7 ms·

Sugar: the evolution of a forbidden fruit

52 points by __Joker 12y ago

awjr 12y ago
I don't think it's the fact that sugar is evil, but that it has been marketed as better than fat. Low fat food high in 'hidden' sugars are sold to us as better for us. Both have their issues, but looking at our diet over millennia, high sugar diets are new to our bodies. When we bring the car into the equation and the way it has transformed the way we travel we suddenly have this health 'time' bomb that is beginning to explode. Now people may say it's down to the individual to make dietary decisions, but this is more fundamental than this. In the same way the tobacco industry has to pay for the damage it inflicts on the population through taxation, I can see sugar taxes becoming something governments will implement to recover the cost to the state of a unhealthy population.
- RichardFord 12y ago
  In the same way the tobacco industry has to pay for the damage it inflicts on the population through taxation, I can see sugar taxes becoming something governments will implement to recover the cost to the state of a unhealthy population. Well, tobacco is not sugar, and you can make the argument that anything taken to excess will cause damage. You people need to start thinking about where this slippery slope of government intervention leads to.
- enraged_camel 12y ago
  A 10 cent tax per gram of added sugar or HFCS for every product. Implement this and watch obesity rates plummet. (This is not a serious suggestion, but I think it would still be interesting to brainstorm the implications of such a tax.)
  - cpwright 12y ago
    How do you define added. If you have pure apple juice, it has 35g in an 8 fl. oz. serving (using the Martinelli's in my pantry as an example). There is no sugar added, but it clearly has plenty of sugar. What happens if instead of adding the sugar to the apple juice, I were to just reduce the amount of water instead? I'm still not adding any sugar, but the concentrate would clearly have more sugar than not. How is this much different than producing maple syrup, which is pretty much designed to be sugar?
    - enraged_camel 12y ago
      In this case, "added" would mean "extra," as in any amount you add on top of what is produced once the apples are converted into juice. I agree that some stuff already has a high amount of sugar in it naturally, but I think in the grand scheme of things they make up just a small minority of all products. My concern is for more common stuff, like bread. Why does bread have to have high-fructose corn syrup in it again? The answer is that it doesn't.
      - DanBC 12y ago
        You need a small amount of sugar for the yeast. Does US bread have more than that?
        adrianN 12y ago
        Yeasts are perfectly capable of splitting starches, you don't need any sugar.
        maxerickson 12y ago
        Yes. Here's a higher end "grocery store shelf" bread maker: http://www.pepperidgefarm.com/FreshBreadsGateway.aspx http://www.pepperidgefarm.com/FreshBreadsGateway.aspx 2 to 4 grams of sugar per slice is typical there. That sort of bread is prepared at large regional bakeries. Decent grocers will also have a fresh bakery, with somewhat more variety to the product, and probably breads with little added sugar. If you live in a decent size town, there will also be one or more store front bakeries that uses a shorter list of ingredients (I almost said they are more traditional, but I'm sure they are mostly using big mixers and nice ovens and the like).
      - mbarrett 12y ago
        satisfying a taste and product differentiation is the main driver. the body loves sweets, salts and fat and who wants wheat bread when you can have honey wheat bread. Some blame comes down to the producer and marketing trends, gluten is a good example. Up until recently, gluten free had no regulation with using that on packaging. http://www.fda.gov/food/guidanceregulation/guidancedocumentsregulatoryinformation/allergens/ucm362880.htm http://www.fda.gov/food/guidanceregulation/guidancedocuments... When discussing this with friends, I use the example of sodas being marketed as caffeine-free, rather than caffeine added. They are all caffeine free to start.
  - shonn 12y ago
    You don't need a tax. Just get rid of the massive subsidy that HFCS gets. edit: I had meant the indirect subsidy through corn subsidies. I agree that there shouldn't be much of a distinction between HFCS and sugar (fructose) from other sources.
    - a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
      I don't think HFCS gets any subsidies. Corn gets subsidized and there are very high tariffs on imported cane sugar. HFCS is metabolically identical to white sugar and bobos singling it out are misguided.
      - protopete 12y ago
        HFCS is metabolized primarily by the liver, unlike sugar. http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/4/895.full http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/4/895.full
        a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
        HFCS is equal parts fructose and glucose, exactly the same as sugar. Your link indicates no distinction. HFCS is produced by running corn starch through an enzyme process identical to one that happens in your pancreas. Corn starch is broken up into glucose and then half the glucose is converted to fructose. Personally I find HFCS drinks have a mild metalic aftertaste whereas sugar doesn't. I don't know what causes it. But HFCS is metabolically exactly the same as white sugar. And neither are "bad" for you.
        enraged_camel 12y ago
        It's the amount that matters. HFCS is cheaper to produce thanks to corn subsidies and cane sugar tariffs, therefore more of it goes into food, and it goes into more types of food. The tax I proposed above is a way to offset this effect.
- vonmoltke 12y ago
  > In the same way the tobacco industry has to pay for the damage it inflicts on the population through taxation, I can see sugar taxes becoming something governments will implement to recover the cost to the state of a unhealthy population. That is going to be much trickier, though. The sugar binge is partially a result of the well-meaning but misguided demonization of fats during the 70s and 80s, something those very governments participated in.
  - awjr 12y ago
    Be aware that the 'sugar' lobby fought hard not to have sugar demonised the way fat was by the WHO. This really is of their own making.
    - pkaye 12y ago
      It is probably the demonisation of fat that pushed people to consume excessive sugar.
- a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
  De novo lipogenesis from sugar in humans is extremely inefficient. Sugar really is less fattening, calorie for calorie, than dietary fat. So in at least one sense sugar is in fact "better" than fat. You can live in perfect health on close to zero fat intake. Sustained zero sugar/carb intake is extremely stressful for the body and sends catecholamine levels way up, accelerating aging. The anti sugar thinking is basically some dumb ideas from diabetes research extrapolated out. If you have a healthy pancreas there is zero reason not to get a load of your calories from sugar. You just have to get sufficient mineral and vitamin intake as well, so for this reason fruit juice is better than white sugar.
  - ch4s3 12y ago
    Source?
  - zspade 12y ago
    Really, this is an incredible assertion that goes against all recent research results, and therefore requires sunbstantial evidence or citation thereof. I believe his source would be the author John McDougall, who is pretty much the only person you can find pushing this... 'Hypothesis' might be a strong word. McDougall goes as far as to say Sugar is less fattening thank Olive oil. The reason he is so anti-fat looks to be a strong support for movement toward a Vegan diet. Spreading misinformation such as this is a huge diservice to vegans though, and would likely only lead to higher instances of obesity and metabolic diseases for anyone unfortunate enough to buy into it.
    - a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
      What experiments are you talking about? It is very well established that human lipogenesis from sugar is rare. You have to eat a totally fat free diet and push the sugar intake to hundreds of grams to make it happen at all. A human's adipose fat is simply stored dietary fat. Plentiful sugar intake will suppress fat burning and cause all dietary fat to be stored, so obviously loading up on sugar will usually make you a lard-ass. Just somewhat less so than gorging on fat. It should be noted that this state of affairs is not true in animal models. Rats very efficiently form body fat from sugar, for example.
- revelation 12y ago
  There are no singular reasons for obesity. Certainly the reason is not sugar or fat. The reasoning here seems to be a basic misunderstanding of logic. Just because "no carbs => lean" doesn't mean "lean iff no carbs". I would hate for ignorance to turn the essential sugar fuel I need to ride 100 miles on my bike (no, it turns out, you don't want to do that on fat metabolism alone!) into some unobtainable luxury.
  - beachstartup 12y ago
    > (no, it turns out, you don't want to do that on fat metabolism alone!) i'm not an expert in this field, but during my personal ketogenic diet research, i came across many elite but amateur endurance athletes blogging about their switch from carb-adapted to fat-adapted performance. to a layman like me, it would seem that professionals wouldn't be publicizing the fact that they have switched to fat-fueled endurance training because it would be a massive competitive advantage. the research in this area of biology is extremely cutting edge with new information being published monthly, and i can only imagine well-funded professional athletes are simply training/eating and performing at a level far and away beyond the typical enthusiast or fitness athlete. not only that - they can sustain a specialized, ketogenic diet required to actually achieve such a state.
    - xiaoma 12y ago
      >to a layman like me, it would seem that professionals wouldn't be publicizing the fact that they have switched to fat-fueled endurance training because it would be a massive competitive advantage. Except it's a disadvantage, not an advantage. All kinds of diets have been tried in the name of performance and the results are pretty clear. The typical world class runner's diets in the top performing country (Kenya) has 76.5 percent of daily calories consumed as carbohydrates. This group of runners has absolutely demolished lower carbohydrate consuming western runners. Marathoners from other top-performing countries (Ethiopia and Japan) have similarly been scrutinized with similar results. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15657475 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15657475
      - 12y ago
- ejain 12y ago
  I don't recall seeing sugar being marketed as "better than fat". Companies just upped the sugar when fat fell out of favor, because junk food that's neither fat nor sweet won't sell...
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
tatterdemalion 12y ago
There is an excellent book about the history and anthropology of sugar by Sidney Mintz called Sweetness & Power. It documents the connection between the consumption and production of sugar by the West and the development of capitalism. It's fascinating.
ealloc 12y ago
It's funny to think that once upon a time sugar was so precious it was kept locked up in its own dedicated safe. In America these are known as "sugar chests", you can fairly commonly find them as antiques. King Louis XVI kept his sugar in a locked container and kept the key with him. He would open it up for special guests and personally delivered small amounts of sugar to each person. Similarly, in French noble households it was common for the man of the house to control the sugar-key, and to distribute small amounts of sugar to the family as he saw fit.
- crpatino 12y ago
  If we are talking about the royalty/nobility here... is it not possible that this has more to do with the fear of being poisoned than with the value of the commodity? I honestly don't know.
- superflit 12y ago
  Does the expression "sugar Daddy" came from that?

52 points by __Joker 12y ago

awjr 12y ago

I don't think it's the fact that sugar is evil, but that it has been marketed as better than fat. Low fat food high in 'hidden' sugars are sold to us as better for us. Both have their issues, but looking at our diet over millennia, high sugar diets are new to our bodies. When we bring the car into the equation and the way it has transformed the way we travel we suddenly have this health 'time' bomb that is beginning to explode. Now people may say it's down to the individual to make dietary decisions, but this is more fundamental than this. In the same way the tobacco industry has to pay for the damage it inflicts on the population through taxation, I can see sugar taxes becoming something governments will implement to recover the cost to the state of a unhealthy population.

RichardFord 12y ago
In the same way the tobacco industry has to pay for the damage it inflicts on the population through taxation, I can see sugar taxes becoming something governments will implement to recover the cost to the state of a unhealthy population. Well, tobacco is not sugar, and you can make the argument that anything taken to excess will cause damage. You people need to start thinking about where this slippery slope of government intervention leads to.
enraged_camel 12y ago
A 10 cent tax per gram of added sugar or HFCS for every product. Implement this and watch obesity rates plummet. (This is not a serious suggestion, but I think it would still be interesting to brainstorm the implications of such a tax.)
- cpwright 12y ago
  How do you define added. If you have pure apple juice, it has 35g in an 8 fl. oz. serving (using the Martinelli's in my pantry as an example). There is no sugar added, but it clearly has plenty of sugar. What happens if instead of adding the sugar to the apple juice, I were to just reduce the amount of water instead? I'm still not adding any sugar, but the concentrate would clearly have more sugar than not. How is this much different than producing maple syrup, which is pretty much designed to be sugar?
  - enraged_camel 12y ago
    In this case, "added" would mean "extra," as in any amount you add on top of what is produced once the apples are converted into juice. I agree that some stuff already has a high amount of sugar in it naturally, but I think in the grand scheme of things they make up just a small minority of all products. My concern is for more common stuff, like bread. Why does bread have to have high-fructose corn syrup in it again? The answer is that it doesn't.
    - DanBC 12y ago
      You need a small amount of sugar for the yeast. Does US bread have more than that?
      - adrianN 12y ago
        Yeasts are perfectly capable of splitting starches, you don't need any sugar.
      - maxerickson 12y ago
        Yes. Here's a higher end "grocery store shelf" bread maker: http://www.pepperidgefarm.com/FreshBreadsGateway.aspx http://www.pepperidgefarm.com/FreshBreadsGateway.aspx 2 to 4 grams of sugar per slice is typical there. That sort of bread is prepared at large regional bakeries. Decent grocers will also have a fresh bakery, with somewhat more variety to the product, and probably breads with little added sugar. If you live in a decent size town, there will also be one or more store front bakeries that uses a shorter list of ingredients (I almost said they are more traditional, but I'm sure they are mostly using big mixers and nice ovens and the like).
    - mbarrett 12y ago
      satisfying a taste and product differentiation is the main driver. the body loves sweets, salts and fat and who wants wheat bread when you can have honey wheat bread. Some blame comes down to the producer and marketing trends, gluten is a good example. Up until recently, gluten free had no regulation with using that on packaging. http://www.fda.gov/food/guidanceregulation/guidancedocumentsregulatoryinformation/allergens/ucm362880.htm http://www.fda.gov/food/guidanceregulation/guidancedocuments... When discussing this with friends, I use the example of sodas being marketed as caffeine-free, rather than caffeine added. They are all caffeine free to start.
- shonn 12y ago
  You don't need a tax. Just get rid of the massive subsidy that HFCS gets. edit: I had meant the indirect subsidy through corn subsidies. I agree that there shouldn't be much of a distinction between HFCS and sugar (fructose) from other sources.
  - a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
    I don't think HFCS gets any subsidies. Corn gets subsidized and there are very high tariffs on imported cane sugar. HFCS is metabolically identical to white sugar and bobos singling it out are misguided.
    - protopete 12y ago
      HFCS is metabolized primarily by the liver, unlike sugar. http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/4/895.full http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/4/895.full
      - a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
        HFCS is equal parts fructose and glucose, exactly the same as sugar. Your link indicates no distinction. HFCS is produced by running corn starch through an enzyme process identical to one that happens in your pancreas. Corn starch is broken up into glucose and then half the glucose is converted to fructose. Personally I find HFCS drinks have a mild metalic aftertaste whereas sugar doesn't. I don't know what causes it. But HFCS is metabolically exactly the same as white sugar. And neither are "bad" for you.
        enraged_camel 12y ago
        It's the amount that matters. HFCS is cheaper to produce thanks to corn subsidies and cane sugar tariffs, therefore more of it goes into food, and it goes into more types of food. The tax I proposed above is a way to offset this effect.
vonmoltke 12y ago
> In the same way the tobacco industry has to pay for the damage it inflicts on the population through taxation, I can see sugar taxes becoming something governments will implement to recover the cost to the state of a unhealthy population. That is going to be much trickier, though. The sugar binge is partially a result of the well-meaning but misguided demonization of fats during the 70s and 80s, something those very governments participated in.
- awjr 12y ago
  Be aware that the 'sugar' lobby fought hard not to have sugar demonised the way fat was by the WHO. This really is of their own making.
  - pkaye 12y ago
    It is probably the demonisation of fat that pushed people to consume excessive sugar.
a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
De novo lipogenesis from sugar in humans is extremely inefficient. Sugar really is less fattening, calorie for calorie, than dietary fat. So in at least one sense sugar is in fact "better" than fat. You can live in perfect health on close to zero fat intake. Sustained zero sugar/carb intake is extremely stressful for the body and sends catecholamine levels way up, accelerating aging. The anti sugar thinking is basically some dumb ideas from diabetes research extrapolated out. If you have a healthy pancreas there is zero reason not to get a load of your calories from sugar. You just have to get sufficient mineral and vitamin intake as well, so for this reason fruit juice is better than white sugar.
- ch4s3 12y ago
  Source?
- zspade 12y ago
  Really, this is an incredible assertion that goes against all recent research results, and therefore requires sunbstantial evidence or citation thereof. I believe his source would be the author John McDougall, who is pretty much the only person you can find pushing this... 'Hypothesis' might be a strong word. McDougall goes as far as to say Sugar is less fattening thank Olive oil. The reason he is so anti-fat looks to be a strong support for movement toward a Vegan diet. Spreading misinformation such as this is a huge diservice to vegans though, and would likely only lead to higher instances of obesity and metabolic diseases for anyone unfortunate enough to buy into it.
  - a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
    What experiments are you talking about? It is very well established that human lipogenesis from sugar is rare. You have to eat a totally fat free diet and push the sugar intake to hundreds of grams to make it happen at all. A human's adipose fat is simply stored dietary fat. Plentiful sugar intake will suppress fat burning and cause all dietary fat to be stored, so obviously loading up on sugar will usually make you a lard-ass. Just somewhat less so than gorging on fat. It should be noted that this state of affairs is not true in animal models. Rats very efficiently form body fat from sugar, for example.
revelation 12y ago
There are no singular reasons for obesity. Certainly the reason is not sugar or fat. The reasoning here seems to be a basic misunderstanding of logic. Just because "no carbs => lean" doesn't mean "lean iff no carbs". I would hate for ignorance to turn the essential sugar fuel I need to ride 100 miles on my bike (no, it turns out, you don't want to do that on fat metabolism alone!) into some unobtainable luxury.
- beachstartup 12y ago
  > (no, it turns out, you don't want to do that on fat metabolism alone!) i'm not an expert in this field, but during my personal ketogenic diet research, i came across many elite but amateur endurance athletes blogging about their switch from carb-adapted to fat-adapted performance. to a layman like me, it would seem that professionals wouldn't be publicizing the fact that they have switched to fat-fueled endurance training because it would be a massive competitive advantage. the research in this area of biology is extremely cutting edge with new information being published monthly, and i can only imagine well-funded professional athletes are simply training/eating and performing at a level far and away beyond the typical enthusiast or fitness athlete. not only that - they can sustain a specialized, ketogenic diet required to actually achieve such a state.
  - xiaoma 12y ago
    >to a layman like me, it would seem that professionals wouldn't be publicizing the fact that they have switched to fat-fueled endurance training because it would be a massive competitive advantage. Except it's a disadvantage, not an advantage. All kinds of diets have been tried in the name of performance and the results are pretty clear. The typical world class runner's diets in the top performing country (Kenya) has 76.5 percent of daily calories consumed as carbohydrates. This group of runners has absolutely demolished lower carbohydrate consuming western runners. Marathoners from other top-performing countries (Ethiopia and Japan) have similarly been scrutinized with similar results. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15657475 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15657475
    - 12y ago
ejain 12y ago
I don't recall seeing sugar being marketed as "better than fat". Companies just upped the sugar when fat fell out of favor, because junk food that's neither fat nor sweet won't sell...
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

tatterdemalion 12y ago

There is an excellent book about the history and anthropology of sugar by Sidney Mintz called Sweetness & Power. It documents the connection between the consumption and production of sugar by the West and the development of capitalism. It's fascinating.

ealloc 12y ago

It's funny to think that once upon a time sugar was so precious it was kept locked up in its own dedicated safe. In America these are known as "sugar chests", you can fairly commonly find them as antiques. King Louis XVI kept his sugar in a locked container and kept the key with him. He would open it up for special guests and personally delivered small amounts of sugar to each person. Similarly, in French noble households it was common for the man of the house to control the sugar-key, and to distribute small amounts of sugar to the family as he saw fit.

crpatino 12y ago
If we are talking about the royalty/nobility here... is it not possible that this has more to do with the fear of being poisoned than with the value of the commodity? I honestly don't know.
superflit 12y ago
Does the expression "sugar Daddy" came from that?