7 ms·

Naming a learning platform "Sugar" is like naming a rehab clinic "Heroin"

voicedYoda 7y ago
Know your enemy?
maxharris 7y ago
It really is an irresponsible name. Sugar (and more specifically fructose) is easily the unhealthiest aspect of processed food: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjttsybt2NM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjttsybt2NM
- cies 7y ago
  Fructose usually comes as part of fruit. Fruit is extremely good food for humans (as long as you have not eaten fatty foods before it). Fructose also has the best ability to be absorbed by muscle cells without the need for insulin, compared to other sugars. I think you mean high-fructose syrup, which is not fructose but a glucose-fructose. Contains the same word but is verrrry different in health profile.
  - ObscureScience 7y ago
    I think you got it wrong. Fructose is more inflamatory than glucose (which is not good in high concentrations as well). Fructose-Glucose would be saccharine, the most common type of sugar extracted from cane and beet.
  - maxharris 7y ago
    > Fruit is extremely good food for humans It is most certainly not. The soluble and insoluble fiber in fruit is good for humans because it prevents rapid absorption of fructose, which is most definitely toxic. (Paracelsus was right when he said that the dose makes the poison! It just so happens that even small doses of fructose have an outsized impact on appetite.) Fructose is toxic because it is primarily metabolized by the liver. It has been shown to be at the root of overeating because of its effects on satiety signaling via leptin and ghrelin. > Fructose also has the best ability to be absorbed by muscle cells without the need for insulin, compared to other sugars. This is simply false. (Google it!) When used by an athlete after strenuous activity, it is true that fructose replenishes _glycogen_ in the liver, which is released as glucose, which muscle can use. But most people haven't just finished running a marathon when they gulp down a liter of Gatorade. So the effect 99% is to just fatten you up. I recommend a few educational videos to bring you up to speed on a great deal of science that has been discovered in the last 15 years or so. Dr. Lustig (endocrinologist at UCSF) lays it out: "Processed Food: An Experiment That Failed": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvgxNDuQ5DI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvgxNDuQ5DI "Fructose is a poison": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgTlFFWMNy0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgTlFFWMNy0 https://robertlustig.com/fructose-restriction/ https://robertlustig.com/fructose-restriction/ https://robertlustig.com/fructose2/ https://robertlustig.com/fructose2/
    - oil25 7y ago
      Fruit is absolutely healthy for humans - physiologically we are frugivorous apes, after all. Hence why nearly all evidence-based nutritional guidelines from all around the world encourage whole fruit consumption, as part of a diet with other whole plant foods like grains, legumes and vegetables. > gulp down a liter of Gatorade. So the effect 99% is to just fatten you up. This could not be further from the truth. Humans are notoriously inefficient at de novo lipogenesis - the process of turning sugar into fat. The myth that sugar causes weight gain (on its own, not accompanied by a high-fat diet) is just that - a myth. Not to say gulping down Gatorade is a good idea, but it isn't nearly as harmful as consuming a steak, or a stick of butter, when it comes to weight gain.
      - andrekandre 7y ago
        i was under the assumption that it was simple calories such as pasta/bread/rice/candies etc is that then not true? if not, what is the cause of weight gain?
        oil25 7y ago
        Fat has more calories and is more easily stored by the body than carbohydrates. Processed carbs, simple sugars give a greater rise in the hormone insulin, which basically puts fat into fat cells. It is not carbs' conversion to fat which causes weight gain, but their consumption in the presence of a high-fat diet.
        andrekandre 7y ago
        interesting... would that mean, it’s easier to gain fat by eating pasta + lots of olive oil vs pasta with just tomato sauce? (i have a terrible olive oil addiction ^_^)
        cies 7y ago
        Yes. In case both meals are calorically equal, yes. The excess in cals from carbs are only marginally turned into fat (lipogenesis is not something humans are good at) and thus the excess is mostly burnt up by heating your body a bit higher (forgot the scientific term for this). So the fat you eat is pretty much the fat you wear. If you eat fat and carbs together (almost everyone does that) then your body will choose to use the carbs energy directly and store the fat. As fat is good for long term storage (unlike carbs, that get stored as sugar for short term use in muscles and liver), and carbs not bee efficiently turned into fat (as mentioned) yet can very efficiently be stored.
- slothtrop 7y ago
  It leaves an impression that the portended motivation behind the platform is disingenuous.
- hevi_jos 7y ago
  It is not sugar per se. It is being able to concentrate and crystallize it and then eating it in a completely non natural way. Fructose in nature , on fruit, has lots od fiber(celulose), that makes release of sugar in the bloodstream slow, that is Glycemic Index low. Refined sugar on the other way, specially in dissolved water, like with milk, coffee or soda, release enormous amount of fructose in a very short amount of time. In nature, only honey does that. Refined sugar was a luxury until 200 years ago. US by the way produces the worst sugar of all, because it is not fructose, but something they could produce from corn, way cheaper than brown sugar that comes from tropical places.
guitarnick 7y ago
In half jest, how do you feel about "Slack" then? One can argue it makes the product more memorable.
- mobilefriendly 7y ago
  "Slack" has multiple meanings including nautical-- adding or cutting slack into a line, which gives it capability to do more...
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
  I don't use Slack, but from what I gather it's general slowness and the way it aids constant distraction means it is a pretty good productivity killer, so calling it 'Slack' is actually Truth in Television.
- kazinator 7y ago
  It's an aptly-named productivity distractor.
- rbanffy 7y ago
  Just like actual slack, it makes people less productive. Without the creative benefit of slacking. ;-)
the_common_man 7y ago
FWIW, I am indian, and sugar is never a bad thing in our culture. The firsts thing that comes to mind is just 'sweet'. It's got positive connotations for me.
- udkl 7y ago
  I don't think he meant sugar in the sense of being bad when he compared it to heroin. The comparison was to highlight the similarity of addictiveness of sugar in children and heroin in adults. Addictiveness isn't necessarily always bad. > and sugar is never a bad thing in our culture Sugar IS bad, scientifically speaking. I wouldn't be surprised if sugar is an important reason for the high levels of obesity and heart diseases in India. In the end, I think we need to move ahead from traditional values and selectively and logically think about the parts of our culture we want to retain.
autoexec 7y ago
Could be worse. Could have been called Corn-Syrup.

Know your enemy?

It really is an irresponsible name. Sugar (and more specifically fructose) is easily the unhealthiest aspect of processed food: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjttsybt2NM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjttsybt2NM

cies 7y ago
Fructose usually comes as part of fruit. Fruit is extremely good food for humans (as long as you have not eaten fatty foods before it). Fructose also has the best ability to be absorbed by muscle cells without the need for insulin, compared to other sugars. I think you mean high-fructose syrup, which is not fructose but a glucose-fructose. Contains the same word but is verrrry different in health profile.
- ObscureScience 7y ago
  I think you got it wrong. Fructose is more inflamatory than glucose (which is not good in high concentrations as well). Fructose-Glucose would be saccharine, the most common type of sugar extracted from cane and beet.
- maxharris 7y ago
  > Fruit is extremely good food for humans It is most certainly not. The soluble and insoluble fiber in fruit is good for humans because it prevents rapid absorption of fructose, which is most definitely toxic. (Paracelsus was right when he said that the dose makes the poison! It just so happens that even small doses of fructose have an outsized impact on appetite.) Fructose is toxic because it is primarily metabolized by the liver. It has been shown to be at the root of overeating because of its effects on satiety signaling via leptin and ghrelin. > Fructose also has the best ability to be absorbed by muscle cells without the need for insulin, compared to other sugars. This is simply false. (Google it!) When used by an athlete after strenuous activity, it is true that fructose replenishes _glycogen_ in the liver, which is released as glucose, which muscle can use. But most people haven't just finished running a marathon when they gulp down a liter of Gatorade. So the effect 99% is to just fatten you up. I recommend a few educational videos to bring you up to speed on a great deal of science that has been discovered in the last 15 years or so. Dr. Lustig (endocrinologist at UCSF) lays it out: "Processed Food: An Experiment That Failed": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvgxNDuQ5DI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvgxNDuQ5DI "Fructose is a poison": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgTlFFWMNy0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgTlFFWMNy0 https://robertlustig.com/fructose-restriction/ https://robertlustig.com/fructose-restriction/ https://robertlustig.com/fructose2/ https://robertlustig.com/fructose2/
  - oil25 7y ago
    Fruit is absolutely healthy for humans - physiologically we are frugivorous apes, after all. Hence why nearly all evidence-based nutritional guidelines from all around the world encourage whole fruit consumption, as part of a diet with other whole plant foods like grains, legumes and vegetables. > gulp down a liter of Gatorade. So the effect 99% is to just fatten you up. This could not be further from the truth. Humans are notoriously inefficient at de novo lipogenesis - the process of turning sugar into fat. The myth that sugar causes weight gain (on its own, not accompanied by a high-fat diet) is just that - a myth. Not to say gulping down Gatorade is a good idea, but it isn't nearly as harmful as consuming a steak, or a stick of butter, when it comes to weight gain.
    - andrekandre 7y ago
      i was under the assumption that it was simple calories such as pasta/bread/rice/candies etc is that then not true? if not, what is the cause of weight gain?
      - oil25 7y ago
        Fat has more calories and is more easily stored by the body than carbohydrates. Processed carbs, simple sugars give a greater rise in the hormone insulin, which basically puts fat into fat cells. It is not carbs' conversion to fat which causes weight gain, but their consumption in the presence of a high-fat diet.
        andrekandre 7y ago
        interesting... would that mean, it’s easier to gain fat by eating pasta + lots of olive oil vs pasta with just tomato sauce? (i have a terrible olive oil addiction ^_^)
        cies 7y ago
        Yes. In case both meals are calorically equal, yes. The excess in cals from carbs are only marginally turned into fat (lipogenesis is not something humans are good at) and thus the excess is mostly burnt up by heating your body a bit higher (forgot the scientific term for this). So the fat you eat is pretty much the fat you wear. If you eat fat and carbs together (almost everyone does that) then your body will choose to use the carbs energy directly and store the fat. As fat is good for long term storage (unlike carbs, that get stored as sugar for short term use in muscles and liver), and carbs not bee efficiently turned into fat (as mentioned) yet can very efficiently be stored.
slothtrop 7y ago
It leaves an impression that the portended motivation behind the platform is disingenuous.
hevi_jos 7y ago
It is not sugar per se. It is being able to concentrate and crystallize it and then eating it in a completely non natural way. Fructose in nature , on fruit, has lots od fiber(celulose), that makes release of sugar in the bloodstream slow, that is Glycemic Index low. Refined sugar on the other way, specially in dissolved water, like with milk, coffee or soda, release enormous amount of fructose in a very short amount of time. In nature, only honey does that. Refined sugar was a luxury until 200 years ago. US by the way produces the worst sugar of all, because it is not fructose, but something they could produce from corn, way cheaper than brown sugar that comes from tropical places.

guitarnick 7y ago

In half jest, how do you feel about "Slack" then? One can argue it makes the product more memorable.

mobilefriendly 7y ago
"Slack" has multiple meanings including nautical-- adding or cutting slack into a line, which gives it capability to do more...
AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
I don't use Slack, but from what I gather it's general slowness and the way it aids constant distraction means it is a pretty good productivity killer, so calling it 'Slack' is actually Truth in Television.
kazinator 7y ago
It's an aptly-named productivity distractor.
rbanffy 7y ago
Just like actual slack, it makes people less productive. Without the creative benefit of slacking. ;-)

the_common_man 7y ago

FWIW, I am indian, and sugar is never a bad thing in our culture. The firsts thing that comes to mind is just 'sweet'. It's got positive connotations for me.

udkl 7y ago
I don't think he meant sugar in the sense of being bad when he compared it to heroin. The comparison was to highlight the similarity of addictiveness of sugar in children and heroin in adults. Addictiveness isn't necessarily always bad. > and sugar is never a bad thing in our culture Sugar IS bad, scientifically speaking. I wouldn't be surprised if sugar is an important reason for the high levels of obesity and heart diseases in India. In the end, I think we need to move ahead from traditional values and selectively and logically think about the parts of our culture we want to retain.

autoexec 7y ago

Could be worse. Could have been called Corn-Syrup.