5 ms·

I think you can make a solid case that, for most people, fructose and therefore sucrose is bad in any significant quantity. Sure, fructose can help replenish l

I think you can make a solid case that, for most people, fructose and therefore sucrose is bad in any significant quantity. Sure, fructose can help replenish liver energy stores if you're an athlete, but most people aren't.

renewiltord 6y ago
This always confused me. Why does the WHO only have guidelines on "added sugar", why not all sugar? Based on a naive reading of things, I removed fruit from my diet as well, but that's against WHO guidelines: I used to eat like 3 Fuji/Envy a day (haha).
- bellyfullofbac 6y ago
  I remember reading a news story that an international organization (in my memory it was the UN) wanted to issue a warning about all sugar, but the US government representatives lobbied hard for the wording to be changed, because of the US food industry. Sadly I once tried to refind this story by googling but couldn't find it again, so I might as well be screaming, "the second coming is nigh!"
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    It's got to be either this or some sort of absorption mechanism with fiber+fructose, right? I've heard the following few, but I have no evidence: * The lobbying thing * That fiber gets you full so you don't eat as much fructose * That fiber modifies the absorption process
    - andi999 6y ago
      Then juice, especially orange juice should be as bad as sugar (which I think it is).
    - nextos 6y ago
      It's really well known that fiber interacts with the gut microbiome and the immune system. There's at least a decade of mainstream publications backing up that fiber helps inducing regulatory T cells. These are needed to avoid inflammation.
knuthsat 6y ago
This is not true. The Robert Lustig scaremongering is a big lie. In his talk he mentions the healthy Japanese but he does not mention that they eat more calories from fructose (in percentage of their consumed calories) than USA citizens yet are healthier. Similarly how people stand against epidemiology they should stand against demonizing single ingredients. Apple, by Lustig's opinion, is the worst fruit there is but he will never, in a scientific study, demonstrate the ill-effects of consuming apples, while another group consumes the same equivalent amount of raw fructose extract.
- fnord77 6y ago
  https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338016768/figure/fig2/AS:839228233613324@1577099011826/Association-between-high-fructose-corn-syrup-and-obesity-in-the-United-States-69.png https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338016768/figure/fi...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- cycrutchfield 6y ago
  Why are you mischaracterizing Lustig's position? https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/31/making-the-case-for-eating-fruit/ https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/31/making-the-case-fo... >Another nutrition expert, Dr. Robert Lustig, a professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco, who has called sugar “toxic” at high doses and fructose the most “actionable” problem in our diet, is still a fan of fruit. “As far as I’m concerned, fiber is the reason to eat fruit,” since it promotes satiety and the slow release of sugar.
  - knuthsat 6y ago
    I'm not. Fruit isn't apple. Apple is fruit with massive amounts of fructose.
- deepnotderp 6y ago
  Fruits are metabolized very differently than their extracted sugar content though
skohan 6y ago
Yes exactly. Sugar should probably be placed in the same category as alcohol in terms of health consideration. It's fine to enjoy in moderation, but fundamentally toxic. Less acutely toxic than alcohol, but more strongly habit-forming.
- sachdevap 6y ago
  Sugar is not fundamentally toxic. This is a very poor conclusion to draw, and even more so when, as someone else suggested, expanding this to all carbs. Glucose is used in IV drips, and in emergency conditions, providing someone with glucose and electrolytes can prevent them from passing out.
  - cycrutchfield 6y ago
    When people say sugar they are generally referring to sucrose. When they say that sugar is toxic, it's not because it's broken down into glucose, it's because it is also broken down into fructose. The metabolism of fructose is somewhat analogous to that of ethanol. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3649103/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3649103/
    - parineum 6y ago
      > The metabolism of fructose is somewhat analogous to that of ethanol. Does that mean it's toxic?
      - knuthsat 6y ago
        Of course not, because that study analyzes concentrates and not natural source of fructose. Eating the equivalent amount of fructose used in those studies in fruit will never get you similar effects to ethanol. These studies are interesting but vacuous.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  I would go ahead and throw all carbs in there with the level of inactivity among most of the population.

renewiltord 6y ago

This always confused me. Why does the WHO only have guidelines on "added sugar", why not all sugar? Based on a naive reading of things, I removed fruit from my diet as well, but that's against WHO guidelines: I used to eat like 3 Fuji/Envy a day (haha).

bellyfullofbac 6y ago
I remember reading a news story that an international organization (in my memory it was the UN) wanted to issue a warning about all sugar, but the US government representatives lobbied hard for the wording to be changed, because of the US food industry. Sadly I once tried to refind this story by googling but couldn't find it again, so I might as well be screaming, "the second coming is nigh!"
- renewiltord 6y ago
  It's got to be either this or some sort of absorption mechanism with fiber+fructose, right? I've heard the following few, but I have no evidence: * The lobbying thing * That fiber gets you full so you don't eat as much fructose * That fiber modifies the absorption process
  - andi999 6y ago
    Then juice, especially orange juice should be as bad as sugar (which I think it is).
  - nextos 6y ago
    It's really well known that fiber interacts with the gut microbiome and the immune system. There's at least a decade of mainstream publications backing up that fiber helps inducing regulatory T cells. These are needed to avoid inflammation.

knuthsat 6y ago

This is not true. The Robert Lustig scaremongering is a big lie. In his talk he mentions the healthy Japanese but he does not mention that they eat more calories from fructose (in percentage of their consumed calories) than USA citizens yet are healthier. Similarly how people stand against epidemiology they should stand against demonizing single ingredients. Apple, by Lustig's opinion, is the worst fruit there is but he will never, in a scientific study, demonstrate the ill-effects of consuming apples, while another group consumes the same equivalent amount of raw fructose extract.

fnord77 6y ago
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338016768/figure/fig2/AS:839228233613324@1577099011826/Association-between-high-fructose-corn-syrup-and-obesity-in-the-United-States-69.png https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338016768/figure/fi...
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
cycrutchfield 6y ago
Why are you mischaracterizing Lustig's position? https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/31/making-the-case-for-eating-fruit/ https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/31/making-the-case-fo... >Another nutrition expert, Dr. Robert Lustig, a professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco, who has called sugar “toxic” at high doses and fructose the most “actionable” problem in our diet, is still a fan of fruit. “As far as I’m concerned, fiber is the reason to eat fruit,” since it promotes satiety and the slow release of sugar.
- knuthsat 6y ago
  I'm not. Fruit isn't apple. Apple is fruit with massive amounts of fructose.
deepnotderp 6y ago
Fruits are metabolized very differently than their extracted sugar content though

skohan 6y ago

Yes exactly. Sugar should probably be placed in the same category as alcohol in terms of health consideration. It's fine to enjoy in moderation, but fundamentally toxic. Less acutely toxic than alcohol, but more strongly habit-forming.

sachdevap 6y ago
Sugar is not fundamentally toxic. This is a very poor conclusion to draw, and even more so when, as someone else suggested, expanding this to all carbs. Glucose is used in IV drips, and in emergency conditions, providing someone with glucose and electrolytes can prevent them from passing out.
- cycrutchfield 6y ago
  When people say sugar they are generally referring to sucrose. When they say that sugar is toxic, it's not because it's broken down into glucose, it's because it is also broken down into fructose. The metabolism of fructose is somewhat analogous to that of ethanol. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3649103/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3649103/
  - parineum 6y ago
    > The metabolism of fructose is somewhat analogous to that of ethanol. Does that mean it's toxic?
    - knuthsat 6y ago
      Of course not, because that study analyzes concentrates and not natural source of fructose. Eating the equivalent amount of fructose used in those studies in fruit will never get you similar effects to ethanol. These studies are interesting but vacuous.
lotsofpulp 6y ago
I would go ahead and throw all carbs in there with the level of inactivity among most of the population.