5 ms·

Bacteria (and your body) like sugar because it’s an easy to use fuel source. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with having reasonable amounts of sugar in your di

Bacteria (and your body) like sugar because it’s an easy to use fuel source. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with having reasonable amounts of sugar in your diet.

parasti 11mo ago
"Eating sugar" and "reasonable amounts of sugar in your diet" are two very different things.
- iamacyborg 11mo ago
  Sure, but like literally anything else, the dose makes the poison.
PeterStuer 11mo ago
As a European visitong the US, I am constantly amazed at how there is masses of sugar added to 'normal' food over there. You take a bite expecting a certain flavour, and go wtf did someone glace this with caramel or drop some candy in the flour mix?
naIak 11mo ago
There’s no reasonable amount of sugar, unless there’s fibre to go with it. Sugar by itself (ie refined sugar) is a poison.
- iamacyborg 11mo ago
  What kind of content are you looking at to believe nonsense like that?
  - madaxe_again 11mo ago
    Apparently very popular content - a parent at my kid’s kindergarten wanted to make cake for their kids birthday, said they’d only use 1 tsp of honey in the whole thing. Cue universal freak out in the parents’ WhatsApp group. Apparently, sugar: - causes cancer - causes autism - causes hyperactivity - causes blindness - makes children indolent and lazy - will permanently ruin a child if they even look at it It’s weird, IMO. I let my kiddo have sugar within reason, and somehow she’s leaner than any of the other kids in her class, who even already have rotten teeth at two, despite their sugar free diets. They feed them simple carbs almost exclusively, and are oblivious to amylase. Perhaps it’s because she’s physically active - the rest of her cohort are pretty much forbidden from walking or running as those pose risks, and children must be sheltered from all conceivable risk so that they grow up into independent and capable adults. I would argue that that - physical activity - is far more important than what you shove in your face. There have been repeatedly, credibly and demonstrably shown to be significant benefits to not spending your entire life sitting on your ass - but I guess it’s harder to get off your ass than to proselytise about sugar being an evil and artificial harmful chemical that has no place in the human body - despite it literally being what we run off of.
    - aldarion 11mo ago
      "I would argue that that - physical activity - is far more important than what you shove in your face." No, it bloody is not. I used to drive a bicycle for 6 - 12 hours ever day while working in the delivery. I also didn't watch what I was eating. I ended up getting fat and with haemorrhoids. So I had to quit cycling. Then I spend some time (years actually) researching and slowly improving my diet. Result? I lost weight, my haemorrhoids (and several other health issues) stopped acting up, and I am overall much healthier despite most of my physical activity being walking. Yes, exercise is important. But it won't help you if you eat massive amounts of garbage food. So stop talking stuff you have no clue about. Also, we do not "run off of" sugar. Human body can run off sugar, or fat, or a combination of these. And argument could be made that running off fat is actually healthier. Body can in fact produce all sugar it needs with absolutely zero need for dietary sugar (note that doesn't mean you should go zero carb, just that carbs / sugars are not a metabolic necessity). As for this: "who even already have rotten teeth at two, despite their sugar free diets. They feed them simple carbs almost exclusively, and are oblivious to amylase." Uhh... carbs ARE sugars. It literally doesn't matter that you are avoiding "sugar" if you end up eating bread instead.
      - madaxe_again 11mo ago
        Sugars are carbohydrates. Carbohydrates are not sugars.
        Noaidi 11mo ago
        "A carbohydrate (/ˌkɑːrboʊˈhaɪdreɪt/) is a sugar" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbohydrate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbohydrate
        madaxe_again 11mo ago
        “Or a sugar derivative” Great selective quoting. 10/10.
      - watwut 11mo ago
  - jodrellblank 11mo ago
    Long before RFK Jr said it recently, Dr Robert Lustig, paediatric endocrinologist, went viral about 15 years ago with a video "Sugar: The bitter truth"[1] and book and talk slots following on from it. Gary Taubes, who became widely known for researching tons of studies on diet and coining the saying "eat food, not too much, mostly plants". Food meaning unprocessed stuff your (great great) grandma would recognise as food, wrote an NY Times article agreeing with it. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM [2] https://removepaywalls.com/https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html https://removepaywalls.com/https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/1...
Ekaros 11mo ago
What is the reasonable amount? Could it be less than we currently have in many diets?
- iamacyborg 11mo ago
  Less than the average American diet, probably. Less than other diets? It depends.
aldarion 11mo ago
Reasonable amount being whatever you get from an occasional fruit snack. Not whatever we have in the modern / food pyramid diet.
somenameforme 11mo ago
The catch is that the body likes lots of things that are awful for it. For instance drug abuse isn't limited to humans - some bears have gotten addicted to huffing gas to get high. [1] Quite cute if it wasn't so awful! The big issue is that in modern times a whole bunch of things are going wrong - testosterone levels (adjusted for health/bmi/age) are declining, IQ is declining [2], basically every single psychological disorder is skyrocketing, and much more. And the reason why isn't clear. So the most likely reason is that we're doing what humanity has done repeatedly and endlessly throughout history and likely accidentally poisoning ourselves with some thing or things -- things that we believe to be completely safe. So a precautionary principle approach to consumption is to consider what we evolved with and sugar definitely wasn't that. Sugar only really took off in the 19th century. And various further refined sweeteners like high fructose corn syrup and other such things only took off in the late 20th century. [1] - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2294757/Bear-ly-conscious-Russian-creatures-pass-developing-aviation-fuel-addiction-sniffing-discarded-gas-barrels.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2294757/Bear-ly-con... [2] - https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a43469569/american-iq-scores-decline-reverse-flynn-effect/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a43469569/american-...
- iamacyborg 11mo ago
  > So a precautionary principle approach to consumption is to consider what we evolved with and sugar definitely wasn't that. Sugar only really took off in the 19th century. We have evidence that apiculture has been a thing for well over 8,000 years. Our bodies literally love to burn glucose as fuel and we perform better physically (and mentally I assume) when glucose is readily available. We have literally evolved to be sugar burning machines. Just don’t eat too much of it and you’ll be fine.
  - bavell 11mo ago
    You completely missed the point GP was making. Yes, sugar is an easy fuel source. The point is we have NOT evolved to consume massive amounts every day without breaks (i.e. daily) and without lots of fiber to buffer it.
sph 11mo ago
Define reasonable.
- iamacyborg 11mo ago
  Not a major proportion of your daily caloric intake and not in excess of your daily caloric burn (unless you’re actively trying to gain weight). More if you’re doing a lot of aerobic exercise.

Bacteria (and your body) like sugar because it’s an easy to use fuel source. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with having reasonable amounts of sugar in your diet.

parasti 11mo ago

"Eating sugar" and "reasonable amounts of sugar in your diet" are two very different things.

iamacyborg 11mo ago
Sure, but like literally anything else, the dose makes the poison.

PeterStuer 11mo ago

As a European visitong the US, I am constantly amazed at how there is masses of sugar added to 'normal' food over there. You take a bite expecting a certain flavour, and go wtf did someone glace this with caramel or drop some candy in the flour mix?

naIak 11mo ago

There’s no reasonable amount of sugar, unless there’s fibre to go with it. Sugar by itself (ie refined sugar) is a poison.

iamacyborg 11mo ago
What kind of content are you looking at to believe nonsense like that?
- madaxe_again 11mo ago
  Apparently very popular content - a parent at my kid’s kindergarten wanted to make cake for their kids birthday, said they’d only use 1 tsp of honey in the whole thing. Cue universal freak out in the parents’ WhatsApp group. Apparently, sugar: - causes cancer - causes autism - causes hyperactivity - causes blindness - makes children indolent and lazy - will permanently ruin a child if they even look at it It’s weird, IMO. I let my kiddo have sugar within reason, and somehow she’s leaner than any of the other kids in her class, who even already have rotten teeth at two, despite their sugar free diets. They feed them simple carbs almost exclusively, and are oblivious to amylase. Perhaps it’s because she’s physically active - the rest of her cohort are pretty much forbidden from walking or running as those pose risks, and children must be sheltered from all conceivable risk so that they grow up into independent and capable adults. I would argue that that - physical activity - is far more important than what you shove in your face. There have been repeatedly, credibly and demonstrably shown to be significant benefits to not spending your entire life sitting on your ass - but I guess it’s harder to get off your ass than to proselytise about sugar being an evil and artificial harmful chemical that has no place in the human body - despite it literally being what we run off of.
  - aldarion 11mo ago
    "I would argue that that - physical activity - is far more important than what you shove in your face." No, it bloody is not. I used to drive a bicycle for 6 - 12 hours ever day while working in the delivery. I also didn't watch what I was eating. I ended up getting fat and with haemorrhoids. So I had to quit cycling. Then I spend some time (years actually) researching and slowly improving my diet. Result? I lost weight, my haemorrhoids (and several other health issues) stopped acting up, and I am overall much healthier despite most of my physical activity being walking. Yes, exercise is important. But it won't help you if you eat massive amounts of garbage food. So stop talking stuff you have no clue about. Also, we do not "run off of" sugar. Human body can run off sugar, or fat, or a combination of these. And argument could be made that running off fat is actually healthier. Body can in fact produce all sugar it needs with absolutely zero need for dietary sugar (note that doesn't mean you should go zero carb, just that carbs / sugars are not a metabolic necessity). As for this: "who even already have rotten teeth at two, despite their sugar free diets. They feed them simple carbs almost exclusively, and are oblivious to amylase." Uhh... carbs ARE sugars. It literally doesn't matter that you are avoiding "sugar" if you end up eating bread instead.
    - madaxe_again 11mo ago
      Sugars are carbohydrates. Carbohydrates are not sugars.
      - Noaidi 11mo ago
        "A carbohydrate (/ˌkɑːrboʊˈhaɪdreɪt/) is a sugar" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbohydrate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbohydrate
        madaxe_again 11mo ago
        “Or a sugar derivative” Great selective quoting. 10/10.
    - watwut 11mo ago
- jodrellblank 11mo ago
  Long before RFK Jr said it recently, Dr Robert Lustig, paediatric endocrinologist, went viral about 15 years ago with a video "Sugar: The bitter truth"[1] and book and talk slots following on from it. Gary Taubes, who became widely known for researching tons of studies on diet and coining the saying "eat food, not too much, mostly plants". Food meaning unprocessed stuff your (great great) grandma would recognise as food, wrote an NY Times article agreeing with it. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM [2] https://removepaywalls.com/https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html https://removepaywalls.com/https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/1...

Ekaros 11mo ago

What is the reasonable amount? Could it be less than we currently have in many diets?

iamacyborg 11mo ago
Less than the average American diet, probably. Less than other diets? It depends.

aldarion 11mo ago

Reasonable amount being whatever you get from an occasional fruit snack. Not whatever we have in the modern / food pyramid diet.

somenameforme 11mo ago

The catch is that the body likes lots of things that are awful for it. For instance drug abuse isn't limited to humans - some bears have gotten addicted to huffing gas to get high. [1] Quite cute if it wasn't so awful! The big issue is that in modern times a whole bunch of things are going wrong - testosterone levels (adjusted for health/bmi/age) are declining, IQ is declining [2], basically every single psychological disorder is skyrocketing, and much more. And the reason why isn't clear. So the most likely reason is that we're doing what humanity has done repeatedly and endlessly throughout history and likely accidentally poisoning ourselves with some thing or things -- things that we believe to be completely safe. So a precautionary principle approach to consumption is to consider what we evolved with and sugar definitely wasn't that. Sugar only really took off in the 19th century. And various further refined sweeteners like high fructose corn syrup and other such things only took off in the late 20th century. [1] - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2294757/Bear-ly-conscious-Russian-creatures-pass-developing-aviation-fuel-addiction-sniffing-discarded-gas-barrels.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2294757/Bear-ly-con... [2] - https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a43469569/american-iq-scores-decline-reverse-flynn-effect/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a43469569/american-...

iamacyborg 11mo ago
> So a precautionary principle approach to consumption is to consider what we evolved with and sugar definitely wasn't that. Sugar only really took off in the 19th century. We have evidence that apiculture has been a thing for well over 8,000 years. Our bodies literally love to burn glucose as fuel and we perform better physically (and mentally I assume) when glucose is readily available. We have literally evolved to be sugar burning machines. Just don’t eat too much of it and you’ll be fine.
- bavell 11mo ago
  You completely missed the point GP was making. Yes, sugar is an easy fuel source. The point is we have NOT evolved to consume massive amounts every day without breaks (i.e. daily) and without lots of fiber to buffer it.

sph 11mo ago

Define reasonable.

iamacyborg 11mo ago
Not a major proportion of your daily caloric intake and not in excess of your daily caloric burn (unless you’re actively trying to gain weight). More if you’re doing a lot of aerobic exercise.