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

Is Sugar Really Toxic?

blogs.scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 114 posts

Re: Is Sugar Really Toxic?

#91

Post by jaggederest »

donaldc wrote: post #83
jaggederest wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Less than ten percent of your daily energy expenditure goes towards thermogenesis. That's not going to make enough of a different to lose 30 pounds in 90 days while taking in more calories. You need a calorie deficit of approximately half a standard daily intake to lose a third of a pound a day.

Not the full thirty pounds, but it could definitely be a contributing factor. And, if one's extremities get warmer while one's core temperature remains the same, the same amount of clothing is worn, and the ambient temperature remains the same, it's pretty much a certainty that more calories are being spent on heating the body.

You're talking about an extra 50 calories a day. It's going to be negligible against the 1100-1200 calorie deficit needed for that kind of weight loss. A half tablespoon of peanut butter.

Over the course of 90 days, you'd lose a grand total of a pound of fat or so.

Re: Is Sugar Really Toxic?

#92

Post by donaldc »

jaggederest wrote: post #91
donaldc wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not the full thirty pounds, but it could definitely be a contributing factor. And, if one's extremities get warmer while one's core temperature remains the same, the same amount of clothing is worn, and the ambient temperature remains the same, it's pretty much a certainty that more calories are being spent on heating the body.

You're talking about an extra 50 calories a day. It's going to be negligible against the 1100-1200 calorie deficit needed for that kind of weight loss. A half tablespoon of peanut butter. Over the course of 90 days, you'd lose a grand total of a pound of fat or so.

I think it could be more than that. Studies have found that some people have burned off an increase of hundreds of calories a day just through an increase in fidgeting.

And then there's this (http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=99...)

Despite the fact that all of the subjects spent the same amount of time in exactly the same confined space, the results showed large differences in the number of calories they burned. Some subjects burned as few as 1,300 calories in 24 hours, while others burned as much as 3,600 calories, a difference of 2,300 calories in one 24-hour period!

Keep in mind that most of what these subjects were doing would not be counted as "exercise".

Re: Is Sugar Really Toxic?

#93

Post by nitrogen »

jacques_chester wrote: post #65
nitrogen wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The correlation you want isn't BMI calories, it's food type calories. The question to be answered is whether some types of food make it easier or harder to maintain a caloric balance.

Which is a question of satiety. The tl;dr is: eat protein and stop drinking sugary liquids.

It's not just satiety, there's also the fact that fiber prevents absorption of a percentage of ingested food, and possibly other effects on appetite and digestive efficiency such as gut bacteria.

Re: Is Sugar Really Toxic?

#94

Post by nmerouze »

I am amazed by the number of people here claiming sugar is bad. I've been eating fruits, fruit juices, milk and sodas as the main part of my diet for a few months now. I've lost weight and I feel really really good (I was in a low carb diet before and always craving carbs and feeling awful).

I've been like you in the past. But instead believing in Lustig and others, I've kept reading scientific studies and the work of Ray Peat is much more consistent.

Re: Is Sugar Really Toxic?

#95

Post by dredmorbius »

pvnick wrote: post #73
hristov wrote: post #69

This article shows how the fructose industry is defending itself. Mostly by confusing the issue. The thing about fructose is that it is not by itself poisonous. The problem only comes about for refined fructose, such as that found in cane sugar and HFCS. In those cases, fructose overwhelms the liver and gets processed by wrong pathways which result in all kinds of problems. But if you eat fructose in the form of frui…

I think you pretty much restated the point of the article in slightly more condensed terms. Eat sugar in moderation and you'll be fine. Eat too much and you'll run into problems. The point you added is that sugar -> less full -> overeat, which is possible, but not the point being debated.

It's not merely the quantity, but the rate of assimilation, including gastric emptying, which matters.

So, yes, qualitatively there is a difference not only between eating an apple and a glass of apple juice representing 8 apples, but even when you're juicing a single apple, because that fructose hits your bloodstream immediately.

Useful if you're a bonking cyclist or a runner who's hit the wall. Not so much if you're leading a sedentary lifestyle.

Re: Is Sugar Really Toxic?

#96

Post by derleth »

donaldc wrote: post #87
derleth wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you have nothing to say about the content, then?

His comment says more about the content of the article than most of the other comments. An article about sugar funded by ADM is not an objective source of information, due to the very large conflict of interest.

Whether it's right or wrong is independent of where it comes from.

Re: Is Sugar Really Toxic?

#97

Post by jaggederest »

donaldc wrote: post #92
jaggederest wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're talking about an extra 50 calories a day. It's going to be negligible against the 1100-1200 calorie deficit needed for that kind of weight loss. A half tablespoon of peanut butter. Over the course of 90 days, you'd lose a grand total of a pound of fat or so.

I think it could be more than that. Studies have found that some people have burned off an increase of hundreds of calories a day just through an increase in fidgeting. And then there's this ( http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=99... ) Despite the fact that all of the subjects spent the same amount of time in exactly the same confined space, the results showed large differences in the number of…

You were talking about thermogenesis, now you're talking about different activity levels. Not the same thing at all, really.

Re: Is Sugar Really Toxic?

#98

Post by contingencies »

amerika_blog wrote: post #3

I really hope not. I love sugar. It's also the only stimulant I can mete out in small doses that will keep me going without obliterating my concentration, as caffeine tends to do (disclaimer: I haven't tried cocaine).

stimulant I can mete out in small doses that will keep me going

Consider the ''eugeroic'' ("Wakefulness Enhancer") class, described as "unproven primary mechanisms but proven efficacy". Bit scary, not something to have a habit around, but widely available through the internets.

Re: Is Sugar Really Toxic?

#99

Post by aethertap »

sparkie wrote: post #12
aethertap wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read about some research* regarding ego depletion and its relationship to blood glucose levels that was pretty interesting. Basically, they did a study with two groups of people. Both were asked to do some challenging problems requiring concentration, then both were given lemonade. One group's lemonade was sweetened with glucose, and the other with some artificial sweetener. The two groups were then asked to do mor…

This test is flawed, as it doesn't have a "neutral group" - a group that had neither sugar nor artificial sweetener. How can they conclude that the sugar made people do better, rather than the artificial sweetener making people do worse?

Agreed, at least from my brief description, which was a summary of a summary out of a book. I'd say it's more likely that it's my own retelling that's flawed, though I haven't read the actual study. They also didn't have a group which was given the same number of calories from a different source (as far as I know) so it's possible that eating a chunk of meat would have the same effect. What I thought was interesting actually was that they were able to demonstrate beneficial effects from intake of calories directly on brain function.

As I wrote that, I did remember a bit of evidence that the glucose was actually beneficial - namely that they measured performance on the problems over time. At the end of the first set, both groups were showing approximately equal degraded performance. Upon resuming on the second set, the group given glucose was back up to nearly the starting level of proficiency, while the group given no glucose was at the same level they stopped at on the first group.

Re: Is Sugar Really Toxic?

#100

Post by jacques_chester »

nitrogen wrote: post #93
jacques_chester wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is a question of satiety. The tl;dr is: eat protein and stop drinking sugary liquids.

It's not just satiety, there's also the fact that fiber prevents absorption of a percentage of ingested food, and possibly other effects on appetite and digestive efficiency such as gut bacteria.

Food labels do account for all the known digestive factors, but as I noted, they're estimates. Monitoring your diet and watching the result is still the best method of weight control.
Post reply on HN