5 ms·

All carbohydrates eventually break down into sugars. Some quite a bit faster than others. What people and scientists haven't been saying in any meaningful way

All carbohydrates eventually break down into sugars. Some quite a bit faster than others. What people and scientists haven't been saying in any meaningful way is the truth that carbohydrate poisoning is a real thing. If you eat too much, its harmful. Its common knowledge that medicines may become poisons when taken in too high amounts. This applies to most things in this area. Protein poisoning is fairly easily discovered in the scientific literature, why isn't carbohydrate poisoning? Its a conundrum.

fwip 2y ago
Scientists aren't saying it because it's not true.
hombre_fatal 2y ago
You don't think the scientific literature has anything to say about sugar surplus or junk food surplus? Carbohydrate poisoning sounds nonsensical though. Too many potatoes and whole grains, for example, aren't poisoning you. More people should be replacing junk food with those things. It's just a fad to use "carbs" as a euphemism for "junk food" and it only further confuses the discourse about nutrition.
- bityard 2y ago
  I've noticed that people who want to deny that the extremely high carbohydrate content of the typical western diet is the major factor for runaway rates of diabetes and cardiovascular disease like to label the "bad" food as "junk food" or "ultra-processed food." But we never get an explanation from them as to what exactly is IN the junk food or ultra-processed food that causes the disease.
  - hombre_fatal 2y ago
    Well, I can answer that. It's not always about a certain boogeyman inside it, but whether it makes it easy to overeat and whether it pays its rent in nutritional content. Consider potato chips. Even if they have zero saturated fat, the issue most people have with them is that they are hyperpalatable and low nutritional value compared to their calorie density. Combine fat and salt and certain textures, and we can't stop ourselves. Trying to blame a macronutrient like carbs doesn't make much sense to me. Add in bad ingredients like saturated fat and the problem becomes multifaceted, but it's not necessary for individual ingredients to be bad for us for a food to have its downsides.
    - pixl97 2y ago
      The total lack of fiber isn't helping us either. Fiber fills you up and takes much longer to digest sating a person for longer.
    - thereisnospork 2y ago
      Your comment kind of illustrates his point though, there's a complete lack of mechanistic empiricism[0] in the discussion of nutrition. What is the metric for 'eas[iness] to overeat and whether it pays its rent in nutritional content.'? I agree with the premise, but it is ill-defined. e.g. consider: A baked potato, with salt and butter vs. an equivalent weight of potato chips. They are essentially identical post-mastication, except one is 'junk food' and 'ultra-processed' and the other is quintessential home cooking. What system do I use to rank them if they are in fact not identical? [0] What (or combination of whats) at a structural/chemical level in a food causes the harm, and by what biochemical/psychological/psychosomatic pathway(s) does said harm occur?
      - ifyoubuildit 2y ago
        Re: mechanistic empiricism, I don't know if you're doing this, but it seems that some people have this mindset that if you can't tell me specifically how X is bad for you, then I have to assume it is not harmful by default, even if it's a thing that is relatively novel. I find myself leaning heavily in the other direction these days. If it's not something that has a long history and (I'm not already dying anyway), I'll pass. If I lose out on some benefits because of that, so be it.
        parineum 2y ago
        As far as diet is concerned, I'm very much in the camp of you do what works best for you. However, if you choose to give advice to a wide audience (rather than saying what works for you), I think one should have some idea of why their advice is good.
        thereisnospork 2y ago
        >if you can't tell me specifically how X is bad for youthen I have to assume it is not harmful by default Speaking for myself, its a matter of how my brain works. Setting aside rational considerations like cost-benefit analysis or Bayesian likelihoods: if there isn't a generalizable logic to 'what (is harmful)' and 'how (it is)' I just get a 404. It's not that I don't (or do) believe potatoes chips are harmful it's that the e.g. statement 'ultra-processed foods are bad for you' is literally devoid of meaning. Might as well be baby-speak. As such, any attempt to incorporate that information[0] into my decision making process goes nowhere: I can't categorize a food as to it's degree of ultra processed-ness nor can I assess whether another foods/foods/etc might cause harm like UPF's are purported to do. Ergo: no basis for a behavioral modification, no new pros or cons to weigh. [0]not even getting into the reliability of e.g. a paper's conclusions
  - Anotheroneagain 2y ago
    It isn't extremely high. I have no idea what you imagine that people used to eat. The typical pre 20th century diet was near 100% carbohydrate based, most people ate meat once a weak, if at all, and fat was scarce. The now typical meat-with-every-dish diet is a post WW2 development. But we never get an explanation from them as to what exactly is IN the junk food or ultra-processed food that causes the disease. You don't get it, because 1. there is something VERY CLEARLY wrong with it, and 2. what is wrong with it is at odds with what is hammered into them over and over.
- trod1234 2y ago
  > You don't think the scientific literature has anything to say about sugar surplus or junk food surplus? No, I know it does, but it doesn't properly communicate the relationship with correct words, where other related subjects do. Instead it dances about with a disconnection, I would guess because of the sugar and health industry lobby. The medical definition of poisoning is generally defined as injury or death due to swallowing, inhaling, touching or injecting of various substances. Disease can be considered as an injury when it refers to a condition that develops gradually over time due to repeated exposure or stressors. > Carbohydrate poisoning sounds nonsensical though Carbohydrates are in the potatoes, but are not the potatoes. There are contextual limits when you associate specific things into a unique word definition, potatoes (unless green, or unsafely handled), would not be poisonous because they have a finite amount of components that our bodies can handle, and it would be quite hard if not impossible to eat sufficient amounts given biological limits and rates inherent in structure. A concentrated chemical solution of simple carbohydrates in reduced liquid form that absorbs more quickly than your pancreas can handle on the other hand would be different. When you exceed safe operating limits, this can cause injury, and that may show up, or present as symptoms of disease. I would have responded sooner but apparently when posts get downvoted, it automatically applies a strict QoS filter that won't let the poster respond at all. Not a very reasonable thing to do for a rational-minded community, for something as tame as what I said. That system structure almost always trends eventually towards collectivist sock-puppetry opinion with the mob silencing others based solely on individual mass hallucination. Not very scientific, and at the same time eliminates requirements needed for intelligent thoughts. In order to learn you must be able to risk being offended. In order to think, you must be able to risk being offensive. In order to share the benefits of either broadly, you must be able to communicate. Without these inherent strengths skewing towards survival, its just a matter of time and circumstance before losing the fight against extinction.
  - bruce511 2y ago
    I'm very much in the "reduce carbs" camp. Long-term high carb intake leads to many health issues, and reductions lead to improvements. I'm not sure that science is behind on this (there's plenty of literature on the topic) but man-in-the-street understanding seems to be behind. The concept that sugar leads to diabetes is not exactly news at 11. But articles like this are helpful in moving the popular mindset. Personally though I'd avoid the term "poison". Mostly because it's a very long-term effect, whereas people use "poison" in general usage more as a short term thing (rat poison versus feeding rats carbs till they get diabetes). Secondly calling it "poison" is far outside normal understanding and so you become the "nutter" in the conversation. Which then devalues the valid points you have to make. I say this as someone in your camp. While your body certainly needs some carbohydrates its safe to assume everyone is getting enough. Nobody needs sugar though, and removing as much of that as possible from daily diet will have big impacts in the long term. For me that doesn't mean 'never sugar'. It means cake at celebrations, ice-cream once a month, eating "normally" when at restaurants (which is probably less than once a month) and so on. The goal is not to be "perfect" the goal is to improve one step at a time. Coffee without sugar? Check. No daily, or weekly, sugar sodas or fruit juice? Check. And so on. Small changes introduced slowly over time become the new normal, and that leads to sustained improvements.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
nonameiguess 2y ago
Protein poisoning happens because your body has a limited capacity to process protein. It's very high and you're unlikely to hit it, but it's happened to people living off the land and eating nothing but lean meat. Carbohydate processing is not inherently rate-limited like that. How much you need is dictated by how much you use. Even the stated numbers here about 9 weekly 8 oz drinks with 50 kcals or more per serving is comically miniscule compared to what is ingested with no ill effects by any serious endurance athlete who actually needs and uses that much energy. Carbohydrate only has a deleterious effect when you ingest more than you use, which is not characteristic of a poison.

fwip 2y ago

Scientists aren't saying it because it's not true.

hombre_fatal 2y ago

You don't think the scientific literature has anything to say about sugar surplus or junk food surplus? Carbohydrate poisoning sounds nonsensical though. Too many potatoes and whole grains, for example, aren't poisoning you. More people should be replacing junk food with those things. It's just a fad to use "carbs" as a euphemism for "junk food" and it only further confuses the discourse about nutrition.

bityard 2y ago
I've noticed that people who want to deny that the extremely high carbohydrate content of the typical western diet is the major factor for runaway rates of diabetes and cardiovascular disease like to label the "bad" food as "junk food" or "ultra-processed food." But we never get an explanation from them as to what exactly is IN the junk food or ultra-processed food that causes the disease.
- hombre_fatal 2y ago
  Well, I can answer that. It's not always about a certain boogeyman inside it, but whether it makes it easy to overeat and whether it pays its rent in nutritional content. Consider potato chips. Even if they have zero saturated fat, the issue most people have with them is that they are hyperpalatable and low nutritional value compared to their calorie density. Combine fat and salt and certain textures, and we can't stop ourselves. Trying to blame a macronutrient like carbs doesn't make much sense to me. Add in bad ingredients like saturated fat and the problem becomes multifaceted, but it's not necessary for individual ingredients to be bad for us for a food to have its downsides.
  - pixl97 2y ago
    The total lack of fiber isn't helping us either. Fiber fills you up and takes much longer to digest sating a person for longer.
  - thereisnospork 2y ago
    Your comment kind of illustrates his point though, there's a complete lack of mechanistic empiricism[0] in the discussion of nutrition. What is the metric for 'eas[iness] to overeat and whether it pays its rent in nutritional content.'? I agree with the premise, but it is ill-defined. e.g. consider: A baked potato, with salt and butter vs. an equivalent weight of potato chips. They are essentially identical post-mastication, except one is 'junk food' and 'ultra-processed' and the other is quintessential home cooking. What system do I use to rank them if they are in fact not identical? [0] What (or combination of whats) at a structural/chemical level in a food causes the harm, and by what biochemical/psychological/psychosomatic pathway(s) does said harm occur?
    - ifyoubuildit 2y ago
      Re: mechanistic empiricism, I don't know if you're doing this, but it seems that some people have this mindset that if you can't tell me specifically how X is bad for you, then I have to assume it is not harmful by default, even if it's a thing that is relatively novel. I find myself leaning heavily in the other direction these days. If it's not something that has a long history and (I'm not already dying anyway), I'll pass. If I lose out on some benefits because of that, so be it.
      - parineum 2y ago
        As far as diet is concerned, I'm very much in the camp of you do what works best for you. However, if you choose to give advice to a wide audience (rather than saying what works for you), I think one should have some idea of why their advice is good.
      - thereisnospork 2y ago
        >if you can't tell me specifically how X is bad for youthen I have to assume it is not harmful by default Speaking for myself, its a matter of how my brain works. Setting aside rational considerations like cost-benefit analysis or Bayesian likelihoods: if there isn't a generalizable logic to 'what (is harmful)' and 'how (it is)' I just get a 404. It's not that I don't (or do) believe potatoes chips are harmful it's that the e.g. statement 'ultra-processed foods are bad for you' is literally devoid of meaning. Might as well be baby-speak. As such, any attempt to incorporate that information[0] into my decision making process goes nowhere: I can't categorize a food as to it's degree of ultra processed-ness nor can I assess whether another foods/foods/etc might cause harm like UPF's are purported to do. Ergo: no basis for a behavioral modification, no new pros or cons to weigh. [0]not even getting into the reliability of e.g. a paper's conclusions
- Anotheroneagain 2y ago
  It isn't extremely high. I have no idea what you imagine that people used to eat. The typical pre 20th century diet was near 100% carbohydrate based, most people ate meat once a weak, if at all, and fat was scarce. The now typical meat-with-every-dish diet is a post WW2 development. But we never get an explanation from them as to what exactly is IN the junk food or ultra-processed food that causes the disease. You don't get it, because 1. there is something VERY CLEARLY wrong with it, and 2. what is wrong with it is at odds with what is hammered into them over and over.
trod1234 2y ago
> You don't think the scientific literature has anything to say about sugar surplus or junk food surplus? No, I know it does, but it doesn't properly communicate the relationship with correct words, where other related subjects do. Instead it dances about with a disconnection, I would guess because of the sugar and health industry lobby. The medical definition of poisoning is generally defined as injury or death due to swallowing, inhaling, touching or injecting of various substances. Disease can be considered as an injury when it refers to a condition that develops gradually over time due to repeated exposure or stressors. > Carbohydrate poisoning sounds nonsensical though Carbohydrates are in the potatoes, but are not the potatoes. There are contextual limits when you associate specific things into a unique word definition, potatoes (unless green, or unsafely handled), would not be poisonous because they have a finite amount of components that our bodies can handle, and it would be quite hard if not impossible to eat sufficient amounts given biological limits and rates inherent in structure. A concentrated chemical solution of simple carbohydrates in reduced liquid form that absorbs more quickly than your pancreas can handle on the other hand would be different. When you exceed safe operating limits, this can cause injury, and that may show up, or present as symptoms of disease. I would have responded sooner but apparently when posts get downvoted, it automatically applies a strict QoS filter that won't let the poster respond at all. Not a very reasonable thing to do for a rational-minded community, for something as tame as what I said. That system structure almost always trends eventually towards collectivist sock-puppetry opinion with the mob silencing others based solely on individual mass hallucination. Not very scientific, and at the same time eliminates requirements needed for intelligent thoughts. In order to learn you must be able to risk being offended. In order to think, you must be able to risk being offensive. In order to share the benefits of either broadly, you must be able to communicate. Without these inherent strengths skewing towards survival, its just a matter of time and circumstance before losing the fight against extinction.
- bruce511 2y ago
  I'm very much in the "reduce carbs" camp. Long-term high carb intake leads to many health issues, and reductions lead to improvements. I'm not sure that science is behind on this (there's plenty of literature on the topic) but man-in-the-street understanding seems to be behind. The concept that sugar leads to diabetes is not exactly news at 11. But articles like this are helpful in moving the popular mindset. Personally though I'd avoid the term "poison". Mostly because it's a very long-term effect, whereas people use "poison" in general usage more as a short term thing (rat poison versus feeding rats carbs till they get diabetes). Secondly calling it "poison" is far outside normal understanding and so you become the "nutter" in the conversation. Which then devalues the valid points you have to make. I say this as someone in your camp. While your body certainly needs some carbohydrates its safe to assume everyone is getting enough. Nobody needs sugar though, and removing as much of that as possible from daily diet will have big impacts in the long term. For me that doesn't mean 'never sugar'. It means cake at celebrations, ice-cream once a month, eating "normally" when at restaurants (which is probably less than once a month) and so on. The goal is not to be "perfect" the goal is to improve one step at a time. Coffee without sugar? Check. No daily, or weekly, sugar sodas or fruit juice? Check. And so on. Small changes introduced slowly over time become the new normal, and that leads to sustained improvements.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

nonameiguess 2y ago

Protein poisoning happens because your body has a limited capacity to process protein. It's very high and you're unlikely to hit it, but it's happened to people living off the land and eating nothing but lean meat. Carbohydate processing is not inherently rate-limited like that. How much you need is dictated by how much you use. Even the stated numbers here about 9 weekly 8 oz drinks with 50 kcals or more per serving is comically miniscule compared to what is ingested with no ill effects by any serious endurance athlete who actually needs and uses that much energy. Carbohydrate only has a deleterious effect when you ingest more than you use, which is not characteristic of a poison.