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

61–70 of 77 posts

Re: Is sugar toxic?

#61

Post by jhaglund »

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.

I think his point is that sucrose is quickly transformed into fructose + glucose. And our bodies aren't equipped to process that much fructose. glucose is processed by cells all over. fructose in the liver, depleting phosphorus and making fat, when we chronically consume too much. We've eaten refined glucose for a larger chunk of human history. Until refined sugars were added to everything, we consumed a lot of fiber with our fructose sources, reducing the amount that was even absorbed. He goes into how much extra sugar we unwittingly consume from processed sources.

Too bad he sounds so smug. But I'm pretty sure he will be proven correct.

Re: Is sugar toxic?

#62

Post by jaylevitt »

latch wrote: post #60
jaylevitt wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 rew…

"can often keep long enough to not need planning": I don't think you quite get how bad ADD can be... I just threw out some (almost healthy!) unsweetened applesauce I bought and opened last winter. It was not hiding in the fridge; it was one of the only things in the fridge.

I used to go to the supermarket every week to "buy the groceries and change the spinach". (See, once I have fresh veggies, I want FRESH veggies. No water-logged baby spinach for me.)

And yeah, I actually used to cook Passover dinner for 30, built a gourmet kitchen, Calphalon pots, Wusthof knives, Matfer mandouline, Kenwood stainless-gear mixer with every attachment (did you know there's a potato scrubber?), properly seasoned wok, and a freaking pecan picker (http://ontheroadinthevw.blogspot.com/2007/12/catching-up.htm...).

Now I live in an apartment with a cheap electric stove and that stuff is in cabinets I never open and did I mention how easy it is to grab 10 frozen dinners? But yes, of course you're right.

Re: Is sugar toxic?

#63

Post by chc »

barry-cotter wrote: post #56
chc wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pop…

You seem to have found a weird comparison that I didn't intend in my comment. The point I was trying to make is that the man-made thing, water bottles, is better suited to our evolved hands than the natural thing, free-flowing water. Similarly, there is no reason why any food we made ourselves is likely to be worse for our evolved body than any food that was around when the digestive system evolved. That idea, that "paleo" foods are inherently better for us, feels right, but is ultimately fallacious. (I mean, some might turn out to actually be ideal, but it isn't deductively true in the way that many advocates want it to be.)

Re: Is sugar toxic?

#64

Post by derleth »

latch wrote: post #50
derleth wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

You're not quite getting it: Saying something is 'chemical' tells people nothing about it. Absolutely nothing. This is a form of the naturalistic fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy

Instead, mention specific chemicals and detail what in specific they do that's bad at the quantities people normally eat them.

Re: Is sugar toxic?

#65

Post by derleth »

wisty wrote: post #48
derleth wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 .

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

I don't think that's unique to sodium nitrate.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2519/does-barbecuin...

> Sulfur dioxide can cause problems in some people.

Right, and gluten does a real number on the (relatively few) people with celiac disease; gluten is a naturally-occurring protein that is perfectly healthy for most people, so we can't judge a chemical entirely by what it does to some people.

Re: Is sugar toxic?

#66

Post by ars »

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 benzoate in combination with vitamin C produces benzine - a known carcinogen.

Re: Is sugar toxic?

#67

Post by anthonyb »

chc wrote: post #63
barry-cotter wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pop…

You seem to have found a weird comparison that I didn't intend in my comment. The point I was trying to make is that the man-made thing, water bottles, is better suited to our evolved hands than the natural thing, free-flowing water. Similarly, there is no reason why any food we made ourselves is likely to be worse for our evolved body than any food that was around when the digestive system evolved. That idea, that "…

> there is no reason why any food we made ourselves is likely to be worse for our evolved body than any food that was around when the digestive system evolved

Of course there is. Take an organism, throw it into a random environment. Chances are that it's not going to do as well as it would in the one that it's evolved for.

That's essentially what we're doing when we eat a modern diet - sugar, starch, wheat, beans, etc. are not what we ate when we were hunter-gatherers. It's not particularly surprising that it causes lots of weird and/or bad side-effects.

Re: Is sugar toxic?

#68

Post by ars »

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

Is the corollary true as well? Lead sugar existed a few thousand year ago - so is that processed food?

Re: Is sugar toxic?

#69

Post by anthonyb »

hristov wrote: post #46
DanBC wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Fibre doesn't have any nutrients - it's essentially indigestible. The reason it helps with sugars is that it slows their absorption down and helps to reduce blood sugar spikes.

Re: Is sugar toxic?

#70

Post by ars »

ams6110 wrote: post #14
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.

A lot of modern fruit has been cultivated to increase its sugar content. An apple 200 years ago was a lot less sweet than one today.

An apple 200 years ago was picked at the peak of ripeness - i.e. very sweet.

Today they pick them early, so they try to get the sugars in there sooner.

Post reply on HN