Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you can make a solid case that, for most people, fructose and therefore sucrose is bad in any significant quantity. Sure, fructose can help replenish liver energy stores if you're an athlete, but most people aren't.
This is not true. The Robert Lustig scaremongering is a big lie. In his talk he mentions the healthy Japanese but he does not mention that they eat more calories from fructose (in percentage of their consumed calories) than USA citizens yet are healthier. Similarly how people stand against epidemiology they should stand against demonizing single ingredients. Apple, by Lustig's opinion, is the worst fruit there is but…
Sugar-sweetened beverage intake and serum testosterone levels in adult males (2018)
31–40 of 126 posts
Re: Sugar-sweetened beverage intake and serum testosterone levels in adult males (2018)
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you can make a solid case that, for most people, fructose and therefore sucrose is bad in any significant quantity. Sure, fructose can help replenish liver energy stores if you're an athlete, but most people aren't.
This is not true. The Robert Lustig scaremongering is a big lie. In his talk he mentions the healthy Japanese but he does not mention that they eat more calories from fructose (in percentage of their consumed calories) than USA citizens yet are healthier. Similarly how people stand against epidemiology they should stand against demonizing single ingredients. Apple, by Lustig's opinion, is the worst fruit there is but…
[deleted]
Re: Sugar-sweetened beverage intake and serum testosterone levels in adult males (2018)
#33The interesting point in this study and one they reference is that
>... After adjusting for possible confounding variables, BMI was an independent risk factor for low testosterone level
In other words, even adjusting for obesity, consuming sugar-sweetened beverages is a risk factor. There is other sugar -> low testosterone link, separate from sugar -> fat -> low testosterone with adjusted odds ratio 2.29.
Re: Sugar-sweetened beverage intake and serum testosterone levels in adult males (2018)
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you can make a solid case that, for most people, fructose and therefore sucrose is bad in any significant quantity. Sure, fructose can help replenish liver energy stores if you're an athlete, but most people aren't.
This is not true. The Robert Lustig scaremongering is a big lie. In his talk he mentions the healthy Japanese but he does not mention that they eat more calories from fructose (in percentage of their consumed calories) than USA citizens yet are healthier. Similarly how people stand against epidemiology they should stand against demonizing single ingredients. Apple, by Lustig's opinion, is the worst fruit there is but…
Why are you mischaracterizing Lustig's position?
https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/31/making-the-case-fo...
>Another nutrition expert, Dr. Robert Lustig, a professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco, who has called sugar “toxic” at high doses and fructose the most “actionable” problem in our diet, is still a fan of fruit. “As far as I’m concerned, fiber is the reason to eat fruit,” since it promotes satiety and the slow release of sugar.
Re: Sugar-sweetened beverage intake and serum testosterone levels in adult males (2018)
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you can make a solid case that, for most people, fructose and therefore sucrose is bad in any significant quantity. Sure, fructose can help replenish liver energy stores if you're an athlete, but most people aren't.
This is not true. The Robert Lustig scaremongering is a big lie. In his talk he mentions the healthy Japanese but he does not mention that they eat more calories from fructose (in percentage of their consumed calories) than USA citizens yet are healthier. Similarly how people stand against epidemiology they should stand against demonizing single ingredients. Apple, by Lustig's opinion, is the worst fruit there is but…
Fruits are metabolized very differently than their extracted sugar content though
Re: Sugar-sweetened beverage intake and serum testosterone levels in adult males (2018)
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you can make a solid case that, for most people, fructose and therefore sucrose is bad in any significant quantity. Sure, fructose can help replenish liver energy stores if you're an athlete, but most people aren't.
This always confused me. Why does the WHO only have guidelines on "added sugar", why not all sugar? Based on a naive reading of things, I removed fruit from my diet as well, but that's against WHO guidelines: I used to eat like 3 Fuji/Envy a day (haha).
I remember reading a news story that an international organization (in my memory it was the UN) wanted to issue a warning about all sugar, but the US government representatives lobbied hard for the wording to be changed, because of the US food industry.
Sadly I once tried to refind this story by googling but couldn't find it again, so I might as well be screaming, "the second coming is nigh!"
Re: Sugar-sweetened beverage intake and serum testosterone levels in adult males (2018)
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sugar is not bad. Just like meat or bacon is not bad. Why would sugar on its own be bad? Obviously it's the whole lifestyle and diet that is bad. There are cyclist that carb load by eatig raw sugar and have no metabolic issues like some of the overweight diabetics do when they drink their second gallon of sugary coca cola.
Nice trolling, I hope, because it’s terrifying if you’re serious. Sugar basically doesn’t exist in nature without fiber. Animals have not evolved to consume significant quantities of it. Bacterial flora in your gut is different when you have sugar and not enough fiber.
> Sugar basically doesn’t exist in nature without fiber
Honey?
Re: Sugar-sweetened beverage intake and serum testosterone levels in adult males (2018)
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you can make a solid case that, for most people, fructose and therefore sucrose is bad in any significant quantity. Sure, fructose can help replenish liver energy stores if you're an athlete, but most people aren't.
This is not true. The Robert Lustig scaremongering is a big lie. In his talk he mentions the healthy Japanese but he does not mention that they eat more calories from fructose (in percentage of their consumed calories) than USA citizens yet are healthier. Similarly how people stand against epidemiology they should stand against demonizing single ingredients. Apple, by Lustig's opinion, is the worst fruit there is but…
There are lots of examples that support your argument.
For example, there are hunter-gatherer tribes living today that consume a significant amount of sugar (up to 60% of their calories) and don't have the same problems with obesity, diabetes, etc.
I'm no expert but it seems that the human body doesn't handle bodyfat very well. Perhaps all of this negativity around sugar can be explained by the fact that sugar is calorie-dense and calorie-dense foods tend to make people fat. Especially in the hyper-palatable forms we have in America.
Re: Sugar-sweetened beverage intake and serum testosterone levels in adult males (2018)
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nice trolling, I hope, because it’s terrifying if you’re serious. Sugar basically doesn’t exist in nature without fiber. Animals have not evolved to consume significant quantities of it. Bacterial flora in your gut is different when you have sugar and not enough fiber.
> Sugar basically doesn’t exist in nature without fiber Honey?
[deleted]
Re: Sugar-sweetened beverage intake and serum testosterone levels in adult males (2018)
#40For anyone wondering, this is not an experiment, it's an epidemiological study. I've commented about it on HN before [1], but nutritional epidemiology is in its own league of shady science. If you didn't know, 80% of things you eat give you cancer [2]. That being said, sugar is bad. Main-lining sugar by drinking it in huge concentrations seems even worse! Edit: that being said, if you are doing nutritional epidemiolo…
Sugar is not bad. Just like meat or bacon is not bad. Why would sugar on its own be bad? Obviously it's the whole lifestyle and diet that is bad. There are cyclist that carb load by eatig raw sugar and have no metabolic issues like some of the overweight diabetics do when they drink their second gallon of sugary coca cola.
For every person who can control their sugar intake enough to use it as a tool there are like 10 who can't, so I think its normal to expect people to have trouble with it