3 ms·

sigh typical Gary Taubes. Sugar itself is not an empty calorie, and is more than easily stored and used by the body. Of course, I do think that sugar has a sp

sigh typical Gary Taubes. Sugar itself is not an empty calorie, and is more than easily stored and used by the body. Of course, I do think that sugar has a special place in our body that affects things more than we understand (for instance, how a ketogenic diet can lower and regulate epileptic siezures). But empty? I get alcohol being an empty calorie, since it's a toxin that your body cannot store, but protein, fat, and carbohydrates can and are all either stored or used. Not only that, but protein can have an insulin response as well, which makes you think that maybe insulin resistance isn't caused by only a single macronutrient. Gary Taubes, while I respect some of what he does, approaches his hypotheses as if they were forgone conclusions. And he has had his sugar axe to grind for so long, it's hard to tell how much he his cherry picking his data and how much it reflects reality.

Axsuul 9y ago
You are taking his definition of "empty" quite literally while in the article, his definition of "empty" clearly states: > sugars cause dental caries and are a source of excess calories, “empty” of vitamins, minerals, protein, and fibre On proteins having an insulin response, when you intake too much protein, glucose is formed from a metabolic process known as gluconeogenesis which can definitely cause an insulin response. Interested to hear why you "think that sugar has a special place in our body". Is this from empirical or anecdotal evidence?
- natecavanaugh 9y ago
  > You are taking his definition of "empty" quite literally while in the article, his definition of "empty" clearly states: > sugars cause dental caries and are a source of excess calories, “empty” of vitamins, minerals, protein, and fibre Yeah, that also stretches the definition quite a bit, and it's like saying "protein is empty of vitamins, minerals, fat and carbohydrates". None of the macros contain vitamins or minerals or fiber, so what exactly are empty calories? > Interested to hear why you "think that sugar has a special place in our body". Is this from empirical or anecdotal evidence? I think all of the macros interact with the body in different ways, but sugar is interesting to me because of how much of it is used for brain processing, and how it's also leveraged to trigger insulin to store the macros. Related to brain function, though, is that depriving yourself of sugar (or complex carbs) can regulate seizures in epileptic patients. So, IMHO, the article somehow tries to differentiate between complex and simple carbs, but if that were the case, why would complex carbs somehow still factor into epilepsy? I think we have a very very basic understanding of how the different macros all interact with our bodies, especially sugar.
  - grogers 9y ago
    It's not so much the difference between simple and complex carbohydrates, but between glucose and fructose. Glucose is energy for your body, so important you will manufacture it even on a zero carbohydrate diet. Fructose serves no real purpose in the body and is processed entirely by the liver (primarily into fat - excessive consumption leading to non-alcoholic fatty liver disease). "Sugar" is often used for any simple carbohydrate but it's really fructose containing compounds like sucrose this piece is primarily warning about. Fructose seems to have a much bigger impact on insulin resistance leading to obesity, type 2 diabetes, etc.
    - natecavanaugh 9y ago
      I've read that fructose is stored primarily by the liver, but again, this just gets a bit more confusing it I'm to follow the logic of the article. They mention the problem with sucrose (and HFCS), but sucrose is 50/50 glucose and fructose and HFCS is 45/55 glucose/fructose. If fructose is the sugar with a real impact on diabetes and insulin resistance, why are diabetics given glucose tablets to raise low blood sugar? Maybe I'm the one who is confused, but if fructose were the main evil component, I'd imagine there would be a lot of fruitarians with diabetes (though I have anecdotally seen a lot that run into pancreatic problems, but rarely obesity or diabetes).
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

Axsuul 9y ago

You are taking his definition of "empty" quite literally while in the article, his definition of "empty" clearly states: > sugars cause dental caries and are a source of excess calories, “empty” of vitamins, minerals, protein, and fibre On proteins having an insulin response, when you intake too much protein, glucose is formed from a metabolic process known as gluconeogenesis which can definitely cause an insulin response. Interested to hear why you "think that sugar has a special place in our body". Is this from empirical or anecdotal evidence?

natecavanaugh 9y ago
> You are taking his definition of "empty" quite literally while in the article, his definition of "empty" clearly states: > sugars cause dental caries and are a source of excess calories, “empty” of vitamins, minerals, protein, and fibre Yeah, that also stretches the definition quite a bit, and it's like saying "protein is empty of vitamins, minerals, fat and carbohydrates". None of the macros contain vitamins or minerals or fiber, so what exactly are empty calories? > Interested to hear why you "think that sugar has a special place in our body". Is this from empirical or anecdotal evidence? I think all of the macros interact with the body in different ways, but sugar is interesting to me because of how much of it is used for brain processing, and how it's also leveraged to trigger insulin to store the macros. Related to brain function, though, is that depriving yourself of sugar (or complex carbs) can regulate seizures in epileptic patients. So, IMHO, the article somehow tries to differentiate between complex and simple carbs, but if that were the case, why would complex carbs somehow still factor into epilepsy? I think we have a very very basic understanding of how the different macros all interact with our bodies, especially sugar.
- grogers 9y ago
  It's not so much the difference between simple and complex carbohydrates, but between glucose and fructose. Glucose is energy for your body, so important you will manufacture it even on a zero carbohydrate diet. Fructose serves no real purpose in the body and is processed entirely by the liver (primarily into fat - excessive consumption leading to non-alcoholic fatty liver disease). "Sugar" is often used for any simple carbohydrate but it's really fructose containing compounds like sucrose this piece is primarily warning about. Fructose seems to have a much bigger impact on insulin resistance leading to obesity, type 2 diabetes, etc.
  - natecavanaugh 9y ago
    I've read that fructose is stored primarily by the liver, but again, this just gets a bit more confusing it I'm to follow the logic of the article. They mention the problem with sucrose (and HFCS), but sucrose is 50/50 glucose and fructose and HFCS is 45/55 glucose/fructose. If fructose is the sugar with a real impact on diabetes and insulin resistance, why are diabetics given glucose tablets to raise low blood sugar? Maybe I'm the one who is confused, but if fructose were the main evil component, I'd imagine there would be a lot of fruitarians with diabetes (though I have anecdotally seen a lot that run into pancreatic problems, but rarely obesity or diabetes).
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]