Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Type 2 Diabetes and cardiovascular disease attributable to sugar beverages

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 397 posts

Re: Type 2 Diabetes and cardiovascular disease attributable to sugar beverages

#341

Post by hollerith »

Supermancho wrote: post #186
chrisco255 wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's probably a risky line of thinking, if you're addicted to sugar, to substitute in some other source of sugar. Best to avoid pastries, lollipops and sugary sodas.

It's a risky way of thinking to reduce every act to a moral choice. ie I could have used the energy that I burned making this post, to hand out a dollar to a homeless person. Beyond how ridiculously reductive this becomes, it's impractical. You have to have carbs for your brain to run.

>You have to have carbs for your brain to run.

The brain can run well on ketone bodies (which the liver makes from fatty acids). In fact, causing the brain to run on ketone bodies is used by doctors to treat illness (and not just epilepsy).

Re: Type 2 Diabetes and cardiovascular disease attributable to sugar beverages

#342

Post by jandrewrogers »

majkinetor wrote: post #308
jandrewrogers wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sucrose is 50% fructose. HFCS is typically 42-55% fructose. They are essentially indistinguishable to your liver.

There is also a chemical bond that needs to be broken in sucrose

Of course, and the human body is full of enzymes that exist to cleave saccharides into their constituent sugars.

Re: Type 2 Diabetes and cardiovascular disease attributable to sugar beverages

#343

Post by greenie_beans »

lm28469 wrote: post #311
gigatexal wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cuz it tastes good? Because I’m addicted? Because the caffeine is great. Because I hate the taste of coffee. Because I can? I dunno.

The human experience is all about controlling your urges. I also like to eat until I feel stuffed and sleep 12 hours a day, but I don't because I value my long term health above short term pleasures. Sadly for us modern life is all about short term pleasures and convenience, if you're not careful you can lose yourself real quick Try sparkling water, home made water kefir, herbal teas, &c.

why are you lecturing somebody on the internet about personal lifestyle choices? as if the whole world doesn't know what they consume can negatively affect their health...

Re: Type 2 Diabetes and cardiovascular disease attributable to sugar beverages

#344

Post by scoofy »

loeg wrote: post #335
raegis wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't true. He has books and lectures explaining the metabolic processes when eating refined sugar, and why it's bad for you. Nowadays it's pretty mainstream stuff. Nevertheless, can you give an example of one of his opinions which is "well outside scientific consensus".

> Nevertheless, can you give an example of one of his opinions which is "well outside scientific consensus". Lustig specifically claims that sugar is addictive; that fiber somehow mitigates the absorption of fructose; that calorie restriction does not cause weight loss; that in fact, weight loss is somehow a function of insulin, not calories; that fructose is uniquely bad relative to other sugars; that fructose cause…

What are you talking about?!? He's not some random dude, he's a specialist and professor, at UCSF: https://pediatrics.ucsf.edu/people/robert-lustig

>sugar is addictive

>>The evidence supports the hypothesis that under certain circumstances rats can become sugar dependent. This may translate to some human conditions as suggested by the literature on eating disorders and obesity.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2235907/

>that fiber somehow mitigates the absorption of fructose

>>Dietary fiber (DF), especially viscous DF, can contribute to a reduction in the glycemic response resulting from the consumption of carbohydrate-rich foods.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9736284/

>that calorie restriction does not cause weight loss

>>Mechanisms smooth out the large day-to-day differences in energy consumption, decreasing the importance of the size of a meal. In the short term a reduction in energy intake is counteracted by mechanisms that reduce metabolic rate and increase calorie intake, ensuring the regaining of lost weight.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5639963/

I'm not going to go on and on... UCSF, which is one of the most respected teaching hospitals in the country, isn't hiring cranks. He specialize in exactly this stuff. Yea, he's a bit more strident than would would expect from a scientist, yes, he deals with the extremes of childhood obesity, which isn't really relevant to most people's bodies, but christ, he's not a crank.

Re: Type 2 Diabetes and cardiovascular disease attributable to sugar beverages

#345

Post by hilbert42 »

rroblak wrote: post #327
johnyzee wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I do the same for fats. The way I look at it, I want to maximize the "enjoyment per kcalorie". :) We are increasingly moving away from looking at fat as an indulgence, towards understanding it as an essential nutrient, with a large variance in fat types and their benefits. E.g. some people would avoid eating nuts, because they are high in fat, and not as tasty as something similarly fatty, like a pastry. This seems…

This. People are getting the message that "sugar is bad" but the public health messaging of "fat is bad" still lingers in many people's heads. It's sad, because as you mentioned some days are indeed essential nutrients. Especially for kids and pregnant women.

"People are getting the message that "sugar is bad" but the public health messaging of "fat is bad" still lingers in many people's heads."

If this is true then what the hell is going on? We knew this about sugar with certainly at absolute minimum a half century ago when I was a kid (I know as I remember the message).

The message—even as told at school—was that 'excessive and repeated amounts of sugar (especially the refined type as in drinks and sweets) causes diabetes'. QED!

So what the fuck has happened, how was this once well-established message erased from the collective consciousness of more recent generations?

The message back then was so all pervasive that everybody knew it.

So many important facts have been lost to recent generations that I'm beginning to think education is going backwards fast. What happened to health lectures in primary school where we were told these facts?

Re: Type 2 Diabetes and cardiovascular disease attributable to sugar beverages

#346

Post by mlyle »

hilbert42 wrote: post #345
rroblak wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. People are getting the message that "sugar is bad" but the public health messaging of "fat is bad" still lingers in many people's heads. It's sad, because as you mentioned some days are indeed essential nutrients. Especially for kids and pregnant women.

"People are getting the message that "sugar is bad" but the public health messaging of "fat is bad" still lingers in many people's heads." If this is true then what the hell is going on? We knew this about sugar with certainly at absolute minimum a half century ago when I was a kid (I know as I remember the message). The message—even as told at school—was that 'excessive and repeated amounts of sugar (especially the…

We only really recently have evidence for sugar, on its own, causing diabetes.

We had a lot of evidence for sugar causing weight gain. And higher weight is strongly correlated with type II diabetes. But from a public health standpoint, we were worried about fats. We realized that many fats caused health problems even without weight gain and also viewed fats as having a more primary role in weight gain.

It's only recently (in the last couple of decades) that we've gotten evidence that sugar on its own can increase the risk of type 2 diabetes--even if you are of normal weight.

Re: Type 2 Diabetes and cardiovascular disease attributable to sugar beverages

#347

Post by draw_down »

ashtami8 wrote: post #337

How did this article get past the sugar mafia? That too in nature! Yudkin [1] must be chortling ;) Warren Buffett, have your boys been slacking off? Somebody is gonna get really hurt...bad! [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure,_White_and_Deadly

[dead]

Re: Type 2 Diabetes and cardiovascular disease attributable to sugar beverages

#348

Post by tacker2000 »

looofooo0 wrote: post #267
gigatexal wrote: post #264

Well this article scared me. Guess I will have to quit Mountain Dew. But what if I switched to the sugar free one? (Am I swapping diabetes and heart disease for cancer?)

Artifical sweeterner are pretty safe, go for it.

Not true, artificial sweeteners lead to the same addiction effects as sugar. There was some paper about this recently.

Also is is not entirely researched what these artificial sweeteners really do to your body if consumed over long periods of time.

Re: Type 2 Diabetes and cardiovascular disease attributable to sugar beverages

#349

Post by ricardobeat »

criddell wrote: post #96
ricardobeat wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not in the EU: > It should be clearly indicated when a product is a mixture of fruit juice and fruit juice from concentrate https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A...

Are you saying that they couldn't say "100% fruit juice and no sugar added" on the label when the drink is a mixture of fruit juice and fruit juice from concentrate? What part of the regulation would prohibit this?

They could not. That would not pass the 'clearly indicated' in the quoted rule. There is also another more general rule which enforces a label of 'sweetened' or 'with added sugars' for any kind of sweetening agent including fruit concentrate:

> 4. For fruit juices which have been sweetened by the addition of sugars, the sales name shall include the word "sweetened" or "with added sugar", followed by an indication of the maximum quantity of sugar added, calculated as dry matter and expressed in grams per litre. [1]

> A claim stating that sugars have not been added to a food, and any claim likely to have the same meaning for the consumer, may only be made where the product does not contain any added mono- or disaccharides or any other food used for its sweetening properties. [2]

Coming from a country of impenetrable legalese everywhere, I find these regulations very refreshing, they are incredibly easy to read and always straight to the point.

[1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A...

[2] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/memo_0...

Re: Type 2 Diabetes and cardiovascular disease attributable to sugar beverages

#350

Post by Dylan16807 »

scoofy wrote: post #344
loeg wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nevertheless, can you give an example of one of his opinions which is "well outside scientific consensus". Lustig specifically claims that sugar is addictive; that fiber somehow mitigates the absorption of fructose; that calorie restriction does not cause weight loss; that in fact, weight loss is somehow a function of insulin, not calories; that fructose is uniquely bad relative to other sugars; that fructose cause…

What are you talking about?!? He's not some random dude, he's a specialist and professor, at UCSF: https://pediatrics.ucsf.edu/people/robert-lustig >sugar is addictive >>The evidence supports the hypothesis that under certain circumstances rats can become sugar dependent. This may translate to some human conditions as suggested by the literature on eating disorders and obesity. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/P…

> In the short term a reduction in energy intake is counteracted by mechanisms that reduce metabolic rate and increase calorie intake, ensuring the regaining of lost weight.

If calorie intake increases, then it's no longer "calorie restriction".

If his actual claim was that calorie restriction does not cause weight loss, then that's wild despite your quote.

> I'm not going to go on and on...

Well you didn't address the other really egregious supposed claim, that "non-nutritive sweeteners have the same impact on fat/weight gain as sugar". If that's an accurate description of his stance, that's really bad.

Post reply on HN