3 ms·

I was expecting sugar to be the answer

Theodores 8y ago
...despite the food industry having spent decades telling you it is fat you arrive at the correct expected answer!
cies 8y ago
Sugar when eaten with a certain number of hours after a high fat meal, is certainly a valid answer. Sugar by itself is not. Fat by itself is neither. Fat digests slowly, so for many hours the blood is "fatty" after eating a high fat meal. Fat in the blood makes the (muscle) cells less insulin sensitive, thus the sugar is not readily absorbed which leads to blood sugar spikes. Those spikes freak out the pancreas, which will try to push even more insulin into the blood. Eventually this (also) leads to type2.
taneq 8y ago
Well, that or HFCS.
- beat 8y ago
  HFCS is sugar for insulin purposes.
  - taneq 8y ago
    I thought it was metabolised differently and/or used in greater concentrations, making it generally "badder". It's hard to find useful info because it's been seized upon by woo vendors but a quick search turned up these links: * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3649104/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3649104/ Huge and I haven't finished digesting it yet (hah) but seems to think overall that HFCS is equivalent to sucrose which would support your statement * https://www.webmd.com/heart/metabolic-syndrome/news/20090421/fresh-take-on-fructose-vs-glucose https://www.webmd.com/heart/metabolic-syndrome/news/20090421... suggests that fructose is worse than sucrose for promoting insulin dependence and other risk factors in obese people * https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/86/4/895/4649668 https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/86/4/895/4649668 suggests a range of differences in how they're metabolised which I guess could go either way All up it sounds like there might be some differences but it's not as much as I thought.
    - beat 8y ago
      Yeah, there's some differences due to different types of sugars, but for "bad for you" purposes, they're all basically alike. It's like blowing up a building with plastique instead of dynamite. Sure, plastique is technically worse, but the building is getting blown up either way. A lot of this boils down to marketing, as Michael Pollan describes so well. HFCS is a "science word" (and worse, a science/corporate word - there's nothing attractive-sounding about "high fructose corn syrup"), and a great deal of food woo comes from culturally anti-corporate feelings rather than any strong reasoning about biology. Don't eat the science words, they'll give you the autism cancer! It's especially absurd because HFCS is seen as an evil "agribusiness" product, yet somehow cane sugar is not, even though sugarcane is a far nastier business in many ways. Say what you will about corn, but at least it doesn't have a long history of slavery tied to it. And food manufacturers, sensitive to these abstract feelings, latch on to "real sugar" as opposed to evil HFCS, and encourage a belief that "real sugar" is "natural", while HFCS is "artificial" - a science word, full of science cancer. We live in a soup of marketing and nonsense. It's very hard to not be affected by omnipresent marketing campaigns that are carefully designed to manipulate our feelings rather than our reason.

...despite the food industry having spent decades telling you it is fat you arrive at the correct expected answer!

cies 8y ago

Sugar when eaten with a certain number of hours after a high fat meal, is certainly a valid answer. Sugar by itself is not. Fat by itself is neither. Fat digests slowly, so for many hours the blood is "fatty" after eating a high fat meal. Fat in the blood makes the (muscle) cells less insulin sensitive, thus the sugar is not readily absorbed which leads to blood sugar spikes. Those spikes freak out the pancreas, which will try to push even more insulin into the blood. Eventually this (also) leads to type2.

taneq 8y ago

Well, that or HFCS.

beat 8y ago
HFCS is sugar for insulin purposes.
- taneq 8y ago
  I thought it was metabolised differently and/or used in greater concentrations, making it generally "badder". It's hard to find useful info because it's been seized upon by woo vendors but a quick search turned up these links: * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3649104/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3649104/ Huge and I haven't finished digesting it yet (hah) but seems to think overall that HFCS is equivalent to sucrose which would support your statement * https://www.webmd.com/heart/metabolic-syndrome/news/20090421/fresh-take-on-fructose-vs-glucose https://www.webmd.com/heart/metabolic-syndrome/news/20090421... suggests that fructose is worse than sucrose for promoting insulin dependence and other risk factors in obese people * https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/86/4/895/4649668 https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/86/4/895/4649668 suggests a range of differences in how they're metabolised which I guess could go either way All up it sounds like there might be some differences but it's not as much as I thought.
  - beat 8y ago
    Yeah, there's some differences due to different types of sugars, but for "bad for you" purposes, they're all basically alike. It's like blowing up a building with plastique instead of dynamite. Sure, plastique is technically worse, but the building is getting blown up either way. A lot of this boils down to marketing, as Michael Pollan describes so well. HFCS is a "science word" (and worse, a science/corporate word - there's nothing attractive-sounding about "high fructose corn syrup"), and a great deal of food woo comes from culturally anti-corporate feelings rather than any strong reasoning about biology. Don't eat the science words, they'll give you the autism cancer! It's especially absurd because HFCS is seen as an evil "agribusiness" product, yet somehow cane sugar is not, even though sugarcane is a far nastier business in many ways. Say what you will about corn, but at least it doesn't have a long history of slavery tied to it. And food manufacturers, sensitive to these abstract feelings, latch on to "real sugar" as opposed to evil HFCS, and encourage a belief that "real sugar" is "natural", while HFCS is "artificial" - a science word, full of science cancer. We live in a soup of marketing and nonsense. It's very hard to not be affected by omnipresent marketing campaigns that are carefully designed to manipulate our feelings rather than our reason.