Is Sugar Toxic? • Hacker News Board

Re: Is Sugar Toxic?

#91

Post by kenjackson » Wed, Apr 13, 2011, 9:12 PM UTC

jerf wrote: post #76

kenjackson wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually found it to be content dense. It was a bit unactionable, but a good amount of content. Of course he also gives you the names, so you can look up the studies, although he also pretty much tells you that its not applicable to your current diet. Again, maybe not actionable, but definitely content. Especially for a mainstream newspaper article.

"It was a bit unactionable," Well, yes and no. There is some good but as-yet not conclusive reasons to believe that sugar is far more dangerous than it appears. On the other hand, there is nobody I am aware of who has any argument in favor of consuming more sugars or more sugary foods. I am not aware of any argument against cutting back your sugar consumptions as a reasonable preventative step. A conventional dietiti…

You're absolutely right. I was thinking more about changing the diet for different ratios of glucose/fructose/lactose for some reason vs just reducing sugar intake.

Curious how sugar compares to artificial sweeteners in light of this data? Splenda vs sugar?

Re: Is Sugar Toxic?

#92

Post by DanielH » Wed, Apr 13, 2011, 9:14 PM UTC

I just recently stumbled upon it, so for those who wanted a more compact version of Robert Lustigs talk: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14ZIKOQkTiM

Re: Is Sugar Toxic?

#93

Post by matthennigan » Wed, Apr 13, 2011, 9:21 PM UTC

fhars wrote: post #72

msluyter wrote: post #21

Dr. William Davis, a cardiologist who runs the "Track Your Plaque" program and the Heart Scan blog ( http://www.heartscanblog.org/ ) has identified sugar as one of the primary factors contributing to heart disease. He advises his patients to generally eliminate all sugars, grains (they break down into glucose in the bloodstream), and anything else raises blood glucose levels.

But all the evidence presented in the article seems to point in the direction that glucose is mostly harmless (see the discussion of the Japanese diet that contained mostly rice). So Davis' recommanedation cannot be justified along these lines.

Davis absolutely hates wheat, on very justifiable grounds. And he strongly recommends anyone with heart problems get off it immediately. But I dont think he has anything against rice.

Re: Is Sugar Toxic?

#94

Post by jerf » Wed, Apr 13, 2011, 9:23 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #70

pygy_ wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who wants to extort money from whom?.. ...beside the food industry, which thrives by having people overeat?

Quacks selling books certainly want to take money from people wishing they could be thinner (but who are unwilling to eat less and exercise more). (Another variant is selling books telling you "it's not your fault you are fat." I haven't read it, but the impression I get from people who have is that Gary Taubes book falls into this category.)

It's time you give in and read the primary materials. As someone who has read both the major Taubes books, I am yet to see you successfully characterize his arguments. Please note I did not say "successfully attack his arguments", because that is something else; characterizing them correctly is a necessary first step. You think you understand them, but when you try to explain them to someone else you are wrong about them. Again, I am not saying that the arguments Taubes makes are right or wrong, I am saying I have not yet seen you correctly explain them.

That is not an adequate summary of the latest Gary Taubes book, which is, well, exactly what the title says. If there is something you can "do" about it it's hardly "not your fault" now, is it?

He's not a quack. There are a lot of people who want you to think he's a quack, but he's not. He may not be right but he is certainly not a quack. For that matter if he's a quack in his latest book for suggesting that the science of endocrinology should be taken seriously on the topic of how fat works, then the entire science of endocrinology is quackery. (Incidentally, I mean literally "how fat works"; not "how one becomes obese" but the actual workings of what fat cells take for input, what they give as output, and what affects the two, all of it coming from endocrinology.)

Re: Is Sugar Toxic?

#95

Post by matthennigan » Wed, Apr 13, 2011, 9:26 PM UTC

tmcw wrote: post #43

Journalist who hasn't done any research on sugar agrees with doctor who hasn't done any research on sugar. And this happens to be great linkbait. Tell me why I should pay for the New York Times, again?

Gary Taubes also wrote Good Calories, Bad Calories, which is probably the most thoroughly researched book on the issue of diet and health ever written.

Re: Is Sugar Toxic?

#96

Post by jsdalton » Wed, Apr 13, 2011, 9:27 PM UTC

JonnieCache wrote: post #35

jsdalton wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thesis of the article is pretty obvious: Sugar is toxic in the amounts found in a typical western diet.

Hmmmm. You're right. That is pretty obvious. I feel kinda silly now. I tend to be on a bit of a hair trigger over the use of words like toxic by nutritionists, because so often they turn out to be graduates of degree mills, pedalling patent medicines via press release reprinting churnalists. This guy seems to check out however, even if he is a bit absolutist.

That's cool; I actually appreciated your insight in the top comment. It is meaningless to say sugar is toxic or not toxic. The important question is at what level does it become toxic, which is almost certainly less than what we consume now but surely greater than zero (I hope so anyway -- zero strikes me as both impractical and not very tasty).

Re: Is Sugar Toxic?

#97

Post by GrandMasterBirt » Wed, Apr 13, 2011, 9:29 PM UTC

Splines wrote: post #17

JonnieCache wrote: post #10

Toxicity as a concept is entirely defined by dose. Bleach is not toxic if you take a small enough dose. Conversely, water is toxic if you drink too much of it. Unfortunately toxic, like so many other of our perfectly good scientific words, has been hijacked by quacks trying to deprive the credulous of their money.

True enough, but people should know how much bleach and water is needed to hurt themselves; death and/or pain provides immediate feedback. The problem with sugar is that the benefits are so immediate and the drawbacks so distant that it requires a strong will to avoid.

Humans have a problem with those sort of issues. Furthermore when surrounded by pretty much everything sugar, its kind of hard to avoid. Imagine if we were to find out tomorrow that people who use facebook are 60% likely to die of a seizure caused directly by facebook within the next 50 years. And we find out by a vague hard to prove no direct correlation study. Would be pretty hard to convince everyone you know to stop using facebook. What if it's too late? Etc.

Re: Is Sugar Toxic?

#98

Post by bluekeybox » Wed, Apr 13, 2011, 9:31 PM UTC

Jun8 wrote: post #88

Here's my (somewhat childish and Bioshock -ish) response along the lines of Shaw's "The reasonable man adapts ..." idea: Why are we still bound by our body mechanisms that were determined by our cavemen ancestors millions of years ago? Rather than cutting back sugar, maybe we should find a way to re-engineer our cellular structure to avoid the metabolic syndrome, mentioned in the article. Why work towards healthy, ra…

> Rather than cutting back sugar, maybe we should find a way to re-engineer our cellular structure to avoid the metabolic syndrome

We could also reengineer our taste buds to like sugar less, which would be a more optimal solution (no need for a sugar supply chain). Or we could just trick ourselves into eating less sugar for a while, and then after a few months we will find we don't crave it as much (believe me, it works).

Re: Is Sugar Toxic?

#99

Post by r00fus » Wed, Apr 13, 2011, 9:32 PM UTC

Jun8 wrote: post #88

Here's my (somewhat childish and Bioshock -ish) response along the lines of Shaw's "The reasonable man adapts ..." idea: Why are we still bound by our body mechanisms that were determined by our cavemen ancestors millions of years ago? Rather than cutting back sugar, maybe we should find a way to re-engineer our cellular structure to avoid the metabolic syndrome, mentioned in the article. Why work towards healthy, ra…

There's a reason why bioshock is fantasy and not reality: This kind of research is hard, dangerous, and morally controversial... this takes a long time, and funding by a large organization.

Meanwhile, you can have an immediate impact yourself by changing your habits.

Which one is more accessible to the average person?

Re: Is Sugar Toxic?

#100

Post by GrandMasterBirt » Wed, Apr 13, 2011, 9:34 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #70

pygy_ wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who wants to extort money from whom?.. ...beside the food industry, which thrives by having people overeat?

Quacks selling books certainly want to take money from people wishing they could be thinner (but who are unwilling to eat less and exercise more). (Another variant is selling books telling you "it's not your fault you are fat." I haven't read it, but the impression I get from people who have is that Gary Taubes book falls into this category.)

This does not say "its not your fault" its more of "its not your fault for being ignorant to the harm of sugar, but its still up to you to watch what you eat".

Its like saying "its not your fault, smoking is addictive"... thats right, its addictive, and now that you know its killing you and has no benefit, you as a rational human being need to put yourself in a position where you can quit by destroying your cigs and forcing everyone you know to never permit you of smoking, and ensure you are not even if you try to hide it, and give you shit if they smell it, etc. there are ways, there is help, but its still the responsibility of the person no matter who's fault it is.