11 ms·

This is ridiculous. Sugars are fundamental bio-molecules and are essential for life. Yes, we know that over-eating causes diabetes and obesity. And this study

by mbreese 14y ago

This is ridiculous. Sugars are fundamental bio-molecules and are essential for life. Yes, we know that over-eating causes diabetes and obesity. And this study says that foods high in sugar pose the greatest threat. But seriously, are we going to start to say that sugar is toxic in the same way that cigarettes are toxic? We can manage the dangers of sugar toxicity pretty easily by exercising. The damage done by smoking... not so much. This reminds me of a pet peeve that my grad advisor had. In our area it was common to see signs that said something to the effect of "No dumping of chemicals". He loved to point out that water was a chemical.

sophacles 14y ago
Actually yeah, just like a cigarette here and there is not the same in effect as smoking a pack a day, some fructose and other sugars here and there are probably not going to hurt you, but there are noticeable long term effects of constantly having too much sugar. Further comparison: sugars and nicotine both trigger dopamine cycles that can turn into mental dependence on higher doses, feeding the negative affects even more. Finally, I can't wait to see all the backpedalling from food companies about how the healthy staple foods they load up with sugar (e.g. whole wheat bread) are actually and 'obviously' just meant to be treats. 'the added sugar should be a give away, its right there in the small print on the back of the label, under the "this is super healthy" label'.
- barney54 14y ago
  The backpedalling needs to come from the federal government. After all, they have been promoting the idea of the food pyramid and "a calorie is a calorie" for decades. The food companies are definitely influenced by what the federal government says is healthy and what they convince people is healthy.
awolf 14y ago
I agree with your general sentiment, but one thing you said bears correction: >We can manage the dangers of sugar toxicity pretty easily by exercising. No, not really. Our bodies run on glucose yet our diets are rife with fructose which must be converted by our livers into a usable form. The metabolic pathway responsible for this conversion is a bottleneck and has nothing to do with how much exercise we get.
- JPKab 14y ago
  Thank you. It's frustrating how much ignorance there is related to the blind "a calorie is a calorie" and "calories in = calories out = health" lunacy.
  - fredsted 14y ago
    It's not very logical until you learn the science behind it: If I want less of something (fat) on my body, I eat less of it, right? But I actually have to keep my fat consumption the same and eat less carbs.
    - barney54 14y ago
      You can probably increase your fat consumption, eat less carb, and still lose weight. Shoot for less than 50 grams or carbs a day.
- mbreese 14y ago
  I was thinking more in terms of glycogen and lipid getting burned up during exercise. Whatever glucose you can't use gets converted in one way or another. I'm sure there are nuances, and it's been a while since I had to be able to recite the TCA pathway, but isn't fructose converted to glycogen? So, can't it be burned for energy like anything else? It's one of the metabolites for the TCA cycle, right? Not to mention, this article (and this thread) are all playing fast and loose with all sorts of scientific terminology... :)
twoodfin 14y ago
Sugars are fundamental bio-molecules and are essential for life. So is carbon dioxide, but in the political vernacular it's now a "pollutant". Obviously there is a sense in which it's true that sugar can be toxic and carbon dioxide can pollute, but these kinds of word games aren't meant to convey that sense, they're designed to confuse people. I think less of the writers and politicians who use them.
themgt 14y ago
Again, this is not just some blind data cherry-pick, "zucchini-eaters live longer". Robert Lustig has written and spoked extensively about his hypothesis for why fructose is toxic for the human liver and metabolism[1]. It's a controversial idea, but IMO he has made a compelling argument and is now gathering data which supports the hypothesis. If you want to argue against the hypothesis, please do. [1]: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.htm...
JPKab 14y ago
I think the point that is left out by the article, but emphasized by Robert Lustig (Dr. mentioned in the article) is that sugar, in nature, is almost always accompanied by large quantities of fiber, which prevent it from being absorbed too quickly. Sugar isn't toxic, but refined sugar, or sugar that has been separated from the fiber it sits with (fruit juice) is indirectly toxic. Dr. Lustig's research has demonstrated this, and he has some very detailed lectures on the subject. He isn't some quack: he is a leading researcher in both understanding AND TREATING pediatric Type II Diabetes, which is a newly occurring disease. When I drink a beer, I understand that the alcohol I love so much in it is essentially a toxin, that in low enough quantities won't hurt me. I also know that regualr, periodic consumption of it will negatively effect my health. Oddly enough, Lustig's research has shown that fructose, in quantities which are completely normal for someone who has just consumed a moderate amount of refined sugar or fruit juice, has a very similar effect on the liver to alcohol. Not completely identical, but similar. I suggest you watch the video. I have a 6 year old son and a second child on the way. The only fruit juice he gets to have is extremely diluted with water. This isn't me overreacting as an ignoramus. I've looked at the data, evaluated the research, and found it extremely compelling. Ever use a juicer? Think about how many oranges it takes to make an 8 oz. glass. (It takes several, and if you tried to eat that many, you would be full halfway through due to the fiber.) Refined sugar is just juiced sugar cane with extra chemical preparation. Oranges are good for you. Orange juice is bad for you. I know it screams out BS, but I assure you, look at the science. You will, as I was, be shocked. How the hell can this stuff I've been eating all my life be THIS bad for me, without me knowing it.
- lawtguy 14y ago
  Moderate alcohol consumption actually increases longevity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_effects_of_alcohol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_effects_of_alcohol. So regular periodic consumption of a reasonable amount of alcohol is actually helping you.
  - Evgeny 14y ago
    I read an article just recently that argues that the reasonable amount may be much lower than many people think. http://healthcorrelator.blogspot.com.au/2013/01/how-much-alcohol-is-optimal-maybe-less.html http://healthcorrelator.blogspot.com.au/2013/01/how-much-alc... But there is little variation in one respect. The optimal amount of alcohol is somewhere around 5 and 7 g/d, which translates into about the following every day: half a can of beer, half a glass of wine, or half a “shot” of spirit.
kscaldef 14y ago
> We can manage the dangers of sugar toxicity pretty easily by exercising. The assertion being made is that that's not true: "The study controlled for poverty, urbanization, aging, obesity and physical activity" (emphasis added)
Semaphor 14y ago
The title is pure linkbait. What they are trying to hide behind their typical populist wording is that the confidence levels linking increased sugar intake to an increase in diabetes are just as high as those linking cigarettes to lung cancer.
jlgreco 14y ago
I'm seeing this as yet another attempt by people to justify their own poor health. Clearly it cannot possibly be their portions that are to blame, but rather society, big bones, genetics, and now the food itself being "toxic". Anything to avoid reality. Fructose is not the problem. Too much fructose is the problem. I think it is no coincidence that the sensational spin the news has put on this story also happens to be a spin that makes their readers feel better about themselves.
- nitrogen 14y ago
  I'm seeing this as yet another attempt by people to justify their own poor health. Clearly it cannot possibly be their portions that are to blame, but rather society, big bones, genetics, and now the food itself being "toxic". Anything to avoid reality. This paragraph demonstrates a widely held, thinly veiled contempt for those with a less fortunate metabolism. This contempt is disgusting, because it is willfully ignorant of all the scientific research that indicates there is a lot more than mere willpower that determines a person's behavior, including eating habits. As with any religiously held position of superiority, people will continue to justify this contempt with all manner of carefully worded excuses for their desire to feel better than those fat people over there. When does it end? I think it is no coincidence that the sensational spin the news has put on this story also happens to be a spin that makes their readers feel better about themselves. What point are you trying to make? That the news should be trying to make people hate themselves more than they already do? Good grief! This research isn't about justifying behavior, it's about identifying the chemical processes driving various metabolic phenomena so they can be controlled and corrected! You know what about this reseasrch would make an obese reader feel better about himself or herself? It's the fact that, finally, someone has identified a specific mechanism that is causing their problems! It's the hope that comes from having a direction of attack that's more effective than self deprivation.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    I never said that eating less was easy. I am not sure how you read that from what I wrote. > What point are you trying to make? That the news should be trying to make people hate themselves more than they already do? No, my point is that the news should not be trying to make people hate themselves less. Editorializing with peoples feelings in mind may be good business sense, but nevertheless I find it contemptible. > This research isn't about justifying behavior I like the research. The research is great. My issue is with the editorializing. > those fat people over there It sounds like you are making an assumption about me that is rather false.
nsxwolf 14y ago
Sugars may not be "toxic" per se but dietary intake of sugar or carbohydrate is certainly not essential for human life. Your liver will create glucose when needed and your brain will happily burn ketone bodies when it isn't available. You can easily survive on a diet of mostly animal fat.
anonymous 14y ago
You fail reading forever. It's not sugarS. He didn't talk about sugar>S<. Nobody is claiming that the entire family of sugar>>>>>>>S<<<<<< is toxic. The title is "SUGAR is toxic" (see, no sugar>>S<<. It's not sugarS. He isn't talking about a class of molecules.) SUGAR - a.k.a. sucrose, saccharose, one part glucose and one part fructose, either bound in a single molecule or alone in what's called HFCS. Extracted. Alone by itself or mixed in a liquid. IS TOXIC. THAT sugar. NOT sugarS.
- dekhn 14y ago
  No, if you read the article, the Methods section says "sugars". They don't have data for just sucrose.
- mbreese 14y ago
  In science, "sugar" is a class of molecules, of which sucrose is one. One thing I'm trying to point out the difference between common language uses of scientific terms. The other is the sheer ludicrous nature of the statement "sugar is toxic" (meaning sucrose). No, it isn't. Too much sugar in your diet can lead to health problems, but you will not die from eating sugar. In sufficient quantities, even water is toxic to some degree (and I'm not even talking about drowning). So, why don't you tone it down a little.
  - natrius 14y ago
    If sugar causes diabetes and people die of diabetes, doesn't that mean that the amount of sugar that is commonly consumed is toxic? By the logic you've laid out, cigarettes aren't toxic. Smoking them can cause a variety of diseases that kill you.
    - mbreese 14y ago
      Water isn't toxic, yet drinking too much water can cause your blood to become so diluted that you can die (water intoxication/hyponatremia). And yet water is essential for life. Consuming sugar (in some form, not necessarily sucrose) is also essential for life. It's what your brain runs on. So to call it toxic is quite a stretch. I'm not criticizing the research. I haven't read the paper and I probably won't - it's not my field. But I am criticizing the overly broad generalities in the NYT article.
fredsted 14y ago
>Sugars are fundamental bio-molecules and are essential for life. That's not necessarily true. Humans do not need sugars from external sources to survive. >“The amount of sugar needed by the body is zero as the body can produce and absorb sugar from consumption of other daily food supplements. http://www.theborneopost.com/2010/01/10/human-body-can-survive-without-sugar-intake/ http://www.theborneopost.com/2010/01/10/human-body-can-survi... Also see: http://www.theiflife.com/the-inuit-paradox-high-fat-lower-heart-disease-and-cancer/ http://www.theiflife.com/the-inuit-paradox-high-fat-lower-he... The no-sugar diets are unsurprisingly popular these days in one of their many forms: Atkins diet, paleo, keto, primal, etc: I personally tried Keto for 6 months and lost 30 kilos and plateaued at a normal weight. I felt great and had lots of energy. I would actually opine that consuming more sugars than, say, a couple pieces of fruit or a loaf of bread every day, is quite toxic. It's only relatively late in human evolution we obtained access to lots of sugar.

by mbreese 14y ago

sophacles 14y ago

Actually yeah, just like a cigarette here and there is not the same in effect as smoking a pack a day, some fructose and other sugars here and there are probably not going to hurt you, but there are noticeable long term effects of constantly having too much sugar. Further comparison: sugars and nicotine both trigger dopamine cycles that can turn into mental dependence on higher doses, feeding the negative affects even more. Finally, I can't wait to see all the backpedalling from food companies about how the healthy staple foods they load up with sugar (e.g. whole wheat bread) are actually and 'obviously' just meant to be treats. 'the added sugar should be a give away, its right there in the small print on the back of the label, under the "this is super healthy" label'.

barney54 14y ago
The backpedalling needs to come from the federal government. After all, they have been promoting the idea of the food pyramid and "a calorie is a calorie" for decades. The food companies are definitely influenced by what the federal government says is healthy and what they convince people is healthy.

awolf 14y ago

I agree with your general sentiment, but one thing you said bears correction: >We can manage the dangers of sugar toxicity pretty easily by exercising. No, not really. Our bodies run on glucose yet our diets are rife with fructose which must be converted by our livers into a usable form. The metabolic pathway responsible for this conversion is a bottleneck and has nothing to do with how much exercise we get.

JPKab 14y ago
Thank you. It's frustrating how much ignorance there is related to the blind "a calorie is a calorie" and "calories in = calories out = health" lunacy.
- fredsted 14y ago
  It's not very logical until you learn the science behind it: If I want less of something (fat) on my body, I eat less of it, right? But I actually have to keep my fat consumption the same and eat less carbs.
  - barney54 14y ago
    You can probably increase your fat consumption, eat less carb, and still lose weight. Shoot for less than 50 grams or carbs a day.
mbreese 14y ago
I was thinking more in terms of glycogen and lipid getting burned up during exercise. Whatever glucose you can't use gets converted in one way or another. I'm sure there are nuances, and it's been a while since I had to be able to recite the TCA pathway, but isn't fructose converted to glycogen? So, can't it be burned for energy like anything else? It's one of the metabolites for the TCA cycle, right? Not to mention, this article (and this thread) are all playing fast and loose with all sorts of scientific terminology... :)

twoodfin 14y ago

Sugars are fundamental bio-molecules and are essential for life. So is carbon dioxide, but in the political vernacular it's now a "pollutant". Obviously there is a sense in which it's true that sugar can be toxic and carbon dioxide can pollute, but these kinds of word games aren't meant to convey that sense, they're designed to confuse people. I think less of the writers and politicians who use them.

themgt 14y ago

Again, this is not just some blind data cherry-pick, "zucchini-eaters live longer". Robert Lustig has written and spoked extensively about his hypothesis for why fructose is toxic for the human liver and metabolism[1]. It's a controversial idea, but IMO he has made a compelling argument and is now gathering data which supports the hypothesis. If you want to argue against the hypothesis, please do. [1]: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.htm...

JPKab 14y ago

I think the point that is left out by the article, but emphasized by Robert Lustig (Dr. mentioned in the article) is that sugar, in nature, is almost always accompanied by large quantities of fiber, which prevent it from being absorbed too quickly. Sugar isn't toxic, but refined sugar, or sugar that has been separated from the fiber it sits with (fruit juice) is indirectly toxic. Dr. Lustig's research has demonstrated this, and he has some very detailed lectures on the subject. He isn't some quack: he is a leading researcher in both understanding AND TREATING pediatric Type II Diabetes, which is a newly occurring disease. When I drink a beer, I understand that the alcohol I love so much in it is essentially a toxin, that in low enough quantities won't hurt me. I also know that regualr, periodic consumption of it will negatively effect my health. Oddly enough, Lustig's research has shown that fructose, in quantities which are completely normal for someone who has just consumed a moderate amount of refined sugar or fruit juice, has a very similar effect on the liver to alcohol. Not completely identical, but similar. I suggest you watch the video. I have a 6 year old son and a second child on the way. The only fruit juice he gets to have is extremely diluted with water. This isn't me overreacting as an ignoramus. I've looked at the data, evaluated the research, and found it extremely compelling. Ever use a juicer? Think about how many oranges it takes to make an 8 oz. glass. (It takes several, and if you tried to eat that many, you would be full halfway through due to the fiber.) Refined sugar is just juiced sugar cane with extra chemical preparation. Oranges are good for you. Orange juice is bad for you. I know it screams out BS, but I assure you, look at the science. You will, as I was, be shocked. How the hell can this stuff I've been eating all my life be THIS bad for me, without me knowing it.

lawtguy 14y ago
Moderate alcohol consumption actually increases longevity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_effects_of_alcohol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_effects_of_alcohol. So regular periodic consumption of a reasonable amount of alcohol is actually helping you.
- Evgeny 14y ago
  I read an article just recently that argues that the reasonable amount may be much lower than many people think. http://healthcorrelator.blogspot.com.au/2013/01/how-much-alcohol-is-optimal-maybe-less.html http://healthcorrelator.blogspot.com.au/2013/01/how-much-alc... But there is little variation in one respect. The optimal amount of alcohol is somewhere around 5 and 7 g/d, which translates into about the following every day: half a can of beer, half a glass of wine, or half a “shot” of spirit.

kscaldef 14y ago

> We can manage the dangers of sugar toxicity pretty easily by exercising. The assertion being made is that that's not true: "The study controlled for poverty, urbanization, aging, obesity and physical activity" (emphasis added)

Semaphor 14y ago

The title is pure linkbait. What they are trying to hide behind their typical populist wording is that the confidence levels linking increased sugar intake to an increase in diabetes are just as high as those linking cigarettes to lung cancer.

jlgreco 14y ago

I'm seeing this as yet another attempt by people to justify their own poor health. Clearly it cannot possibly be their portions that are to blame, but rather society, big bones, genetics, and now the food itself being "toxic". Anything to avoid reality. Fructose is not the problem. Too much fructose is the problem. I think it is no coincidence that the sensational spin the news has put on this story also happens to be a spin that makes their readers feel better about themselves.

nitrogen 14y ago
I'm seeing this as yet another attempt by people to justify their own poor health. Clearly it cannot possibly be their portions that are to blame, but rather society, big bones, genetics, and now the food itself being "toxic". Anything to avoid reality. This paragraph demonstrates a widely held, thinly veiled contempt for those with a less fortunate metabolism. This contempt is disgusting, because it is willfully ignorant of all the scientific research that indicates there is a lot more than mere willpower that determines a person's behavior, including eating habits. As with any religiously held position of superiority, people will continue to justify this contempt with all manner of carefully worded excuses for their desire to feel better than those fat people over there. When does it end? I think it is no coincidence that the sensational spin the news has put on this story also happens to be a spin that makes their readers feel better about themselves. What point are you trying to make? That the news should be trying to make people hate themselves more than they already do? Good grief! This research isn't about justifying behavior, it's about identifying the chemical processes driving various metabolic phenomena so they can be controlled and corrected! You know what about this reseasrch would make an obese reader feel better about himself or herself? It's the fact that, finally, someone has identified a specific mechanism that is causing their problems! It's the hope that comes from having a direction of attack that's more effective than self deprivation.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  I never said that eating less was easy. I am not sure how you read that from what I wrote. > What point are you trying to make? That the news should be trying to make people hate themselves more than they already do? No, my point is that the news should not be trying to make people hate themselves less. Editorializing with peoples feelings in mind may be good business sense, but nevertheless I find it contemptible. > This research isn't about justifying behavior I like the research. The research is great. My issue is with the editorializing. > those fat people over there It sounds like you are making an assumption about me that is rather false.

nsxwolf 14y ago

Sugars may not be "toxic" per se but dietary intake of sugar or carbohydrate is certainly not essential for human life. Your liver will create glucose when needed and your brain will happily burn ketone bodies when it isn't available. You can easily survive on a diet of mostly animal fat.

anonymous 14y ago

You fail reading forever. It's not sugarS. He didn't talk about sugar>S<. Nobody is claiming that the entire family of sugar>>>>>>>S<<<<<< is toxic. The title is "SUGAR is toxic" (see, no sugar>>S<<. It's not sugarS. He isn't talking about a class of molecules.) SUGAR - a.k.a. sucrose, saccharose, one part glucose and one part fructose, either bound in a single molecule or alone in what's called HFCS. Extracted. Alone by itself or mixed in a liquid. IS TOXIC. THAT sugar. NOT sugarS.

dekhn 14y ago
No, if you read the article, the Methods section says "sugars". They don't have data for just sucrose.
mbreese 14y ago
In science, "sugar" is a class of molecules, of which sucrose is one. One thing I'm trying to point out the difference between common language uses of scientific terms. The other is the sheer ludicrous nature of the statement "sugar is toxic" (meaning sucrose). No, it isn't. Too much sugar in your diet can lead to health problems, but you will not die from eating sugar. In sufficient quantities, even water is toxic to some degree (and I'm not even talking about drowning). So, why don't you tone it down a little.
- natrius 14y ago
  If sugar causes diabetes and people die of diabetes, doesn't that mean that the amount of sugar that is commonly consumed is toxic? By the logic you've laid out, cigarettes aren't toxic. Smoking them can cause a variety of diseases that kill you.
  - mbreese 14y ago
    Water isn't toxic, yet drinking too much water can cause your blood to become so diluted that you can die (water intoxication/hyponatremia). And yet water is essential for life. Consuming sugar (in some form, not necessarily sucrose) is also essential for life. It's what your brain runs on. So to call it toxic is quite a stretch. I'm not criticizing the research. I haven't read the paper and I probably won't - it's not my field. But I am criticizing the overly broad generalities in the NYT article.

fredsted 14y ago

>Sugars are fundamental bio-molecules and are essential for life. That's not necessarily true. Humans do not need sugars from external sources to survive. >“The amount of sugar needed by the body is zero as the body can produce and absorb sugar from consumption of other daily food supplements. http://www.theborneopost.com/2010/01/10/human-body-can-survive-without-sugar-intake/ http://www.theborneopost.com/2010/01/10/human-body-can-survi... Also see: http://www.theiflife.com/the-inuit-paradox-high-fat-lower-heart-disease-and-cancer/ http://www.theiflife.com/the-inuit-paradox-high-fat-lower-he... The no-sugar diets are unsurprisingly popular these days in one of their many forms: Atkins diet, paleo, keto, primal, etc: I personally tried Keto for 6 months and lost 30 kilos and plateaued at a normal weight. I felt great and had lots of energy. I would actually opine that consuming more sugars than, say, a couple pieces of fruit or a loaf of bread every day, is quite toxic. It's only relatively late in human evolution we obtained access to lots of sugar.