoid them, but that's probably not a valid argument against the rule.

Re: Is sugar toxic?

#56

Post by barry-cotter »

chc wrote: post #52
barry-cotter wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You seem to have an odd idea of how evolution works. If it were the way you seem to think, we'd have a harder time picking up water bottles (which are very recent) than water outside of a bottle (which has existed for millions of years). In fact the opposite is true.

Water bottles were designed[0] to be easy to use. Our digestive system (and everything else about us) are a series of hacks on top of hacks on top of hacks that happened to make their carriers more likely to have descendants.

That an abundance of simple sugars is novel in our diets is at least weakly suggestive that we will be poorly adapted to them. There's even evidence for this; in general the shorter a time a population has had agriculture the higher the prevalence of (Type 2) diabetes. Aboriginies, Pacific Islanders, Native Americans all have way, way higher rates than Asians or Europeans. The Arab world has had agriculture for at least as long as anyone else and they have diabetes out the wazoo though in the more developed parts, perhaps a side effect of really, really liking sweet tea and incredibly sweet treats.

[0] Designed things and evolved things are not even remotely equivalent in an argument about evolutionary changes. Minds can make things better ludicrously faster than the Blind Idiot God.

http://lesswrong.com/lw/kr/an_alien_god/

Re: Is sugar toxic?

#57

Post by jaylevitt »

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…

For some of us who never got into the cooking habit, and can't do anything on a regular schedule (like food shopping), and can't plan in advance in general, and don't even have running water at work (old building), it's incredibly HARD advice to follow.

I live one block from a giant supermarket; I moved here FOR that supermarket. They have pretty good produce; if I walk 5 minutes there's a local food co-op and 10 minutes gives me Whole Foods.

But you know what's easier than going to the supermarket, picking out produce, planning or googling a meal, and [feeling like] + [remembering to actually] cook that meal before the produce goes bad?

Buying ten boxes of Amy's, congratulating myself on the fact that there are actual identifiable pieces of broccoli instead of green flecks, calling it "healthy", grabbing some ice cream and cookies to reward myself for that, and being all set for ten days, plus a buffer of whatever I actually had in the back of the freezer before.

Re: Is sugar toxic?

#58

Post by mbell »

mc32 wrote: post #53
mbell wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 yo…

>They were rare when the average age of death was like 30. When lots of people died before their first birthday‡, the average age being thirty meant that lots of people who made it past their first birthday would live longer than thirty. ‡Estimates vary from 30 to 50% rate, in the old world.

I really wasn't trying to throw a stick in the mud in terms of a hard scientific date which is why I phrased it how I did. That said my reference wasn't so much toward "the old world" which I take to mean in the last few thousand years but rather on more of an evolutionary scale, that is millions of years ago.

Re: Is sugar toxic?

#59

Post by mbell »

chc wrote: post #51
mbell wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 yo…

There is selective pressure beyond simply "Does this individual get to reproduce?" For example, if unhealthy people are less able to care for their kin, that can put their genes at a disadvantage.

Agreed, but that doesn't changes my stance / point so I didn't elaborate as it is mostly irrelevant in today's society unless there are some statistics that I am unaware of regarding reproductive success of children whom travel through orphanage systems or similar mechanisms that exist to support child who's parents can not support them.

Re: Is sugar toxic?

#60

Post by latch »

jaylevitt wrote: post #57
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…

For some of us who never got into the cooking habit, and can't do anything on a regular schedule (like food shopping), and can't plan in advance in general, and don't even have running water at work (old building), it's incredibly HARD advice to follow. I live one block from a giant supermarket; I moved here FOR that supermarket. They have pretty good produce; if I walk 5 minutes there's a local food co-op and 10 min…

Never heard of Amy's before...looked it up, doesn't look horrible to me. A little high in sodium and low in fiber, but that's typical of this kind of food.

Fruits and vegetables often don't require cooking, can keep for long enough to not need planning or require water @ work. Add nuts to this, and some water or tea, and you've taken care of snacks.

As for cooking, ya you need to learn. Its an investment, but the rewards are so significant, it really should be a top priority.

Post reply on HN