Sugar-sweetened beverage intake and serum testosterone levels in adult males (2018) • Hacker News Board

Re: Sugar-sweetened beverage intake and serum testosterone levels in adult males (2018)

#41

Post by intergalplan » Wed, Apr 28, 2021, 6:53 PM UTC

ssully wrote: post #26

intergalplan wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the era of glass bottles and real-sugar soda, we drank a hell of a lot less soda. The era of free refills on sodas not just existing but being expected, and 32-ounce "medium" size soft drinks is quite recent. Also, I'm unconvinced a small difference in the balance between glucose and fructose is worth treating HFCS as different from beet or cane sugar. Its effect on the price of sugar is a different matter, howeve…

This is what I was thinking. Rate of consumption between then and now has to heavily skew towards now. I've worked with multiple people who would come to work with a 64oz of soda (diet, if that matters) in the morning, finish it by lunch time, and come back from lunch with it refilled. I assume these people are extreme cases, but even average soda consumption has to be on the high end.

It's really easy, even if you're not that big a soda fiend and wouldn't think of downing 128 ounces of soda at work (these people are less rare than one might hope, I think, though), to accidentally down 40+ ounces with a long meal, with a waiter coming by refilling your drink every few minutes. Things were different when you had to ask for a refill, and understood you'd be paying for two drinks to get it.

Then you get specials that make the unlimited soda effectively $0.30 or whatever. Ugh.

Re: Sugar-sweetened beverage intake and serum testosterone levels in adult males (2018)

#42

Post by renewiltord » Wed, Apr 28, 2021, 6:53 PM UTC

bellyfullofbac wrote: post #36

renewiltord wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!"

It's got to be either this or some sort of absorption mechanism with fiber+fructose, right? I've heard the following few, but I have no evidence:

* The lobbying thing

* That fiber gets you full so you don't eat as much fructose

* That fiber modifies the absorption process

Re: Sugar-sweetened beverage intake and serum testosterone levels in adult males (2018)

#43

Post by blunte » Wed, Apr 28, 2021, 6:54 PM UTC

dublin wrote: post #8

Interesting. It would be even more interesting to see if the High Fructose Corn Syrup used in most sweetened drinks today has a different effect from the sugar used in previous generations. Given the changes in Men's morphology over the past 50 years, something is definitely making men fatter and softer (and of course, T is probably a large part of that...)

There is much greater consumption of processed food today than 30 years ago. "Food science" wasn't so clever back then, so the boxed and premade foods were not especially tasty.

Now they can be addictively tasty. And in these busy times with lots of things grabbing our attention, premade foods - even ones which would appear to be made up of all good ingredients - are the easy choice.

To give processed foods a longer shelf life, they need more salt; but to compensate and make them palatable they then need more sugar. So even ignoring the less clear downsides of how processing might affect the chemistry, the simple observation is that foods have more added sugar or sweeteners now than ever before.

In human history, that's a pretty rapid and significant change... much like the body shape changes that have occurred during the same 30 years.

Re: Sugar-sweetened beverage intake and serum testosterone levels in adult males (2018)

#44

Post by kleinsch » Wed, Apr 28, 2021, 6:55 PM UTC

narush wrote: post #5

For 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…

[2] 80% of things you eat have studies correlating them with increased or decreased risk of cancer

Re: Sugar-sweetened beverage intake and serum testosterone levels in adult males (2018)

#45

Post by papandada » Wed, Apr 28, 2021, 6:55 PM UTC

As a 41 year old man getting remarried, I'm personally interested in the subject of serum testosterone. I have noticed a sharp decline the past couple years and I'm sure aging plus computer job plus covid is a noxious blend.

General advice out there includes lower stress, lose weight, keep active, get sleep, weightlifting is good, cardio is good but maybe not too much, IF may be good. Scientific studies are good but it takes a lot of work to even prove directionality it seems at times.

So please, lay on me the personal anecdata of what you've seen give good results in a safe way. My own anecdote, years back I did martial arts training which seemed to send my sex drive and aggression through the roof. A large component of this was isometric stance training so I've tried incorporating that a few times a week and am seeing some striking changes in sexual function. Could that also be more sunshine, walking, fresh vegetables in diet? Could be, yes, but changes have been evident.

Can anyone else report good results from their own experiences?

Re: Sugar-sweetened beverage intake and serum testosterone levels in adult males (2018)

#46

Post by dragonwriter » Wed, Apr 28, 2021, 6:55 PM UTC

serverholic wrote: post #38

knuthsat wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cal…

> 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.

Sugar is less calorie dense than fat, and this kind of naive reductionist CICO thinking would tend to support the war on fat that preceded recognition of the problems associated with sugar.

It’s true that humans are not well adapted to deal with persistent surplus, but sugary persistent surplus seems to be a particular problem.

Re: Sugar-sweetened beverage intake and serum testosterone levels in adult males (2018)

#47

Post by cycrutchfield » Wed, Apr 28, 2021, 6:55 PM UTC

serverholic wrote: post #38

knuthsat wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cal…

Really, hunter-gatherer tribes eat 60% of their calories in refined sugars? Or are you conflating any form of sugar (specifically in fruit) and refined sugars such as in soft drinks?

Re: Sugar-sweetened beverage intake and serum testosterone levels in adult males (2018)

#48

Post by fghthidudhmbdi » Wed, Apr 28, 2021, 6:56 PM UTC

dublin wrote: post #8

Interesting. It would be even more interesting to see if the High Fructose Corn Syrup used in most sweetened drinks today has a different effect from the sugar used in previous generations. Given the changes in Men's morphology over the past 50 years, something is definitely making men fatter and softer (and of course, T is probably a large part of that...)

HFCS varies between ~40 to ~55 percent fructose. Compare this with sucrose (table sugar) which is 50% fructose. If it were the case that HFCS had an outstanding effect on health, it would be in the non-sugar part of the HFCS.

I think the simple explanation reflects reality the best: the diet in the US and now the rest of the world contains more foods which are rich in sugars and oils, which are highly processed and therefore easily digested, and which were designed to stimulate cravings to facilitate eating and sales.

Rich foods are more calorie dense. Since satiety is partly related to volume of food consumed, rich foods can provide sufficient calories without diminishing hunger.

Highly processed foods are effectively partially pre-digested. This increases the energy availability of the foods. For example, you will get more calories from white flour than from whole wheat flour than from wheat berries.

Finally, products that have been successful are ones that sell more. For food marketers, the goal is to optimize the "bliss point", which is a balance between salt, sugar, and fat content. This is important because, in the past, when people's lives became more sedentary, they ate less in response. Targeting the bliss point has reversed that trend.

Re: Sugar-sweetened beverage intake and serum testosterone levels in adult males (2018)

#49

Post by dataflow » Wed, Apr 28, 2021, 6:56 PM UTC

knuthsat wrote: post #21

01100011 wrote: post #14

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…

> he will never, in a scientific study, demonstrate the ill-effects of consuming apples, while another group consumes the same equivalent amount of raw fructose extract.

I can imagine lots of reasons for not running this study. Maybe there's no funding or interest in it. Or maybe it falls short of proving what you're hoping it proves. Or maybe he's busy with a dozen other things. I have no idea. It's certainly an effort that needs to be justified. Just saying he isn't doing something isn't particularly enlightening. Much better would be if you could link to some other study on this and show the results didn't match what he claims.

> 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.

No comment on Lustig in general, but 3 comments on your criticism:

- He literally says in his talk that the Japanese diet "eliminates fructose". So it's not really that he doesn't mention what you're saying; he actually claims the opposite is true, so he addresses this head-on. Do you have a link or something (for those who don't know) that show's he's wrong about this you could share? You could try to shoot down down his argument if you show he's wrong on that basic fact. Make sure you get the details correct, though, like the time period (in case things have been changing).

- "Healthier" is too vague. They could be doing better on lots of metrics but not the particular one he's talking about, but come out "healthier" overall.

- Similarly, there could be a million and one other things that they do differently from Americans that could make up for whatever damage fructose is alleged to do. Just because the end result is that they're healthier and that they consumer more fructose doesn't mean fructose isn't having a negative effect on them.

You haven't really provided any more support for your argument than he has at all, so it's hard to take your word over his (regardless of whose might be right). If you have something to support your position that would be super helpful.

Re: Sugar-sweetened beverage intake and serum testosterone levels in adult males (2018)

#50

Post by fiddlerwoaroof » Wed, Apr 28, 2021, 6:57 PM UTC

serverholic wrote: post #38

knuthsat wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cal…

Yeah, this has been my general takeaway: calorie-counting and things like intermittent fasting are much more important than reading ingredient labels (for people who don’t have allergies and diet-related health issues like diabetes).