5 ms·

Fruits and vegetables are full of sucrose, it is the most commonly occurring sugar in plants. If splitting more sucrose (or is fructose really the problem?) inc

Fruits and vegetables are full of sucrose, it is the most commonly occurring sugar in plants. If splitting more sucrose (or is fructose really the problem?) increases your chance of cancer, it means very little on its own. Would you get the same results if they matched the starches to the glucose equivalent, rather than the same mass? Which is why I don't see why they would bother to suppress a result like this, but I guess the public interpretation would likely be the outrageous "specifically refined table sugar gives you cancer", so I can't exactly blame 'em for wanting to.

otakucode 9y ago
Yeah, and given that the study was specifically about the metabolic output of the gut bacteria of mice, I am very suspicious of anyone jumping to the conclusion that this has even a decent chance of having any relevance to humans. Overall, of course sugar increases likelihood of cancer. Everything which provides energy to the body is because it might provide that energy to dividing cancerous cells. Anything which increases cellular activity increases the risk of cancer, whether it be heat, friction, calories, whatever. Reducing caloric intake is the only proven reliable means of life extension for a reason. But beyond that basic contribution it would be very hard to see how such basic molecules could contribute significantly.
Tharkun 9y ago
Fruit & vegetables full of sucrose? That seems a little exaggerated. An onion, for instance, is 90% water, 4% sugars, 3% other carbs and 2% fibre. A coke, on the other hand, is 90% water, 10% sugar (either HFCS or sucrose, depending on your locale) and not an iota of fibre.
- microcolonel 9y ago
  Would a coke onion (84% water, 10% sugar, 5% fibre, [1% other stuff {caramel colouring, deactivated coca leaf extract, etc.}]) be a bad source of sucrose? Pineapple is about 6% sucrose, red delicious Apples are about 2% sucrose (the rest being mostly fructose, and some glucose), bananas have more than 5% sucrose (As do mangoes, nectarines, and varieties of apple like pink lady).
  - DanBC 9y ago
    Current thinking is that the binding of the sugar to fibre in fruit and veg makes it better than raw sugar.
    - merb 9y ago
      no that's not true. current thinking is just that if you eat fruites and vegs that you probably don't eat so much that you can get sick. however when it comes to drinks (i.e. smoothies, apple juice, orange juice) we already know that they could be as worse as cola. (from a sugar perspective). fructose is as worse as sacarose for a human beign if you eat/drink too much of it. it is just worse in another way i.e. it can give you different diseases. Well the problem is just that people consume way more sucrose than fructose. That's why there is probably never a bad word about it. Basically everything should be consumed with care and moderation, but with the current generation it gets harder and harder (less time -> less time to cook -> excessive use of fast food, etc..)
      - DanBC 9y ago
        no, really, current thinking is that whole fruit is better than juice or smoothies because blending releases the sugar, which is otherwise somewhat bound to the fibre. Of course, it's far easier to overconsume blended fruit, but there are studies showing an increased risk of t2 diabetes from drinking limited amounts of fruit juice, and over consumption isn't the whole story. https://www.nhs.uk/news/diabetes/fruit-may-lower-diabetes-risk-while-juice-may-raise-it/ https://www.nhs.uk/news/diabetes/fruit-may-lower-diabetes-ri... https://www.nhs.uk/news/diabetes/fruit-juice-and-type-2-diabetes/ https://www.nhs.uk/news/diabetes/fruit-juice-and-type-2-diab...
        lemming 9y ago
        Right, fruit juice is definitely problematic since it completely removes the fibre. I only skimmed those articles but it seemed to be talking about juice, not e.g. smoothies where the fibre from the fruit is still present. If I make a smoothie from a packet of blueberries, I assume that gives more or less the same benefits as eating them.
- BeetleB 9y ago
  A peeled apple is about as bad - little fiber, and 10% sugar.
losteric 9y ago
A 12 oz can of Coca Cola has twice the sugar content of an apple, without the beneficial fiber or vitamins. How many Americans are obese because they eat too many fruits and vegetables? An overwhelming majority are obese due to fast foods, soda, snacks, and sweets... costing taxpayers millions of dollars while companies profit from the negative externality.
- sddfd 9y ago
  I absolutely share your viewpoint. As a consumer, I try to think about the ingredients of a product: if it is mostly chemicals (in contrast do agricultural products), then the product probably isn't healthy.
  - abiox 9y ago
    well, consider that basically everything is constituted by chemical compounds (an apple contains stuff like epicatechin, phloridzin, quercetin, etc.)
  - KozmoNau7 9y ago
    https://cdn.paperpile.com/blog/files/Goldberg-2014.pdf https://cdn.paperpile.com/blog/files/Goldberg-2014.pdf The "chemicals are bad!" scare has gotten completely out of hand.
    - sddfd 9y ago
      I'm not at all against chemical additives. I'm just saying if you're eating something which barely contains any agricultural product, you should ask yourself whether this is really healthy.
- microcolonel 9y ago
  > costing taxpayers millions of dollars How do you mean? My understanding is that it would affect insurance rates for the overweight, unless of course insurers are not allowed to set rates based on bodyfat guidelines? I'd accept that it's costly here in Canada though, definitely an increase in emergency medical service load.
hristov 9y ago
There is a difference in the way the body processes sucrose and fructose from plants and that from refined sugar. Plants have all kinds of other nutrients that necessarily go into the stomach at the same time as the fructose and sucrose.
FrozenVoid 9y ago
> Fruits and vegetables are full of sucrose, it is the most commonly occurring sugar in plants. Modern strains of fruits and vegetables. They are all artificial breeds.

otakucode 9y ago

Yeah, and given that the study was specifically about the metabolic output of the gut bacteria of mice, I am very suspicious of anyone jumping to the conclusion that this has even a decent chance of having any relevance to humans. Overall, of course sugar increases likelihood of cancer. Everything which provides energy to the body is because it might provide that energy to dividing cancerous cells. Anything which increases cellular activity increases the risk of cancer, whether it be heat, friction, calories, whatever. Reducing caloric intake is the only proven reliable means of life extension for a reason. But beyond that basic contribution it would be very hard to see how such basic molecules could contribute significantly.

Tharkun 9y ago

Fruit & vegetables full of sucrose? That seems a little exaggerated. An onion, for instance, is 90% water, 4% sugars, 3% other carbs and 2% fibre. A coke, on the other hand, is 90% water, 10% sugar (either HFCS or sucrose, depending on your locale) and not an iota of fibre.

microcolonel 9y ago
Would a coke onion (84% water, 10% sugar, 5% fibre, [1% other stuff {caramel colouring, deactivated coca leaf extract, etc.}]) be a bad source of sucrose? Pineapple is about 6% sucrose, red delicious Apples are about 2% sucrose (the rest being mostly fructose, and some glucose), bananas have more than 5% sucrose (As do mangoes, nectarines, and varieties of apple like pink lady).
- DanBC 9y ago
  Current thinking is that the binding of the sugar to fibre in fruit and veg makes it better than raw sugar.
  - merb 9y ago
    no that's not true. current thinking is just that if you eat fruites and vegs that you probably don't eat so much that you can get sick. however when it comes to drinks (i.e. smoothies, apple juice, orange juice) we already know that they could be as worse as cola. (from a sugar perspective). fructose is as worse as sacarose for a human beign if you eat/drink too much of it. it is just worse in another way i.e. it can give you different diseases. Well the problem is just that people consume way more sucrose than fructose. That's why there is probably never a bad word about it. Basically everything should be consumed with care and moderation, but with the current generation it gets harder and harder (less time -> less time to cook -> excessive use of fast food, etc..)
    - DanBC 9y ago
      no, really, current thinking is that whole fruit is better than juice or smoothies because blending releases the sugar, which is otherwise somewhat bound to the fibre. Of course, it's far easier to overconsume blended fruit, but there are studies showing an increased risk of t2 diabetes from drinking limited amounts of fruit juice, and over consumption isn't the whole story. https://www.nhs.uk/news/diabetes/fruit-may-lower-diabetes-risk-while-juice-may-raise-it/ https://www.nhs.uk/news/diabetes/fruit-may-lower-diabetes-ri... https://www.nhs.uk/news/diabetes/fruit-juice-and-type-2-diabetes/ https://www.nhs.uk/news/diabetes/fruit-juice-and-type-2-diab...
      - lemming 9y ago
        Right, fruit juice is definitely problematic since it completely removes the fibre. I only skimmed those articles but it seemed to be talking about juice, not e.g. smoothies where the fibre from the fruit is still present. If I make a smoothie from a packet of blueberries, I assume that gives more or less the same benefits as eating them.
BeetleB 9y ago
A peeled apple is about as bad - little fiber, and 10% sugar.

losteric 9y ago

A 12 oz can of Coca Cola has twice the sugar content of an apple, without the beneficial fiber or vitamins. How many Americans are obese because they eat too many fruits and vegetables? An overwhelming majority are obese due to fast foods, soda, snacks, and sweets... costing taxpayers millions of dollars while companies profit from the negative externality.

sddfd 9y ago
I absolutely share your viewpoint. As a consumer, I try to think about the ingredients of a product: if it is mostly chemicals (in contrast do agricultural products), then the product probably isn't healthy.
- abiox 9y ago
  well, consider that basically everything is constituted by chemical compounds (an apple contains stuff like epicatechin, phloridzin, quercetin, etc.)
- KozmoNau7 9y ago
  https://cdn.paperpile.com/blog/files/Goldberg-2014.pdf https://cdn.paperpile.com/blog/files/Goldberg-2014.pdf The "chemicals are bad!" scare has gotten completely out of hand.
  - sddfd 9y ago
    I'm not at all against chemical additives. I'm just saying if you're eating something which barely contains any agricultural product, you should ask yourself whether this is really healthy.
microcolonel 9y ago
> costing taxpayers millions of dollars How do you mean? My understanding is that it would affect insurance rates for the overweight, unless of course insurers are not allowed to set rates based on bodyfat guidelines? I'd accept that it's costly here in Canada though, definitely an increase in emergency medical service load.

hristov 9y ago

There is a difference in the way the body processes sucrose and fructose from plants and that from refined sugar. Plants have all kinds of other nutrients that necessarily go into the stomach at the same time as the fructose and sucrose.

FrozenVoid 9y ago

> Fruits and vegetables are full of sucrose, it is the most commonly occurring sugar in plants. Modern strains of fruits and vegetables. They are all artificial breeds.