8 ms·

Sugar Love

107 points by glasnoster 13y ago

doesnt_know 13y ago
Here is the non-print link. Which is actually formatted better for reading and doesn't automatically open the print dialog. http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/08/sugar/cohen-text http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/08/sugar/cohen-text
- audunw 13y ago
  But you get hit with an annoying pop-up asking you to register.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - doesnt_know 13y ago
    Do you? Sorry, I didn't know. Adblock or Disconnect or something probably blocked it on my machine.
wavefunction 13y ago
An interesting article about one of the worst enemies of health for modern humans. It seems like it completely discounts sugar-beets and other sources of sugar available outside the tropics though. I assume their refinement into sugar is a result of exposure to the arab techniques of sugar-cane refinement mentioned throughout the article, but the history of that other thread of sugar would have been another interesting one to weave into this narrative.
- makomk 13y ago
  Yeah, beet sugar is a relatively recent innovation that postdated the widespread availability of cane sugar.
001sky 13y ago
Americans are fat because they eat too much and exercise too little. But they eat too much and exercise too little because they’re addicted to sugar, which not only makes them fatter but, after the initial sugar rush, also saps their energy, beaching them on the couch. “The reason you’re watching TV is not because TV is so good,” he said, “but because you have no energy to exercise, because you’re eating too much sugar.” Pretty sure the reason for the is also the do-gooders. For 40 years people have been preaching "low fat" and "no animal fat" to kids. Now, wanting to be healthy...they eat "low fat" diets. Diets that are full of Carbs (because protein is expensive). Its a zero sum game. And what's funny is that "low fat" foods are almost always high in sugar. Because starch is unappetizing. And protein is not an ingredient you can sprinkle into skim-milk yoghurt. Don't get me started on 'gluten free', its just as bad. You know what's gluten free? Sugar. And stuff full of sugar (raisins!). And while we're at it lets look at replacing "sugar" with Juice because its healtier. Oh, wait...its full of sugar. If you want to eat healthy just pick a balanced diet.
- doesnt_know 13y ago
  > If you want to eat healthy just pick a balanced diet. If people could easily do that we wouldn't be facing an epidemic of obesity. It's sort of crazy you're so willing to ignore the major point of the article and blame those have historically tried to enact change. As far back as 1675, when western Europe was experiencing its first sugar boom, Thomas Willis, a physician and founding member of Britain’s Royal Society, noted that the urine of people afflicted with diabetes tasted “wonderfully sweet, as if it were imbued with honey or sugar.” Tasting sick peoples urine is definitely not my idea of a dream job.
  - benjohnson 13y ago
    The possibility of saving life tends to override squeamishness.
- InclinedPlane 13y ago
  Good points. Though it's actually not a zero sum game, it's worse than that. When you get down to it there's a very important link between the satiety/calorie ratio of food and weight gain. Sure you can talk about will power and so on, but those are higher order effects, it should be obvious that if there's a zero will power diet that frequently results in obesity and a zero will power diet which doesn't that's significantly more important than the idea that people can potentially starve themselves thin. The same sort of thing applies to wealth, for example, but nobody tells the poor to just acquire some will power and start spending less than they earn. A lot of low fat foods end up being high in sugar and end up having lower satiety than "regular" foods. The perfect example being skim milk vs. whole milk. That's super important because it means that people can consume the same calories but still feel hungry with a "low fat" food. And then they are faced either with persistent feelings of hunger or to eat more until they feel full. Also, high sugar foods are easily converted into body fat, which just makes the problem that much worse.
puzzlingcaptcha 13y ago
As far back as 1675, when western Europe was experiencing its first sugar boom, Thomas Willis, a physician and founding member of Britain’s Royal Society, noted that the urine of people afflicted with diabetes tasted “wonderfully sweet, as if it were imbued with honey or sugar.” Just to point out, the high concentration of glucose in urine of diabetics is the result of the disease. A healthy person who just happened to eat some sugar would not have elevated glucose in urine. This of course does not rule out increased sugar consumption as a risk factor in developing type 2 diabetes (type 1 is genetic) but the article does not make it clear.
- yourapostasy 13y ago
  Correction: both type 1 and type 2 diabetes have genetic risk factors. In fact, genetic factors are stronger with Type 1. I would expect to see subtype categories filter out into the mainstream in the next generation or so, as the explosion of diabetes in the developed world carries discussions of it out into the wider population. The current primary differentiator between Type 1 and 2 is Type 1 is an autoimmune disorder, while Type 2 is an insulin resistance disorder.
stefantalpalaru 13y ago
> [...] an injection of sugar into the bloodstream stimulates the same pleasure centers of the brain that respond to heroin and cocaine. All tasty foods do this to some extent—that’s why they’re tasty!—but sugar has a sharply pronounced effect. In this sense it is literally an addictive drug. Sugar doesn't get into the blood stream. Glucose does. Glucose is the only nutrient that neurons are using in normal conditions. Criticizing excess is fine and dandy but labeling sugar an "addictive drug" and comparing it with heroin and cocaine by way of some scientific sounding "pleasure centers" is downright insane. Makes me question the validity of the historic part I enjoyed so much...
- js2 13y ago
  Glucose is the only nutrient that neurons are using in normal conditions. And to elaborate, the other is ketone bodies produced by the liver from fatty acids. Their production occurs in healthy individuals as nutritional ketosis under a carbohydrate restricted diet (typically less than 100g/day) or in diabetics as the pathological condition ketoacidosis.
  - stefantalpalaru 13y ago
    Not ketone bodies, but lactate. More details in this article titled: Energy Substrates for Neurons During Neural Activity: A Critical Review of the Astrocyte-Neuron Lactate Shuttle Hypothesis[1]: > The brain can consume lactate as a substrate, as has been demonstrated by studies showing that the brain uses lactate during hypoglycemia or during periods of elevated blood lactate [...] > However, because lactate does not pass through the blood-brain barrier nearly as well as glucose [...], lactate cannot serve the brain as a blood-borne substrate the way glucose does. [1]: http://www.nature.com/jcbfm/journal/v23/n11/full/9591474a.html http://www.nature.com/jcbfm/journal/v23/n11/full/9591474a.ht...
  - rdmcfee 13y ago
    Many people experience some ketone body production and metabolism well eating SAD (standard American diet). Fasting overnight and skipping breakfast, or having a long workout more than 4-5 hours after your last meal will cause this. Nutritional ketosis, unlike ketoacidosis is a loosely defined term. Everyone has experienced it on some level. Perhaps just not at extreme levels like people pursing NK with vigour.
js2 13y ago
Oh the irony - the ad I was served with the page informs me it's a ”Pillsbury Cinnamon Rolls weekend” with an image of a child about to stuff one into his mouth. http://i.imgur.com/UBRJOIa.jpg http://i.imgur.com/UBRJOIa.jpg
jdkuepper 13y ago
Peter Attia wrote a great article on sugar here: http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/is-sugar-toxic http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/is-sugar-toxic The conclusion at the end of that article is: "So, in response to the question, “Is sugar toxic?” it seems to me the answer is, “yes, sugar is probably chronically toxic to many people.” And so is water. And so is oxygen. My sincere hope, however, is that you now understand that this is probably the wrong question to be asking. The better question is probably “What dose of sugar can I (or my child) safely tolerate to avoid chronic toxicity?” The goal should be to figure out your toxic dose, then stay well below it. (It’s probably not wise to consume 95% of the toxic dose of APAP just because you have a really bad headache.) What makes this important, of course, is that with water and oxygen, the toxic doses are so far out of the range of what we normally consume, it’s not really necessary to expend much mental energy worrying about the toxicity. But with sugar, at least for many of us, the toxic dose is easy to consume, especially in world where sugar resides in almost everything we eat."
crazygringo 13y ago
> The solution? Stop eating so much sugar. When people cut back, many of the ill effects disappear. I understand the article focuses just on sugar, but when it starts getting to the health effects, the focus shouldn't be on just sugar but rather all high-glycemic-index foods, including bread, pasta, potatoes, and so on -- at least from what I understand. It doesn't do much good to cut back on sugar if you replace it with bread.
- grannyg00se 13y ago
  Would a 100 calorie quantity of bread not be better than a 100 calorie quantity of sugar cereal? Assuming of course that you don't buy bread with sugar in it. "Although the Glycemic Index provides some insights into the relative diabetic risk within specific food groups, it contains many counter-intuitive ratings. These include suggestions that bread generally has a higher glycemic ranking than sugar and that some potatoes are more glycemic than glucose." - Wikipedia
  - a8da6b0c91d 13y ago
    The glycemic index is a totally broken concept. Your body and tissues are made to happily work with surges of insulin and there is absolutely nothing problematic about that. From a weight loss perspective sugars, such as in fruit juice, are superior to starches for two reasons. The fructose is thermogenic and raises base metabolic rate. Secondly, starches tend to reach lower lengths of the intestine undigested where they can feed bacteria that generate endotoxins. Low starch, high sugar, low fat, and 80 grams of protein a day is a very good formula for weight loss.
    - jonpeda 13y ago
      > Your body and tissues are made to happily work with surges of insulin and there is absolutely nothing problematic about that. then what is diabetes about?
    - manmal 13y ago
      The amount of macronutrients to be consumed would of course depend on your weight and activity level. I use this calculator for Leangains: http://sareyko.net/leancalc/ http://sareyko.net/leancalc/ I agree that fructose (whole fruits) is preferrable to starch, and people with colitis/IBD seem to find relief from that: http://www.breakingtheviciouscycle.info http://www.breakingtheviciouscycle.info But I'd recommend agains juices - they allow to pour down way more fructose quicker than you could chew in the form of whole fruit.
aalpbalkan 13y ago
Somebody remove /print/ in the url.
- prawn 13y ago
  Choice between cancelling a print dialogue or cancelling a "subscribe to read" pop-up, I think.

107 points by glasnoster 13y ago

Here is the non-print link. Which is actually formatted better for reading and doesn't automatically open the print dialog. http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/08/sugar/cohen-text http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/08/sugar/cohen-text

audunw 13y ago
But you get hit with an annoying pop-up asking you to register.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- doesnt_know 13y ago
  Do you? Sorry, I didn't know. Adblock or Disconnect or something probably blocked it on my machine.

wavefunction 13y ago

An interesting article about one of the worst enemies of health for modern humans. It seems like it completely discounts sugar-beets and other sources of sugar available outside the tropics though. I assume their refinement into sugar is a result of exposure to the arab techniques of sugar-cane refinement mentioned throughout the article, but the history of that other thread of sugar would have been another interesting one to weave into this narrative.

makomk 13y ago
Yeah, beet sugar is a relatively recent innovation that postdated the widespread availability of cane sugar.

001sky 13y ago

Americans are fat because they eat too much and exercise too little. But they eat too much and exercise too little because they’re addicted to sugar, which not only makes them fatter but, after the initial sugar rush, also saps their energy, beaching them on the couch. “The reason you’re watching TV is not because TV is so good,” he said, “but because you have no energy to exercise, because you’re eating too much sugar.” Pretty sure the reason for the is also the do-gooders. For 40 years people have been preaching "low fat" and "no animal fat" to kids. Now, wanting to be healthy...they eat "low fat" diets. Diets that are full of Carbs (because protein is expensive). Its a zero sum game. And what's funny is that "low fat" foods are almost always high in sugar. Because starch is unappetizing. And protein is not an ingredient you can sprinkle into skim-milk yoghurt. Don't get me started on 'gluten free', its just as bad. You know what's gluten free? Sugar. And stuff full of sugar (raisins!). And while we're at it lets look at replacing "sugar" with Juice because its healtier. Oh, wait...its full of sugar. If you want to eat healthy just pick a balanced diet.

doesnt_know 13y ago
> If you want to eat healthy just pick a balanced diet. If people could easily do that we wouldn't be facing an epidemic of obesity. It's sort of crazy you're so willing to ignore the major point of the article and blame those have historically tried to enact change. As far back as 1675, when western Europe was experiencing its first sugar boom, Thomas Willis, a physician and founding member of Britain’s Royal Society, noted that the urine of people afflicted with diabetes tasted “wonderfully sweet, as if it were imbued with honey or sugar.” Tasting sick peoples urine is definitely not my idea of a dream job.
- benjohnson 13y ago
  The possibility of saving life tends to override squeamishness.
InclinedPlane 13y ago
Good points. Though it's actually not a zero sum game, it's worse than that. When you get down to it there's a very important link between the satiety/calorie ratio of food and weight gain. Sure you can talk about will power and so on, but those are higher order effects, it should be obvious that if there's a zero will power diet that frequently results in obesity and a zero will power diet which doesn't that's significantly more important than the idea that people can potentially starve themselves thin. The same sort of thing applies to wealth, for example, but nobody tells the poor to just acquire some will power and start spending less than they earn. A lot of low fat foods end up being high in sugar and end up having lower satiety than "regular" foods. The perfect example being skim milk vs. whole milk. That's super important because it means that people can consume the same calories but still feel hungry with a "low fat" food. And then they are faced either with persistent feelings of hunger or to eat more until they feel full. Also, high sugar foods are easily converted into body fat, which just makes the problem that much worse.

puzzlingcaptcha 13y ago

As far back as 1675, when western Europe was experiencing its first sugar boom, Thomas Willis, a physician and founding member of Britain’s Royal Society, noted that the urine of people afflicted with diabetes tasted “wonderfully sweet, as if it were imbued with honey or sugar.” Just to point out, the high concentration of glucose in urine of diabetics is the result of the disease. A healthy person who just happened to eat some sugar would not have elevated glucose in urine. This of course does not rule out increased sugar consumption as a risk factor in developing type 2 diabetes (type 1 is genetic) but the article does not make it clear.

yourapostasy 13y ago
Correction: both type 1 and type 2 diabetes have genetic risk factors. In fact, genetic factors are stronger with Type 1. I would expect to see subtype categories filter out into the mainstream in the next generation or so, as the explosion of diabetes in the developed world carries discussions of it out into the wider population. The current primary differentiator between Type 1 and 2 is Type 1 is an autoimmune disorder, while Type 2 is an insulin resistance disorder.

stefantalpalaru 13y ago

> [...] an injection of sugar into the bloodstream stimulates the same pleasure centers of the brain that respond to heroin and cocaine. All tasty foods do this to some extent—that’s why they’re tasty!—but sugar has a sharply pronounced effect. In this sense it is literally an addictive drug. Sugar doesn't get into the blood stream. Glucose does. Glucose is the only nutrient that neurons are using in normal conditions. Criticizing excess is fine and dandy but labeling sugar an "addictive drug" and comparing it with heroin and cocaine by way of some scientific sounding "pleasure centers" is downright insane. Makes me question the validity of the historic part I enjoyed so much...

js2 13y ago
Glucose is the only nutrient that neurons are using in normal conditions. And to elaborate, the other is ketone bodies produced by the liver from fatty acids. Their production occurs in healthy individuals as nutritional ketosis under a carbohydrate restricted diet (typically less than 100g/day) or in diabetics as the pathological condition ketoacidosis.
- stefantalpalaru 13y ago
  Not ketone bodies, but lactate. More details in this article titled: Energy Substrates for Neurons During Neural Activity: A Critical Review of the Astrocyte-Neuron Lactate Shuttle Hypothesis[1]: > The brain can consume lactate as a substrate, as has been demonstrated by studies showing that the brain uses lactate during hypoglycemia or during periods of elevated blood lactate [...] > However, because lactate does not pass through the blood-brain barrier nearly as well as glucose [...], lactate cannot serve the brain as a blood-borne substrate the way glucose does. [1]: http://www.nature.com/jcbfm/journal/v23/n11/full/9591474a.html http://www.nature.com/jcbfm/journal/v23/n11/full/9591474a.ht...
- rdmcfee 13y ago
  Many people experience some ketone body production and metabolism well eating SAD (standard American diet). Fasting overnight and skipping breakfast, or having a long workout more than 4-5 hours after your last meal will cause this. Nutritional ketosis, unlike ketoacidosis is a loosely defined term. Everyone has experienced it on some level. Perhaps just not at extreme levels like people pursing NK with vigour.

js2 13y ago

Oh the irony - the ad I was served with the page informs me it's a ”Pillsbury Cinnamon Rolls weekend” with an image of a child about to stuff one into his mouth. http://i.imgur.com/UBRJOIa.jpg http://i.imgur.com/UBRJOIa.jpg

jdkuepper 13y ago

Peter Attia wrote a great article on sugar here: http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/is-sugar-toxic http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/is-sugar-toxic The conclusion at the end of that article is: "So, in response to the question, “Is sugar toxic?” it seems to me the answer is, “yes, sugar is probably chronically toxic to many people.” And so is water. And so is oxygen. My sincere hope, however, is that you now understand that this is probably the wrong question to be asking. The better question is probably “What dose of sugar can I (or my child) safely tolerate to avoid chronic toxicity?” The goal should be to figure out your toxic dose, then stay well below it. (It’s probably not wise to consume 95% of the toxic dose of APAP just because you have a really bad headache.) What makes this important, of course, is that with water and oxygen, the toxic doses are so far out of the range of what we normally consume, it’s not really necessary to expend much mental energy worrying about the toxicity. But with sugar, at least for many of us, the toxic dose is easy to consume, especially in world where sugar resides in almost everything we eat."

crazygringo 13y ago

> The solution? Stop eating so much sugar. When people cut back, many of the ill effects disappear. I understand the article focuses just on sugar, but when it starts getting to the health effects, the focus shouldn't be on just sugar but rather all high-glycemic-index foods, including bread, pasta, potatoes, and so on -- at least from what I understand. It doesn't do much good to cut back on sugar if you replace it with bread.

grannyg00se 13y ago
Would a 100 calorie quantity of bread not be better than a 100 calorie quantity of sugar cereal? Assuming of course that you don't buy bread with sugar in it. "Although the Glycemic Index provides some insights into the relative diabetic risk within specific food groups, it contains many counter-intuitive ratings. These include suggestions that bread generally has a higher glycemic ranking than sugar and that some potatoes are more glycemic than glucose." - Wikipedia
- a8da6b0c91d 13y ago
  The glycemic index is a totally broken concept. Your body and tissues are made to happily work with surges of insulin and there is absolutely nothing problematic about that. From a weight loss perspective sugars, such as in fruit juice, are superior to starches for two reasons. The fructose is thermogenic and raises base metabolic rate. Secondly, starches tend to reach lower lengths of the intestine undigested where they can feed bacteria that generate endotoxins. Low starch, high sugar, low fat, and 80 grams of protein a day is a very good formula for weight loss.
  - jonpeda 13y ago
    > Your body and tissues are made to happily work with surges of insulin and there is absolutely nothing problematic about that. then what is diabetes about?
  - manmal 13y ago
    The amount of macronutrients to be consumed would of course depend on your weight and activity level. I use this calculator for Leangains: http://sareyko.net/leancalc/ http://sareyko.net/leancalc/ I agree that fructose (whole fruits) is preferrable to starch, and people with colitis/IBD seem to find relief from that: http://www.breakingtheviciouscycle.info http://www.breakingtheviciouscycle.info But I'd recommend agains juices - they allow to pour down way more fructose quicker than you could chew in the form of whole fruit.

aalpbalkan 13y ago

Somebody remove /print/ in the url.

prawn 13y ago
Choice between cancelling a print dialogue or cancelling a "subscribe to read" pop-up, I think.