12 ms·
60 minutes: Is sugar toxic?
- kolev 15y agoPretty much everything's toxic depending on the dosage. Salt, water (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication), and, of course, sugar.
- firefoxman1 15y agoI haven't finished watching this yet so maybe it will be stated, but cancer loves sugar. It's sort of like adding high-octane fuel to a car. It speeds up the process. That's the main reason I would (should, but don't) avoid sugar.
- dhughes 15y agoCancer loves insulin, going by the study on 60 Minutes . A better analogy would be adding nitrous oxide , if you added high octane fuel to a car that uses regular results in less power.
- city41 15y agoOne of the main points of the story is that sugar intake has increased dramatically in America. They talked about the reduction of fat in food, and manufacturers responded by replacing the fat with sugar. The point being that the average American now consumes sugar at "toxic" quantities (and of course, the word "toxic" was very much link bait). It's hard to deny America has an obesity and diabetes problem.
- kolev 15y agoSome people take the word "sugar" literary and switch to brown sugar, agave syrup, evaporated cane juice and so on, which aren't much better and some are actually worse. The only acceptable form of fructose is the one part of an organic fruit as you get the full complex of phytochemicals, not just the fructose. I'm really mad at the organics industry, which puts so much redundant "healthy" sugars in so many products.
- pyre 15y agoAgave syrup has the benefit of being vegan; normal refined sugar is processed with bone meal. People have various different reasons for wanting 'alternative' sugars. Attempting to move away from refined sugar because it's 'bad' is just one of them.
- jonah 15y agoAgave nectar is probably not that healthy either. It's highly processed and more akin to HFC than sugar.
- pyre 15y agoThe original post was lamenting the existence of products such as agave nectar as attempting to falsely lead people astray that are looking for alternatives to sugar, as a more 'healthier' choice. I posited a completely separate motivation that someone might have for choosing/using agave nectar (one that I might add does not necessarily have anything to do with being 'healthy'). The conversation is coming off like: Original Post: "People might choose agave nectar for <reason 1>, but it fails to deliver what they are attempting to do." Me: "Agave nectar doesn't exist just to satisfy people with <reason 1>. There are people that might choose it for <reason 2>." People seem to be attempting to 'rebut' me with, "BUT <REASON 1>!" I really don't understand it.
- jonah 15y agoYou're right and I apologize. I can't stand when people talk "past" each other in discussions/arguments. My comment was about Agave in general and not the particular aspect you spoke of. Aside 1: I'd heard that Agave wasn't that good nutritionally and did a quick search to clarify. The first piece I read was actually about how many people see Agave nectar as a raw food sweetener when in fact it is cooked at 250+ degrees for many hours to break down the starches into simpler fructose. Aside 2: To be fair, the original discussion was about health effects not the philosophical/moral considerations our our food choices.
- 15y ago
- kyasui 15y agoI'm a big fan of Alan Aragon, one of the country's leading experts on nutrition/health (in my and a lot of people's opinion). He did a pretty well informed takedown of Dr. Lustig's alarmist stance... check it out here and make up your own minds: http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/ http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-ab... http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/02/19/a-retrospective-of-the-fructose-alarmism-debate/ http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/02/19/a-retrospective-of-...
- tptacek 15y agoCompare: http://www.alanaragonblog.com/about/ http://www.alanaragonblog.com/about/ to: http://chc.ucsf.edu/coast/faculty_lustig.htm http://chc.ucsf.edu/coast/faculty_lustig.htm I'm not saying that's dispositive, but why exactly is Alan Aragon more credible than a medical doctor and UCSF clinical pediatrics professor?
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- kyasui 15y agoDefinitely can't argue with you there. Although AA's arguably the leader in his field, a top sports nutritionist going against any sort of deeply credentialed scientist/doctor is going to be put at a credibility disadvantage. I encourage you to read the two articles though and see what you think.
- teach 15y agoI've never heard of Alan Aragon, but he claims to have a master's degree in nutrition. That's a HELL of a lot more nutrition training than your average MD gets. I'm sure both have tons of post-degree self-study in nutrition, and that's virtually impossible to measure. The problem of quantifying levels of expertise is a hard one, especially in the world of nutrition.
- unabridged 15y ago
- blahedo 15y agoI'm betting on April Fools for this one, too.
- firefoxman1 15y agoI've concluded humor isn't allowed on HN. Seriously, why the downvotes?
- fragsworth 15y agoMost people don't go to HN to read jokes. That said, I've seen humor get upvoted, but it has to be pretty spectacular humor.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- atomical 15y agoThis one time I replicated Dave McClure style in verse. It was spectacular.
- alexqgb 15y agoI don't come to HN for jokes either, but I'm always surprised by the extent to which incidental displays of cleverness go over like farts in churches. I keep wondering if the people who feel compelled to police this stuff heavily also struggle to connect with "the normals" at work.
- corysama 15y agoIt has been observed that as online communities like HN grow, the signal-to-noise ratio falls on a progression that can be summarized as HN -> Reddit -> Digg. As we become more complacent regarding downvotes on well-written comments because we disagree or not downvoting witty fluff, HN slides farther and farther into the noise pit. No one yet knows how to permanently stave off the Diggnation of HN. But, in the mean time, it is worth trying to delay as much as possible.
- jcromartie 15y agoOf course it is. Why do you think preserved jams and jellies work? Bacteria love sugar as much as any other creature but it's a preservative in large quantities.
- sliverstorm 15y agoThat's because it acts as a desiccant, which is different from 'toxic'.
- jcromartie 15y agoI don't think it is much different. The definition of "toxic" is "poisonous", which is really anything that (chemically) damages an organism. Anything that interferes with a biological process is toxic, no matter if it's by dehydration or some other more complex mechanism.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- sliverstorm 15y agoThen let us please stop assigning such gravity to the word "toxic", as by your definition virtually anything can be considered toxic.
- secoif 15y agoAlso it should be pointed out that we aren't made of fruit. We preserve meat in salts, does that mean salt is toxic to us as well?
- ruethewhirled 15y agoHigh doses of salt is toxic
- Danieru 15y agoAs is water: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication
- noonespecial 15y agoMy boss, on my first job, whenever presented with any alarmist "study" of this nature would mumble: "If you feed a rat a boxcar of anything, it'll get cancer".
- ghurlman 15y agoThe crux of the piece, as I heard it, was that sugar is about as bad as fat when it comes to causes of heart disease and heart attacks, that HFCS is, in fact, worse than cane sugar because of the way the liver processes them, AND that the brain responds to sugar about the same way it does cocaine, and proves to be about as addictive. So, toxic might a little strong, but when the doctors that worked on these studies recommend no more than about 100g/day of added sugars in your diet, less than what's in a can of soda, "large quantities" may not mean what you think it means either.
- cowkingdeluxe 15y agoI thought there was about 40g of sugar per can of pop?
- mertd 15y agoThat seems about right: http://www.learnnc.org/lp/media/uploads/2010/07/coca-cola-label_crop.jpg http://www.learnnc.org/lp/media/uploads/2010/07/coca-cola-la...
- headShrinker 15y agoI think the piece said 'no more than 100 calores from sugar per day, less than that in a can of soda.'
- subwindow 15y ago
- y0ink 15y agoHere is Dr. Lustig's UCSF lecture, referenced in the 60 minutes piece: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM NYTimes article, same subject: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html?_r=2&ref=magazine https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.ht...
- ericssmith 15y agoHN threads on this topic already: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3781829 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3781829 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2443316 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2443316
- hoprocker 15y agoInteresting newsstory. Dr Lustig was also features on Science Friday a few months ago -- http://www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/201202172 http://www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/201202172 One concern of the doctor's that's somewhat glossed over is how fructose, unlike other sugars, is metabolized in the liver. His gripe here is partly with the glut of sugar in our diet, and partly how all of the sugars in a food product are lumped together on the nutrition label as "sugar", with no distinction between the different molecules.
- JeanPierre 15y agoAs a person who read about studies like these, how do I filter out the "real" studies versus the studies blown out of proportions? I've read Ben Goldacre's Bad Science (which I highly recommend), but I don't have the time to do much research on every study newspapers/other media come out with. Is there a simple way to find out whether this - or any other study, for that matter - is a study to take seriously?
- refurb 15y agoThere really isn't a simple way to find out if a study should be taken seriously or not. What you need to do is read the original literature and pay attention to the details. Bad studies are usually bad for a few reasons: 1. Bad experimental design. If you are testing hypothesis X, but your study design doesn't control for all the variables, then the data won't really tell you anything. For example, if you want to see if a high-fat diet increases the risk of cancer and you don't control for smoking or environmental exposure, your data is crap whether it supports or rejects your hypothesis. 2. Bad data. You may have a great experimental design, but if your data isn't strongly supportive of a conclusion, then it's a weak study. If we take the above example and compare a high-fat diet to a low-fat diet across 5 different group and 2 groups show no effect, 2 groups are right on the border of being statistically significant and one group is strongly positive, it doesn't really tell you anything. 3. Bad conclusions. The data says one thing, but the author goes ahead and concludes it means something else. You see this a LOT in bad science. Again if we take the above example, the data may strongly support that a high-fat diet is bad, but then the author goes ahead and says that all fats are bad. The data doesn't support this. This is sort of what the sugar-is-toxic studies do. Are diets that are hyper-caloric and have a high percentage of carbohydrates derived from simple sugars bad for you? Most likely. Should you actively try and exclude them from your diet? The answer to that is no (and the data doesn't support that conclusion). I was formally trained as a scientist, but no longer work in the lab, but the training on I got in designing experiments (be they in the lab or in marketing) has served me well in filtering out "crap" of all sorts.
- Kaizyn 15y agoYes, sugar is toxic. It was never found in a natural diet for humans in the high quantities it is now ingested by people. The two major effects it has on the body is: 1) simultaneously raising blood sugar levels while promoting insulin resistance when it is eaten, and 2) promoting the glycation process that badly affects metabolic processes. Do a google search on "Advanced Glycation End Products" (also called AGEs) for a better understanding of what exactly sugar does to you.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- sycren 15y agoWhat alternative would you suggest for high short term energy?
- carey 15y agoHepatic gluconogenesis?
- Hinrik 15y agoDoes there need to be an alternative? Using sugar for that purpose is fine.
- manmal 15y agoUnprocessed starch, as in brown rice or oat, or fructose (bananas etc.). Potatoes, white rice, and most fruits will give you an even shorter term energy boost, spiking your blood sugar more sharply. By sugar, people normally mean processed sugar; they do not mean starch or fructose found in vegetables or fruit.
- ubojan 15y agoEat natural fats - butter, coconut oil, animal fat (lard) and natural food with high fat content - bacon, eggs... You won't have energy ups-downs and you will feel strong and satisfied (drop sugar and flour).
- Kaizyn 15y ago
- dr_ 15y agoI've watched Dr. Lustig's video previously, and in general its the same principles touted by Gary Taubes, but I still find it dubious. You can look at your patient population and come up with a hypothesis that would make sense from a pure biochemistry perspective, but that's really no different than what the proponents of dietary fat as a cause of heart disease did. And since when is monitoring people in a controlled lab for a few weeks at a time (likely limiting their physical activity and who knows what kind of stress to the system having your blood drawn every 30 minutes induces) considered valid scientific research when it in no way exemplifies real world situations that people are exposed to. And sugar is apparently carcinogenic because it can cause an increase in baseline insulin levels as a response, which can drive glucose into potential tumor cells allowing them to grow. That's purely speculative, and very difficult to substantiate when there are so many other reasons for people to develop cancer: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/13/health/research/red-meat-linked-to-cancer-and-heart-disease.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/13/health/research/red-meat-l... Personally, I'm still convinced that a calorie is a calorie. And the reason we've been gaining weight, with greater incidence of heart disease, diabetes, etc. is that we simply consume too much food, perhaps too much processed food, but in general we just eat too much. So eat less, and the best way is to consume small portions of food multiple times a day instead of large meals with large gaps in between. Trust me, it works.
- Drbble 15y agoAnd also to eat low calorie per ounce of weight or volume, and slow digesting foods like ruffage to give the feeling of fullness.
- lukifer 15y agoIt's true that you don't lose weight without caloric deficit. But while a calorie equals a calorie, the body reacts differently to fast calories and slow calories: a steady supply of blood sugar, vs. spikes and troughs. This affects feedback loops of insulin, satiety, etc., prompting people to overeat. Side note: I'm really looking forward to future biofeedback tech. It'd be interesting to know my blood sugar level and heart rate at all times.
- 15y ago
- readme 15y agoTo you guys calling this alarmist, it's not. It has been known for a while: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM Most of the same dangers as alcohol.
- cinquemb 15y agoThey also compared it to crack on the show. I doubt the average crackhead would agree.
- readme 15y agoI think there's definitely a strong reward response when someone gets to have sugar. The thing that they are missing when comparing it to crack is that sugar withdrawal isn't that bad.
- kbronson 15y agoAs in all articles that have a question as title, the answer is "no".
- nosugar 15y agoI quit white sugar for some time and I am not sure if sugar is really toxic but I can say: - Coming through the day w/o white sugar is a completely different experience: no more downs (or "sugar crashs") through the day and work motivation is always up - These sugar crashs or downs can be severe especially if you are under stress; then the stress is multiplied which leads to depression and more white sugar consumption - Eating now fruits because of the fructose regularly, before I've never ate fruits (there was no reason because anything with white sugar was much sweeter and tastier than fruit) Now when I accidentally eat something containing white sugar I immediately "feel" the white sugar: my brain is getting a high like with alcohol or caffeine—it's a difference compared to fructose. It's a subtle feeling and you probably won't feel it if your are used to white sugar. Before I related the downs to the heavy lunch I had before, that I haven't slept well or that the work is just so boring, etc. Another observations regarding "white sugar could be drug": Look how many shelves with sweets you find a grocery store and compare the amount to other foods and with alcohol (where you usually find similar quantities).
- DanBC 15y agoPlease could someone help me unpick the numbers? > Americans are now consuming nearly 130 pounds of added sugars per person, per year. This sentence is so vague as to be almost meaningless. Assuming 311,600,000 Americans. I have no way of telling how many Americans are eating a "safe" level of sugar versus how many Americans are eating a "dangerous" level of sugar. 130 lb is nearly 60 kg - that's a remarkable amount of sugar. And if that's a mean then there are people eating considerably more than that. Scarily, the amount of added sugar has decreased (between 2000 and 2008) - (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db87.htm http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db87.htm) > Although the percent of daily calories derived from added sugars declined between 1999–2000 and 2007–2008 (2), consumption of added sugars remains high in the diets of Americans.
- JackdawX 15y agoActually, the 'average' (mean presumably) intake won't apply to you as an individual in any meaningful way. You'll have to try and monitor your daily diet, focusing on known high-sugar foods and most commonly consumed foods. This data is all over google, thanks for various consumer protection laws. Example: 60kg/365 = 164g per day sugar in a coke: 39g sugar in starbucks skinny latte: 13.2g / 17.5g / 22.9g (small->large) heinz ketchup: 23.7g / 100g etc. (Looking at that list, I probably hit 100g or more per day, even though I stopped adding sugar to my tea and coffee.)