HN Theater @HNTheaterMonth

Robert Lustig has been giving the same presentation for over a decade showing statistics that people who stop eating sugar can reverse their type 2 diabetes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

A potential reason could also be fructose.

While humans ate tons of carbs since agroculutural revolution those carbs were ~95% glucose (starch), eg potato, grains, rice, beans,...

Only in the last ~70 years did we have an explosion in

1) sugar (50% fructose) and HFCS

2) fruits with a high sugar content: most modern fruits didn't exist ~100 years ago, and those that did had a fraction of fructose that modern fruits have.

Fructose is known to be the most destructive things you can put in the body (glucose is almost harmless compared to it).

Eg a study shown that replacing or even just replacing fructose with glucose had a massive improvement in fatty liver in children in just 9 days!

Fructose is metabolized like alchocol, which is why in the ~1970 or 1980 you start seing T2 diabetes and fatty liver in children, while before T2 diabetes and fatty liver was only a problem of alchoholics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

⬐ JPLeRouzic

Thanks for posting this, it's incredibly insightful.

⬐ lob_it

I watched both of Lustig's videos on fructose. A lot of interesting data.

The american heart association estimates a 60%-70% overweight/obesity ratio.

Individuals still choose their own lifestyle behaviors :)

>> The mystery behind the astronomical rise in neurological disorders like Parkinson’s disease and Alzheimer’s could be caused by exposure to environmental toxins that are omnipresent yet poorly understood, leading doctors warn.

Keto/low carb/and especially fasting+lowcarb was shown to help in many of these diseases.

This article smells like misdirection away from sugar which is a poison which our kids eat in insane quantaties.

It's because of fructose (sugar) that fatty liver disease and T2 diabetes, which was once a disease that only appeared in adult alchoholics, now also happens in children and non-alchoholic adults: ~1980 was the 1st known case of a kid getting fatty liver.

One study found a quick way to eliminate fatty liver in kids: replacing 10% to 15% of carb calories of fructose with glucose.

Fat + fructose is also particulary dangerous, though the issue is not fat but fructose, it's just that when you combine them the negative effects of fructose get much, much more severe.

What does alzheimer and cancer have in common? Both cells have damaged mitchochondria. The difference between neurons and non-neuron cells in other parts of the body is that neurons do not have the ability to use the Warburg effect since they are missing some glycolictic machinery in order for that to happen. This is why neurons cannot go "full cancer" like other cells in the body and just "die peacefully": BUT that deaths might then create negative side effects later.

One video below clearly shows that cancer is NOT caused by mutations of the nucleus of the cell, so this theory seems to be totaly wrong. It seems to be related to damaged mitochondria due to way too much fructose and glucose.

This ties in well why people had total cancer remission with water fasting + keto.

Also many people have that amyloid plaque in the brain and yet have zero dementia, so there goes the amyloid plaque theory.

In a way you could say that all of these diseases are "diabetes of the cells", just expressed in different forms.

High sugar load also causes high blood pressure through uric acid production -> this blocks N20 production in blood vesseles -> and there goes your ability to regulate blood pressure out through the window.

(I myself cured my own high blood pressure just be elimnating all processed sweets, I still eat tons of salt, I experimented with ~10 to 20g of salt per day and still had a blood pressure in the ~125/75 range, but before on processed sweets it was ~145/95).

Overconsumption of fructose (therefore sugar) seems to be the main cause. Even if you remove fructose (and sugar) from the human diet we humans never ate a high carb diet until the last 10k years ago when we started growing grains.

While glucose (eg starchy food like oats and potatoes) is less damaging than fructose (thus sugar) it's still not harmless.

Those who are interested in this topic can view these sources:

One can also find examples of full cancer remision in these links (TLRD: water fasting for ~5-7 days than a keto diet). One can more examples of this on the net.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXiQgTZZqPg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jK0BkTPUGQY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJQn6WZGAQ0

⬐ sdeep27

What’s your take on non processed high sugar food? Fruits, honey, etc.

I’m someone that is very anti processed foods but generally ok with sugar. I wonder what the overlap is.

⬐ oifjsidjf

Honey can be common in some parts of the planet, yes. Honey is also partially seasonal, there is less of it at some time + they didn't have artifical bee hives that would produce tons of honey.

Fruit on the other hand: 1) is seasonal 2) modern fruit is totaly different than fruits ~200 years ago: most fruit in nature had hardly any sugars in it: only the modern fruits have. So modern fruit should be thought of as a severely modified form of plants: they didn't exist and were not eaten 200 years ago in the current massive-sugar-form + were only consumed seasonaly since they couldn't ship it around the world in a few days or weeks.

TLDR: fruit was non-sweet, from what I know (might be wrong) berries are the only ancient-like fruits nowadays (10k years ago). There were grapes etc..yes..but if you ate homegrown old-school grapes you'd know they can be very sour actually, often not sweet at all.

⬐ Melatonic

You have some good points here but I think you may be missing the middle link - sugar is bad (and can be proven in the short term) but my personal theory is that one of the contributing factors to alzheimers (not necessarily the sole cause) is a yet to be identified autoimmune disorder. And overconsumption of sugar (and also lack of proper prebiotic fibers) will greatly mess up peoples immune systems through the gut bacteria pathway.

⬐ oifjsidjf

>> is a yet to be identified autoimmune disorder

These things didn't exist ~120 years ago. So even if it as autoimmune disease it's caused by something new: and this all started (and can be healed to a certain or complete degree) via sugar elimination.

So "autoimmune disease" is downstream from sugar consumption.

Also, most of what we call "autoimmune disease" is BS: eg when they say that T1 diabetes is autoimmune they actually found damaged protein in the pancreas cells and the immune system was actually saving the pancrease from those damaged proteins.

But if the diet is bad those damaged proteins will keep being shuffled there: so it's not the immune system that hurts you: it's the chronic poisoning of tissue with stuff that should not be there -> then over time the immune system does some colleteral damage which compounds due to the chronic toxicity -> so the problem is chronic toxicity, not "autoimmune".

The same is true for arthritis: you can find stuff that should not be in the joint capsule there for people with arthtiris: the immune system then over time does some damage as it tries to save the joint from the foreign bodies which are chronicaly accumulated.

TLDR: autoimmune disease is mostly pure BS, it's chronic toxicity. It's just that we know how to detect white blood cells (WBC) betters in the blood than other (yet unknown) substances.

BUt just because you see a higher WBC count doesn't mean it's autoimmune: it's just that you can't find the real reason why WBC are activated.

About the gut: modern processed food is so unnatural that it destroys the gut barrier -> so again, not an autoimmune disease, but a pure food induced disease.

The stuff starts leaking from the gut into the blood which poisons the body (and the liver primarly, but from the liver it spreads into the blood).

White wheat flour has a higher glycemic index than table sugar[0]. High GI foods can lead to blood sugar spikes, potentially to ”impaired insulin sensitivity” [1], and a host of related health problems. Diabetes, obesity, etc. In a sense it’s worse than refined white sugar for many, if not most, people. Particularly those living a more sedentary lifestyle.

If you subscribe to the notion that sugar is poison[2][3], then highly refined, processed, wheat flour is also poison.

[0] https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-conditions/glyce...

[1] https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/22206-insulin...

[2] https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2009/06/104177/sugar-poison-says-u...

[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM (see 35-39min)

⬐ Gordonjcp

Yeah, no. That's not a real thing.

Have you any evidence for that actually being a real thing?

⬐ EdwardDiego

Okay, your first link states that potatoes and white rice also have a higher GI than sucrose, which makes sense, as they'd have a more complex set of sugars when cooked as the starch chains break down.

Meanwhile, pasta made from white flour has a lower GI than white bread, but also lower than sucrose.

Which also makes sense, as bread has sugar added to it as part of the baking process, and also to enhance consumer uptake in certain markets.

(US bread contains more added sugar than bread in my country).

So, this leads me to a clarifying question or two:

1) What is the incidence of type 2 diabetes in Italy and SE Asia? Given the prevalence of pasta in the former, and rice in the latter.

2) In your country, is white bread really the main source of daily carbohydrates?

I totally agree that eating huge amounts of refined carbohydrates is unhealthy, but I haven't seen anything here that shows that white flour as a part of a balanced diet will inherently make you sick.

⬐ adrian_b

I agree with you.

The glycemic index from that table just shows that a certain kind of white wheat bread is digested faster than pure sucrose, but slower than boiled potatoes.

The effect of any food that contains starch or sugar depends not only on the glycemic index, but also on the ingested amount. Moreover, the effect of eating bread depends on the other food that is ingested at the same time, which will slow down the digestion and lower the glycemic index in comparison with eating just bread alone, without anything else. Sweet food with high sugar content is much more likely to be eaten alone than bread.

While the digestion speed for any pure sugar or for boiled potatoes or rice is about the same for any kind of sugar, potatoes or rice, there is a huge number of varieties of bread, which are digested at different rates and which have different glycemic indexes.

From a table like that it is not possible to know what kind of bread has been tested.

For example, I make at home a special kind of bread with very high protein content (about 40% protein, while the commercial breads have less than 10% protein). It is made using only white wheat flour and water, but the dough is washed to remove about 75% of the starch, enriching the dough in gluten.

I can bet that such a white wheat bread has a glycemic index much lower than sucrose.

Lustig claims there was a catastrophic shift from fats to sugars due to blaming fats for obesity. Supposedly fructose doesn't trigger the satiation signals that fats do however.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

⬐ vorpalhex

Fats come with their own issues too, especially the shelf stable fats that processed food uses as opposed to a bit of real butter.

The truth is less exciting: avoid too much sugar or fat. Some is fine. Your "fine" and your "too much" may be different from someone elses.

⬐ capitainenemo

Yeah, fats definitely have issues, but, they come with rate limiters - satiation triggers. Heart of his argument is that fructose triggers nothing, so you keep chugging it, and with almost identical stress to liver as alcohol, which also has a limiter for most people (you pass out :) )

⬐ watwut

Satiation is more complicated then that. You can eat pure fat or pure sugar and neither option will make you feel full. Both will also cause malnutrition in you, no matter how much of them you consume.

⬐ arcticbull

Fructose also has different glycemic profile - it doesn't trigger the same big spike is blood sugar that glucose does. It has to be metabolized by the liver first, which is the rate-limiting step. Although, too much can lead to a cirrhosis-like condition called non-alcoholic fatty liver disease [1]. Sugar is bad, even fructose.

With that in mind, there's no such thing as a minimum required daily intake of carbohydrates.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-alcoholic_fatty_liver_dise...

It's pretty clear the epidemic of obesity and metabolic disease is largely caused by sugar

https://youtu.be/dBnniua6-oM

⬐ wbsss4412

It’s not at all clear that the current epidemic is caused by sugar.

Lustig is a great speaker, and I’ll admit that when I first watched that I was quite convinced.

His position, however, is still not representative of a consensus within the field, and for good reason. While sugar consumption is likely detrimental to one’s overall health. Simply cutting out sugar is not necessarily going to lead to better weight management outcomes.

While sugar consumption has increased over time, so have added fats and oils [0]. Which are much more calorically dense. It’s unlikely that any one food source is leading to the increases in obesity that we are seeing.

[0] https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/82220/eib-166....

⬐ krasotkin

Consensus is not a necessary condition for truth. An idea can have no one believing it and be correct, and another idea can have everyone believing it and be wrong.

⬐ wbsss4412

Absolutely.

That said, it does beg the question: why, 12 years after that video was published, has the field not come to an agreement, if it is “pretty clearly” the truth?

One could come up with various explanations, including lobbying by big sugar, but it falls flat when you consider that the sugar industry is only a small fraction of the industrialized food industry, there’s plenty of lobbying and influence to go around.

At the end of the day, there are only a few things that are clear: junk food is bad, Americans eat too many calories, and could stand to eat more fruits and vegetables.

⬐ teawrecks

The first person to suggest fossil fuels would leaf to global warming was in 1896. How long until the field came to an agreement?

⬐ gaze

are you making the argument that BECAUSE his ideas are not widely accepted they must be true? Come on.

⬐ admax88qqq

No they are making the argument that people have been right in the past and it took forever for the community to find "consensus" on that position if ever.

So to doubt something is true just because "it's been 12 years and there's no consensus" is not necessarily a good rebuttal to something being true or not.

⬐ svachalek

How many things did one guy say in 1896 that turned out to be wrong?

⬐ wbsss4412

I don’t think I ever disputed that it can take a long time to reach consensus.

It’s quite clear that there isn’t a consensus on what the truth is, ergo the truth is out there on what causes obesity and it isn’t to be found within the current consensus.

However, do we take that to mean that sugar is the cause of obesity? I don’t see overwhelming evidence to that fact, so I personally don’t.

What we can take is that whatever the truth is, it is not “clear” nor obvious at this point.

⬐ teawrecks

I don't understand this statement:

> One could come up with various explanations, including lobbying by big sugar, but it falls flat when you consider that the sugar industry is only a small fraction of the industrialized food industry, there’s plenty of lobbying and influence to go around.

Are you saying that the sugar industry would be lobbying against larger industries with opposing goals? Or are you saying the sugar industry is just one of several industries who would like to use their money to push the blame around?

I am not well versed in the agricultural industry, but doesn't the majority of our mass produced sugar come from the corn industry which is absolutely massive and will obviously do anything it can to protect its sources of income (sugar, ethanol, alcohol, oil, etc.)?

⬐ wbsss4412

I can’t say I have any special insider knowledge of food industry lobby.

My statement was to preempt the common argument that somehow the sugar industry is so powerful that it was and is able to divert all of our collective attention from it, when it is the real culprit.

The corn industry is a large industry, but so is the meat industry, dairy industry, processed food manufacturers, soy beans, etc. many of them, possibly even including corn, benefit from diverting attention away from their products towards sugar as the main villain. Even if sugar is a revenue source for corn, it pales in comparison for its main product: animal feed.

None of that is to say that I think any of the above industries I listed is “the culprit” I only list them to illustrate my point. Big sugar has lobbying power, but it is all too common that the simplest story gets repeated, “it’s all because of powerful lobbying group X”

⬐ sgtnoodle

Sure, simply cutting out sugar but otherwise making poor dietary choices isn't going to lead to weight loss. Cutting out sugar tends to make it easier to eat healthy, though. Long term weight loss requires lifestyle changes.

In my personal anecdotal experience, my weight gain and loss correlates to my caloric intake. When I've explicitly calorie counted, foods with refined carbohydrates are typically what blows up my count. When I've done low carb high fat and protein diets, I've found it difficult to eat too much, to the point of coming up several hundred calories short per day.

⬐ wbsss4412

I mean yes, that’s something of a tautology though.

Cutting down on calories necessarily means cutting down on fat, carbs, or both (technically protein as well, but protein doesn’t generally seem to be the issue.)

If you were to follow an explicitly low fat diet, it would be very difficult to eat junk food as well. Almost all junk foods are high in both fat and carbs at the same time.

You are right about refined carbs. Most public health organizations advise limiting one’s consumption of those.

⬐ harpersealtako

I don't think "refined carbs are bad for you" is correct. Consider that many of the healthiest, least obese, longest lived societies on earth (e.g. Japan) have diets heavy in refined carbs (e.g. white rice).

⬐ rubicon33

Can you give an example of what a typical high calorie / high carb day looked like for you?

I eat lots of carbs, always have... yet I don't seem to gain weight. I generally feel like, and am regarded by people who know me, as someone who "eats a ton" yet I have never struggled to lose weight.

The X food causes obesity theory is just too simple IMO, that or I have a tape worm or some kind of undiagnosed disorder that results in me maintaining a pretty consistent BMI despite eating whatever and whenever I want.

⬐ sgtnoodle

Have you ever tried tracking calories, not necessarily with the intention of hitting a goal? If not, the data can be rather informative, and doesn't necessarily match intuition. There's free apps like MyFitnessPal that makes it pretty easy. When I have done it, I've been able to correlate weight gain and loss to caloric intake. There are a few pounds of fluctuation from things like water retention and amount of food in your gut of course, but it's visible over the timespan of a week. If you eat a very consistent diet, you can measure differences on a scale across a few days.

⬐ uoaei

I learned a while back but don't have time to dig up sources now that eating simple carbs and fats together encourages your body to take the fast calories and store them as fat, moreso than eating simple carbs alone (fast energy, relatively clean-burning) or fats alone. These kinds of interactions are historically very important for explaining particular quirks of the effects of diets and I wouldn't be surprised at all if microplastics had some sort of catalytic effect, e.g. by being nucleation points for buildup of something (arterial plaque or whatever else).

⬐ eslaught

I really, really recommend watching this lecture:

The Human Microbiome: A New Frontier in Health by Susan Lynch

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCaTQzjX2rQ

What food you eat certainly influences conditions in your gut, which influences your gut microbiome. On the other hand, your gut microbiome is highly persistent and even efforts to diet may not have the direct impact you'd think it would. Also, other factors (like conditions at birth) have strong effects that are highly persistent.

If you're not familiar with this research you really owe it to yourself to learn about it.

⬐ k0k0r0

Indeed, this was very interesting. However, I missed a bit what changes to my diet I could do to improve myicrobiome. I would be glad to hear a scientist like her discussing this.

⬐ eslaught

This may not directly answer your question, but the Huberman Lab podcast [1] is done by a Stanford professor and generally includes very high quality summaries of recent research. He also provides actionable suggestions (though sometimes, the research is so new that they're still in the process of figuring this out). You can scroll through the home page and see the variety of topics he covers, there are a number on gut health.

[1]: https://hubermanlab.com

⬐ philjohn

And HFCS?

⬐ zamfi

Sugar consumption peaked in 1997 [0] in the US. Obesity continues to rise.

In Australia, sugar consumption dropped 23% (and other sweeteners dropped 16%) from 1980 to 2003, while obesity tripled. [1]

There is more to the picture.

[0] https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2021/07/11/a-chemical-hunger-p...

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3257688/

>Calling a food unhealty is quite silly to me, anything is unhealty if you consume it in unhealty amounts.

>The above statements obviously exclude things like cyanide and other things designed to kill humans, I'd call them lethal.

How about sugar...?

https://youtu.be/dBnniua6-oM

⬐ carlhjerpe

You need sugar to live as far as I know, you hardly need cyanide to live. You're comparing apples to oranges.

PS: I'm not watching and hour 30m long video for you to get your point through, excessive sugar is bad yes (if that's your point).

⬐ ellopoppit

>You need sugar to live as far as I know

Incorrect. Your body can and will convert fat into carbohydrates

>PS: I'm not watching and hour 30m long video for you to get your point through

Perhaps if you did, you wouldn't say silly things like:

>Calling a food unhealty is quite silly to me

Learning about the science of food and how different types affects people's bodies takes time

Sugar: the bitter truth https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

When this first came out well over a decade ago, I completely changed my diet and lost 45 lbs. Since then I have kept it off, strictly through diet.

My only exercise is walking, and I am not at all consistent about it. I am living proof that a correct zero-sugar diet alone works.

⬐ postalrat

IMO healty food and reduced calories is all you need to worry about. Does it matter if you are getting a calorie from fat, sugar, protein, alcohol, etc?

⬐ maxharris

Watch the video, especially the part covering the biochemistry. Fructose interferes with satiety signaling (leptin, ghrelin), which forces eating beyond caloric needs.

An unprocessed strawberry is healthy because the fiber limits the rate at which fructose leaks out of the chunks in your gut. Blend or freeze that same strawberry and it becomes junk candy.

Reducing or eliminating fructose is a better answer, I think. Anti-fat messaging (in food) has resulted in food producers reducing fat but increasing fructose content for decades, with an associated rise in obesity, heart disease, and diabetes. Check out the lecture "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" by Robert Lustig: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM&t=179s

⬐ 8note

Remove the profit incentive from selling food is what we really need; that or charging food producers for the bad health impacts they create.

After removing fructose, food producers will find a new thing to make people want to eat more, ad infinitum.

⬐ commoner

You're completely right that excess added sugar (including added fructose) is well-known to be unhealthy, and that switching to non-meat foods wouldn't address this issue. But, low-meat diets aren't necessarily higher in added sugar than higher-meat diets. (I did say "healthy" non-meat foods to exclude, for instance, replacing meat with candy.)

I agree that reducing added sugar consumption should be one of the highest priorities for the average individual who is looking to improve their diet. However, this particular question asked about the racial effects of reducing meat consumption, so the benefits of reducing added sugar consumption wouldn't be the most relevant piece of information to answer with.

As usual in biochemistry, it is the dose that makes the poison. But also mode of consumption.

We are indeed well adapted to consuming fruit. Even though modern fruit is bred to be much more sugary than its natural predecessors (ever tried eating a wild apple from a tree on a hike? Insanely sour), there does not seem to be any kind of health problem associated with consumption of raw fruit. We have a lot of metabolically sick people around the world - over a billion probably - but few of them, if any, have gotten to that point by eating too much fruit.

Fructose is not fruit, though. Even very sweet fruit like mango has only 16 per cent of fructose per weight. Fructose itself is 100 per cent, it is refined, concentrated stuff, from which all fiber has been removed.

Fiber that naturally occurs in fruit and veg slows down processing of fruit and veg in the digestive system - it takes fairly long (hours) to extract all the fructose from an eaten piece of fruit. As a result, the liver isn't overworked - it receives manageable quantity of fructose over a long period.

Now compare a situation when you drink a litre of sweetened beverage. That is a lot of fructose - you just drank an equivalent of seven? eight? apples in half an hour or so. And all that sugar comes in liquid form, so it enters your blood very fast, producing a huge spike. The liver is overwhelmed. It can cope somehow, but do this ten thousand times and some negative outcomes are bound to follow.

There is a scientist (Robert H. Lustig, professor of endocrinology at UCSF) who, more than a decade ago, published a long video called "Sugar: The Bitter Truth". It is stuffed with various biochemical observations and longish, but I found the information useful.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

⬐ hsn915

Ok but this does not only apply to fructose. It applies equally well to glucose and fat/oil. Anything in excess can had dire consequences, including a lot of vitamins and minerals. Even water in excess can be bad for you.

When the messaging is centered around "carbs are bad" or "fructose is bad" it will lead people to believe that fruits are bad for you. I've seen several health channels on youtube recommend not eating more than the equivalent of one apple per day in terms of fruits.

⬐ inglor_cz

Glucose can be processed by every single cell in human body. I don't think you can eat or even drink so much glucose that you overwhelm the capabilities of the entire body to cope with it. You will vomit sooner than that.

While people can and do consume excessive amounts of fat/oil, we are somewhat protected by the fact that fat has a very strong satiating effect, which makes it a little harder to completely pig out. Fructose has no satiating effect at all.

Generally, yes, anything in excess has dire consequences, but in some things those consequences manifest sooner than in others. Sweetened beverages as consumed today are very much a definition of excess: big packaging, a lot of sugar within, and their mass consumption is societally normalized.

⬐ CuriousSkeptic

> Glucose can be processed by every single cell in human body.

That processing hinges on a healthy insulin response to keep blood sugar levels in check. Which for a large part of the population is probably not the case.

Again with a suitable amount of fibres to go with that glucose intake, the load can be levelled somewhat though.

From that same video linked by the parent post (https://youtu.be/dBnniua6-oM). I watched it a while ago, so in my own words:

The key is fiber. When you eat fruit, you consume fructose with fiber. Fiber hinders absorption of fructose. Many processed foods have a lot of fructose and no fiber, because fiber doesn't help the shelf life.

EDIT: here's a more expanded explanation from the same endocrinologist in another video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-s5szfPYKY4&t=4924s

Here’s the best explanation I’m aware of. It’s long but worth it. It changed how I think about food. I’ve been much more successful in eating healthily now that I understand how the body processes different types of sugar. Refined sugar (fructose) is poison.

https://youtu.be/dBnniua6-oM

⬐ Thorentis

Sucrose is table sugar, and fructose is the sugar found in fruit and veg. Fructose is also often used as an additive in the form of high-fructose corn syrup. Unfortunately fructose is even worse for you than sucrose, despite fructose occurring in otherwise healthy foods.

⬐ None

None

⬐ toxik

What a great presentation, I hadn’t seen this. My question would be: what of the diet or zero calorie products? I heard they make you overconsume later because basically they are anti-satiating. Would be interested to know.

Sugar: The Bitter Truth (2009)

https://youtu.be/dBnniua6-oM?t=66s

⬐ bigyellow

Oversimplified and overdramatized. Sugar does not cause weight gain on its own.

⬐ ncmncm

Yet, it causes fatty-liver disease, also called metabolic disorder, on its own. And, the secondary effects -- heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure -- are products of liver disease, not weight gain.

⬐ bigyellow

It does no such thing and I challenge you again to find any peer-reviewed research NOT funded by animal ag industry that supports your conclusions.

⬐ burke

Or how about you provide some peer-reviewed research rather than "challenging" everyone else to find it?

⬐ bigyellow

Because the burden is on the one making extraordinary claims.

⬐ burke

Which, of course, is you. Not only are you the sole dissenting voice in this thread, you disagree with the article, and the broad consensus. While there are plenty of cases where a thread, an article, and a general consensus are all wrong, you have absolutely no ground to stand on to claim that everyone else's claims are extraordinary and your claims require no evidence.

⬐ bigyellow

Prove that sugar causes weight gain or stop responding with nonsense.

⬐ ncmncm

You played yourself.

⬐ burke

Good talk.

Sugar: The Bitter Truth by Robert Lustig, MD

https://youtu.be/dBnniua6-oM

Food for thought...

Sugar: The Bitter Truth https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Is a Calorie a Calorie? Processed Food, Experiment Gone Wrong https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxyxcTZccsE

Does calorie counting work? (Almost never) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5F5o0a4p_3U

What The Fat (WTF) #133 Dr. Philip Ovadia| Keto "Causes" Heart Scarring https://www.listennotes.com/podcasts/what-the-fat-wtf/wtf-13...

The art of misdirection | Apollo Robbins https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZGY0wPAnus

Who's zoomin' who?

I think this talk [1] mentions that alcohol is metabolised into fat in the liver, from where it diffuses out in tiny droplets and ultimately settles down as visceral fat.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

I'v no idea what villi is, but ain't Lustig talking about this for a decade now?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

⬐ Tagbert

Villi are tiny “fingers” of tissue that line your intestines, increasing it’s surface area and allow absorption of nutrients and water. It makes the lining of the intestines resemble wet velvet.

⬐ pieter_mj

Yes, but he is more pointing out that fructose is processed in the liver only (as far as we currently know (glut5)), as such it constitutes an extra stress on the liver.

Fatty liver disease is more prevalent nowadays, and it has largely been decoupled from alcohol (ab)use and more related to fructose , hence it's been called non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.

Sugar: the bitter truth by Dr. Robert Lustig is an informative overview of the biological and societal effects of sugar https://youtu.be/dBnniua6-oM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM - the main gist of it is cane sugar is 50/50 sucrose and fructose while HFCS contains much more fructose which is harder for the body to digest/make use of as it requires being broke down or something and its hard on the liver ect. that video goes way into depth about it if your interested.

There's a long but popular (I think?) video by a UCSF prof. (Robert Lustig) who talks about sugar, from back in 2010:

https://youtu.be/dBnniua6-oM

As a layman, what he says sounds reasonable to me, but it's also difficult to know what context we're missing. If anyone has seen it and has some authoritative/professional opinions on it, it'd be really helpful. I've heard complaints that he's just trying to sell his book, and I don't know what how much weight to give everything.

For anyone interested in a detailed explanation of fructose metabolism (and why it's bad for you), I'd highly recommend these two talks by Robert Lustig on the subject. The first one is about how the body reacts to fructose, and the second video is a follow-up that emphasizes how fructose has contributed to the obesity epidemic in the US and elsewhere.

https://youtu.be/dBnniua6-oM

https://youtu.be/ceFyF9px20Y

⬐ admash

An excellent and detailed write-up of the biochemical mechanisms and effects involved in fructose metabolism is available at:

https://themedicalbiochemistrypage.org/fructose-metabolism/

⬐ knuthsat

Those videos have been debunked. Lustig used a lot of false claims.

⬐ bitwize

Which claims are false? I wouldn't trust any "debunking" with big sugar money behind it.

⬐ knuthsat

There's no big sugar behind it. You can quite easily see that a bunch of studies are on isolates, the Japanese he mentions eat much less calories and more fructose as a percentage of calories, etc.

There's just too much inaccuracies and outright misrepresentation to fit the narrative

⬐ leephillips

But don’t all other primates eat lots of fruit? Why are humans unique?

⬐ bnjms

Lustig argues that the fiber in fruit is the reason fruit does not cause issues in primates where we strip the fiber by straining or most commonly using hfcs as a sweetener. It’s a good-to-great video and worth the watch though I do not have the background to critique it.

⬐ mfer

A half cup of Dole canned pineapple is 15g of sugar. Eating a half cup of fresh pineapple is 8g of sugar. Pineapple is higher in sugar that many fruits. A cup of raspberries is 3g of Fructose.

This is a little mixing of apples and oranges but the high fructose we tend to eat are much higher than primates that eat fruit.

⬐ cjbenedikt

If you eat an apple for example yes, it contains fructose. Eating or drinking something with corn syrop is like eating LOTS of apples. Which you normally wouldn't do. https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/is-fruit-good-or-bad-fo...

⬐ knuthsat

Eating the equivalent amount of apples to HFCS is never going to have the same effect. Fiber content and other good stuff will completely remove the effects that you might see fructose isolate.

⬐ jcynix

Raw fruit isn't a problem, not even for humans. Products where "sugar" is replaced by fructose or other, simpler sugar variants is. Various sugar substitutes are added to e.g. canned fruit in "juice" which is mostly some kind of sugar. Which lets marketing say "less sugar" ...

And "high fructose corn syrup" is ... almost pure fructose. Which the human liver can only process a limited amount per day.

Anecdote: a young guy in Freiburg (Germany) got Covid recently and as a result lost his sense of taste afterwards. Now he isn't interested in fast food any more as everything tasty "bland" and can "easily" eat vegetables which he disliked before, even broccoli or Brussels sprouts. Which made him loose more than 50 pounds. Don't get this wrong, it's not an incentive to get Covid, but an example of the effects of abstaining from fast food and soft drinks.

⬐ aszantu

maybe I should get magicberry tabs again, they make everything taste sweet (more like aspartam sweet) without actually giving you sugar

⬐ pseudalopex

The most common form of HFCS is less than half fructose.[1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-fructose_corn_syrup#Compo...

⬐ m463

I think fruits in nature probably have a lot more water and are manually picked and eaten which limits the speed and quantity of intake.

Meanwhile humans can eat concentrated fruits. Imagine picking and eating 100 grapes, vs eating a handful of raisins.

⬐ xbmcuser

Primates also eat fermented fruits which have enzymes that convert to something more digestible. By going for the cleanest best looking fruits/foods we have decreased the diversity of our gut bacteria which increasing the things people are allergic to.

⬐ simcop2387

No research done, but I suspect it's because of the sheer amount that we consume, at least in the US due to the use of corn syrup in packaged foods.

⬐ leephillips

Sure, but that’s not the question. Presumably gorging on HFCS would be bad for chimps, too. I was asking about the claim that “fructose” is unhealthy.

⬐ oudhmkbjx

Food is more properly understood in totality than merely as isolated nutrients. However, it is easier to design scientific studies that focus on isolated nutrients.

Whole fruit contains vitamins, minerals, fiber, and significant amounts of water. Whole fruit contains intact plant cell walls. It's very important to eat intact plant cell walls, but that's difficult to determine from studies of isolated nutrients. Because of the bulkiness caused by water and fiber in whole fruit, it's difficult to eat large amounts. For example, it takes about four oranges to make a glass of orange juice. Most people would not eat four oranges, but most people could easily drink 1 or more glasses of juice.

The wild fruit eaten by primates has less sugar and more fiber compared to fruit cultivated by humans. Human cultivated foods, including plants and livestock, are much richer compared to wild plants and animals, having more fat, sugar, starch, and calories in general, than what could evolve in the absence of pest control.

Humans have evolved quite differently than other primates. We have a rare ability to digest large amounts of starch, a capability shared almost exclusively with rats and pigs. It's difficult to compare our diets.

Primates consume significant amounts of foliage (leaves and such). You probably should too, green leaves are very excellent for your health.

⬐ jonnycomputer

I guess my first thought is: the amount of fructose in fruit is small relative to the amount in, say, a cola. Also, fiber might mitigate the insulin response. Also, we aren't eating fruits found in the wild (which is the relevant ecological context for this discussion). We have selectively bred fruits to be bigger and sweeter.

⬐ pkaye

I wonder if the enzyme uricase has anything to do with it. While reading about gout, I read that uricase is not found in humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and gibbons but is found in other primates. Apparently uricase is found in most animals except the above. And somehow uricase is also related to fructose processing.

⬐ rirze

I was told that most fruits have a comparable amount of fructose and glucose and that eating excess fructose is what causes diseases and autoimmune reactions.

⬐ 4ec0755f5522

Does fruit contain as much fructose today as it did 50, 100, 200 years ago? Or have we selectively bread the sweetest fruits to the point where monkeys cannot eat bananas?

Monkeys banned from eating bananas at Devon zoo

Zookeepers say the stereotypical food actually makes monkeys more aggressive, rots their teeth and can lead to diabetes

[...]

Zookeepers said the fruit grown and exported for human consumption have far higher levels of sugar than the ones monkeys would eat in the wild – to the point that it’s bad for their teeth and can lead to diabetes.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/monkeys-bann...

⬐ ASalazarMX

This was very unexpected, thank you for the link.

⬐ leephillips

This is interesting! And I love bananas, too.

⬐ jcynix

> Does fruit contain as much fructose today as it did 50, 100, 200 years ago?

Maybe due to selection of larger, sweeter fruit, yes. But processed food contains various sugar variants, including fructose (think "high fructose corn syrup") so fruit isn't the only (not even the main) source of fructose for many.

I follow Robert Lustig's lectures; he talked about this stuff since 2009 and it's public - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM . The way I interpret the advice is as follows: Eat as much whole fruit as you want (but you'll get tired of it quickly). Limit refined sugars to about 30 grams per day (soda, candy, yogurt, jam, cake, etc.; this means reading labels carefully). In theory you can go out and eat as much glucose (a.k.a. dextrose) as you want, but this sounds dumb so don't do it. Embrace eating fat; it is not the enemy. Eat fiber like vegetables. Let your body tell you when you're full (which fructose disrupts).

Saturated fat turns out to be entirely harmless; it turns out that ills blamed on sat fat are caused by sugar and by ... something else ... that is in American-farmed meat.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Think of sugar (the fructose in sugar) as a poison. Your liver can neutralize any of myriad poisons at a strictly limited rate, fructose among them. So, choose consciously how much of each poison you want to eat, according to the load on your liver. Fructose and alcohol use the same pathway, so choose wisely.

Americans eat way more fructose than their livers can neutralize, and are dying from it in numbers that make COVID-19 look like the common cold. The autopsies don't say "died of sugar poisoning". Instead, they say heart disease, stroke, obesity, complications from diabetes, metabolic syndrome, hypertension... But it's mostly the sugar.

⬐ hammock

Something else?

⬐ ncmncm

Research into what about meat consumption in the US causes heart trouble, on top of the known sugar problem, has just started. About all we are sure of, so far, is that the sat fat isn't it.

This video was posted to YT 11 years ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM It's very difficult to eliminate sugar from your diet. The food industry has almost 55 different terms for sugar to hide it. The easiest thing to do is stop, or at least restrict, eating things from boxes, can and jars.

⬐ hntrader

For countries that have compulsory food labelling, is it sufficient to just look at the carbohydrate content as a proxy for the upper bound on sugar content? Of course I'm not talking about artificial sweeteners which is another can of worms.

⬐ nogbit

Bags as well, the bread in the grocery stores is full of sugar. In the US anyway.

This guy has been arguing for years that it is sugar (fructose actually) that increases the "bad" LDL in your blood stream https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

⬐ ncmncm

Robert Lustig is right that fructose (half of common sugar) is responsible for a variety of ills: exactly the ones Americans die of, by the millions. There is a lot of Lustig material on youtube, all of it excellent, all thoroughly grounded in rigorous experimental science. We need more Robert Lustigs.

The normal metabolic route is that excess fructose, beyond what the liver can afford to process immediately or store itself, is carried wrapped in cholesterol to fat cells to be stored.

If you take statins, excess fructose gets dumped into your bloodstream not wrapped in cholesterol, which is much worse. It causes oxidation of blood lipids, which have long been known to cause heart and circulatory problems.

⬐ tsimionescu

But aren't statins successful in preventing heart disease, in clinical trials?

My understanding was that other classes of medicine that reduce serum cholesterol levels have shown no effects on heart disease in clinical trials.

⬐ ncmncm

Sadly, no. Statins have been successful at preventing Nth heart attacks, N>1, with some evidence of preventing first heart attacks in people badly at risk, i.e. already with heart disease. It is far from clear how that works.

Vendors have eagerly sought for any hint of evidence of preventing heart disease, or anything else, for decades, and have come up empty. That does not stop physicians from prescribing statins for slightly elevated cholesterol. Pharmaceutical companies love drugs like statins that don't cure anything, so you have to take them every month, forever. They have proven very skilled at manipulating the opinions of medical doctors, e.g. scandalously in the case recent case of opioids.

Making your liver ignore signals to produce the cholesterol your body needs to function is a very bad idea, on par with irradiating your thymus gland when it becomes enlarged (which was done, and recently! Your thymus gland is part of your immune system, enlarged when it is working.)

⬐ awwaiid

I'd expect taking statins to then increase risk of heart failure, were it that simple.

⬐ ncmncm

Taking statins causes other problems, instead.

More particularly, permanent muscle damage.

⬐ hammock

Can you share a good article about the misconceptions of cholesterol and the dangers of statins? I've been looking for a decent source. I have a family member on a statin now.

⬐ 1_player

There are some interesting talks about keto and zero carb on Youtube about fat metabolism, cholesterol, fructose, etc.

Off the top of my head, I remember the "zero carb down under" channel where some are hosted, including Lustig's talks.

/r/KetoScience delves into the research, if you are so inclined.

> The single biggest difference between Japanese and American diet is the amount of food

What about sugar? There's a big difference there, too. Americans put sugar in everything, even things you'd think wouldn't need it, like salad dressing and pizza dough.

Sugar (sucrose) is made up of glucose & fructose, and I don't think fructose is healthy for us. And its metabolic pathway makes us fat [0] via _de novo lipogenesis_.

[0] Sugar, the Bitter Truth, Robert Lustig, MD, Endocrinologist at UCSF https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

⬐ carlmr

The Japanese like to put sugar in a lot of dishes, too, whether inari, omelettes, sushi rice, sauces, etc.

⬐ presentation

I think the difference is the amount though - the cheesecake I had at the Cheesecake Factory after getting used to Japanese cheesecakes was shockingly sweet.

⬐ carlmr

True, American sugar levels are insane. Coming from a European perspective, japanese food is very sweet though.

⬐ glandium

Main dishes, yes, but Japanese deserts are much less sweet than e.g. French ones.

⬐ Xixi

There's a ton of sugar in Japanese food. Usually it's added either directly as sugar (sucrose) or as mirin (sweet sake), although food from the south of Japan might be sweeter than in the north.

I personally never add sugar to anything I cook unless it's a desert, but I can only cook French food.

Started having severe gout attacks in 2004. Doctors are particularly unaware about gout. Despite having extremely painful and long attacks (during one attack, spent more than a month in bed unable to walk), all the doctors I saw had no idea despite endless tests. Finally based on my own research I suggested gout and they were like "oh yes, I suppose it could be that".

Once diagnosed, doctors are quick to get you on daily drugs for the rest of your life. While these help, there's a price to be paid in liver damage from chronic medication.

I spent the next ~8 years bouncing from attack to attack despite the drugs, sometimes every few weeks, sometimes months would go by. Finally around 2012 I stumbled on the work of Robert Lustig (UCSF medicine professor) and particularly this talk (not about gout, but touches on it):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Fructose is processed by the body into: uric acid. Finally light bulb moment! I hardly ate any of the things traditionally associated with gout (red meat, shellfish) so couldn't modify my diet based on those. But fructose? Yes, turns out I was consuming way too much.

I drastically cut back on fructose, limiting myself to no more than 10g/day. I have been gout-free now for 7 years. I don't take any gout drugs anymore. Just avoid fructose at all cost.

⬐ ourcat

Have you tried Cranberry juice/extract? I've often heard that it can help the body break down the Uric acid.

⬐ LogicX

I hadn’t heard of cranberry - but cherry juice is claimed to help. Never did much for me (diagnosed with Gout a few years ago)

⬐ jessaustin

Tart cherries (sometimes called Montmorency cherries) are pretty much miraculous gout treatments. I regularly take varying amounts as a prophylactic (I pour the concentrate into other drinks), but back when I was getting acute attacks I could knock them out in an hour if I drank say half a cup of the concentrate. (again, not straight: it's too tart by itself!) There is a local grocery store that carries this concentrate in the refrigerated section, but even the hot-on-the-shelf jugs at GNC seem to work.

⬐ stronglikedan

> doctors are quick to get you on daily drugs for the rest of your life.

When all you really need is an 8oz glass of tart cherry juice per day [0]. If you have "trigger" foods [1], then those still need to be avoided, but the cherry juice will allow you to enjoy a normal, non-excessive diet of pretty much everything else.

[0] Sweet cherry juice works too, but you need a lot more of it, to the point where it would be excessive and unhealthy.

[1] By trigger foods, I mean those that will cause a gout attack regardless of how much is consumed. For me, it's spinach - as little as one leaf will make my toe sore for a couple of days. Most people never learn their trigger foods, so consider yourself lucky if you know yours.

⬐ gizmo385

Do you have any sources for this?

⬐ wyldfire

"Consumption of 100% Tart Cherry Juice Reduces Serum Urate in Overweight and Obese Adults" [1] seems relevant.

Also, it's not precisely advice for gout, but cherry juice has also been studied [2] for pain relief.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6483050/

[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2874510/

⬐ jessaustin

I don't take near that much, but it still seems to work. I haven't had a flare for over a year.

⬐ ndsipa_pomu

I've had some success with tart cherry juice (Montmorency) as well.

I had my first gout attack in my mid-40s - I'm pretty fit and not noticeably overweight (lots of cycling) and got a foot pain that I thought was a small broken bone or some-such. My GP had one look and realised it was gout (red inflammation is a giveaway). Anyway, I just took Ibuprofen and lots of liquid for a few days and it went away.

I've had a few minor bouts of it that seem to be brought on by either eating asparagus or mackerel or not drinking enough water, so I tried the cherry juice for a while which seemed to work. After a year or so of that, I thought I'd just try drinking more water instead - that works most of the time though I did have a minor gout episode just last week.

⬐ rusk

By cutting out “fructose” surely you don’t mean cutting out fruit? Do mean derivatives like fructose syrup and stuff?

⬐ jjav

I avoid fructose, from any and all sources. Yes, it does mean limiting fruits but I eat them in moderation within my self-imposed 10g/day limit. I sometimes go up to 25g/day but only on special occasions no more than once a month or so.

Here's one list of fructose content per type of fruit. I mostly stick to the ones with least fructose:

http://nograiner.com/ingredients/fructose-content-common-fru...

⬐ jkinudsjknds

Were fruits the thing most commonly cut out of your diet though? Most people (Americans at least) don't eat that much fruit, but eat a lot of fructose from other sources.

⬐ ntsplnkv2

Looking at that list it seems easy to get in one or two servings of fruit a day with that fructose requirement, so long as you don't get it elsewhere.

Thanks for sharing.

⬐ AndrewDucker

I don't have gout, but my IBS is set off by fructose, and yes, I've had to drastically cut down on fruit.

Fortunately, vegetables are even healthier for you, and don't have significant levels of fructose.

⬐ simtel20

Since you mention IBS in the context of fructose, are you aware of the the phenomena of fructose malabsorption? My wife has this combination of issues at times, strongly related to eating or drinking of apples or apple juice and other similarly high fructose fruits and extracts like agave.

⬐ draw_down

I hadn’t heard of that but I have the same problem when I eat apples. Makes sense now.

⬐ AndrewDucker

Yup. I follow a FODMAP diet and that really works for me.

⬐ fodmap

I can vouch for the FODMAP diet as well, it really saved me from my daily misery.

⬐ pjc50

High-fructose corn syrup is in a lot of American food.

⬐ zests

The worst offender is fruit juice. It is practically soda with some vitamin C.

Suppose I'm from a country that does not have fruits. How do you convince me to start eating them from a health perspective? Fibre is in vegetables and I'm not too keen on increasing sugar intake for no reason.

⬐ hinkley

Fruit juice removes all of the fructose from the fiber your body has to scrounge through to absorb the sugar.

The overall quantity of sugar may be roughly equivalent, but the glass of juice is going to hit your blood stream almost as fast as a can of coke. Probably as fast since a typical bottle of fruit juice is running about 20 calories more than a soda.

Also PSA: Watch out for apple juice in your 100% fruit juice. It is at this point a very old industry trick to use apple juice that's concentrated, increasing the sugar content drastically. If you got a press and juiced your own apples, it would taste like flavored water to you compared to the 'worst' case in bottled juices.

⬐ megablast

Exactly. Such a weird thing to write. What were you eating too much of?

⬐ Ragib_Zaman

Most fruit are nowhere near as healthy as most people expect they are. They have been selectively bred over many hundreds of years to be far larger, sweeter and more devoid of micronutrients than they were hundreds of years ago. The amount of sugar (especially fructose) in fruits like apples, oranges and bananas is shockingly high, and can cause or exacerbate conditions such as obesity, fatty liver, type 2 diabetes, gout and other metabolic or inflammatory diseases.

Replacing some fruit with vegetables instead, and choosing less sweet fruit like various berries or melons may be a good idea for most people.

⬐ kleiba

Most national dietary guidelines encourage eating fruits and vegetables, with an emphasis on the vegetables. The sugar amount in fruit has a direct impact on the overall calories you consume but since fruit are also high in fibre, the contained sugar is not comparable to, say, a chocolate bar.

⬐ HighlandSpring

Most national dietary guidelines are backed by weak epidemiology and are rarely corroborated by RCTs. See: the food pyramid

⬐ nerdponx

And are instead heavily guided by ag industry lobbyists.

⬐ tubularhells

You are comparing the sugars in raw food to something heavily processed. That's not a good comparison.

⬐ Someone

It is in the context of dieting advice “instead of a chocolate bar, eat an apple” (still about 20 grams of sugar/100 kcal, but about half that of the chocolate bar)

⬐ watwut

The other difference is that while chocolate bar makes you more active if you was low on sugar, you are still quite empty, hungry and looking for more to eat shortly after you ate that.

If you eat apples, you hit limit soon. Apples also do not work all that much if you actually need quick energy when doing something straining. It does not have that "immediately feel better" effect (which motivates you eat more and more).

⬐ jiofih

Sugar is sugar. HFCS is a bit worse, but in the broader context of dietary intake it will make no difference.

⬐ tubularhells

Do you also think processed rice products like flours, pasta are the same as whole rice cooked?

⬐ sqldba

That’s a very simplistic way of looking at things which isn’t supported by medical science.

Specifically glucose, fructose, sucrose, are worth treating differently for the purposes of diet management.

⬐ CyberDildonics

It is simplistic, but for most people it is probably a great start.

When people talk about sugar like this they are talking about fructose. Bringing glucose into it confuses people since it is scientifically sugar, but not what people mean when they talk about eating sugar, which is just eating sweets, soda, juice, etc.

⬐ SECProto

> When people talk about sugar like this they are talking about fructose. Bringing glucose into it confuses people

I believe people are actually usually talking about sucrose, which breaks down into equal parts fructose and glucose v early in digestion.

⬐ CyberDildonics

Fructose is the monosaccharide and is the problem. It doesn't always come from sucrose.

⬐ SECProto

> Fructose is the monosaccharide and is the problem

Glucose is also a monosaccharide.

"sugar" (table sugar, maple syrup, etc) are mainly sucrose, which is one part fructose and one part glucose (joined together, into a disaccharide)

I agree that fructose is the troublesome part of this pair. But when people say "sugar", they aren't referring to fructose, they're referring to sucrose.

⬐ mcny

>> Sugar is sugar.

>> That’s a very simplistic way of looking at things which isn’t supported by medical science.

I agree with you on this one but from what I've heard, it is likely that fruit juices and smoothies are not fruits either. If that is correct, the message can get very muddied.

>> Specifically glucose, fructose, sucrose, are worth treating differently for the purposes of diet management.

Now we need to not only treat different sugars differently, we also need to treat the delivery methods differently as well. At some point, the message just becomes too complicated.

⬐ nicoburns

> from what I've heard, it is likely that fruit juices and smoothies are not fruits either. If that is correct, the message can get very muddied.

Not really. The original comment in this chain talked about processed foods vs unprocessed. Fruit juices are fairly obviously processed so this rule works for them too.

⬐ nordsieck

> The sugar amount in fruit has a direct impact on the overall calories you consume but since fruit are also high in fibre, the contained sugar is not comparable to, say, a chocolate bar.

I think a more precise way to say this is:

Due to the water and fiber in fruit, they tend to be more satiating than eating something like a chocolate bar on a calorie normalized basis.

⬐ kleiba

True, but what I was actually trying to get at was that sugar is also metabolized differently in the presence of fibre.

⬐ darkerside

My understanding is that the fiber literally prevents absorption of fructose, so parent's comment is accurate

⬐ scythe

Fructose is almost always absorbed; fructose malabsorption causes SIBO. Fiber reduces the glycemic index and makes fruit more satiating. Glucose aids the absorption of fructose preventing SIBO.

But in the case of fruit w.r.t. gout, the missing variable here is that while fructose increases the production of uric acid, potassium promotes the excretion of uric acid [1], and fruits are generally an excellent source of potassium while soft drinks contain little to none. The net effect of fruit on gout risk seems to be inconclusive [2] but it's clear that fruits are much less concerning than foods with added fructose. Since a significant fraction of Westerners do not consume enough potassium [3], and potassium is key to preventing hypertension and stroke [4,5], it is bad advice to suggest reducing fruit consumption for most people, unless you're already eating like Steve Jobs.

1: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S008525381...

2: https://academic.oup.com/rheumatology/article-abstract/58/7/...

3: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S02709...

4: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%252Fs11906-011-019...

5: https://www.thieme-connect.com/products/ejournals/abstract/1...

⬐ knuthsat

Diet containing a lot of fruit can be healthy . Sugar consumed through fruit has a massively different effect compared to consuming only that sugar.

Fiber with sugar is not the same as pure sugar.

I’m not sure there are any studies demonstrating what you claim.

⬐ None

None

⬐ jiofih

The fiber will impact the absorption rate and insulin spike, but in the end you’ll have consumed the same amount of sugar. For calorie-counting purposes, or say, avoiding gout due to fructose intake, there will be no difference.

⬐ darkerside

Why wouldn't the absorption rate have an impact? Seems like it could slow down absorption enough for your kidneys to filter out byproducts that can lead to gout. Interested to learn if you know something different.

⬐ Emphere

No, fiber does not have that big of an impact on absorption. That's why most fruits are a big no on keto diets

⬐ darkerside

https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-h....

> Studies also have shown that high-fiber foods may have other heart-health benefits, such as reducing blood pressure and inflammation. Helps control blood sugar levels. In people with diabetes, fiber — particularly soluble fiber — can slow the absorption of sugar and help improve blood sugar levels.

Seems like it impacts time to absorb

⬐ Fumtumi

Let me formulate it different:

Its 'healthier' to consume the same amount of sugar through fruits than through pure sugar due to its being easier for your body.

It does not change your calorie intake at all as its the same amount.

⬐ webmaven

> It does not change your calorie intake at all as its the same amount.

Glossing over what an insulin spike makes your body do with those calories is a bit disingenuous.

⬐ glofish

Exactly this.

The most common and pervasive misconceptions about nutrition use the extremely simplistic view of it, believing that in the end all matters is that you end up with N grams of say sugar.

The effects on the body of consuming an apple versus the equivalent two table spoons of raw sugar are not even remotely similar.

⬐ Fumtumi

They are when you look at the calorie intake.

That is the point i made and still make.

⬐ webmaven

You're implying that total calorie intake is the most (or even the only) important factor.

This is starting to resemble a political thread.

⬐ knuthsat

The problem is that there’s no study demonstrating what was stated. Consuming a fructose concentrate will not have the same outcome as consuming the same amount of fructose through fruits.

There isn’t a study that shows the outcomes are equivalent . I have no idea where OP got his conclusion that fruits are an issue.

Yes, keeping an eye on glycemic index or FODMAP for people with metabolic disease works but I can’t find studies showing that you can eat so much fruit to get diabetic or gout.

⬐ jiofih

> I have no idea

Here

> I drastically cut back on fructose, limiting myself to no more than 10g/day. I have been gout-free now for 7 years.

⬐ goatinaboat

The amount of sugar (especially fructose) in fruits like apples, oranges and bananas is shockingly high, and can cause or exacerbate conditions such as obesity, fatty liver, type 2 diabetes, gout and other metabolic or inflammatory diseases.

If you want some idea of how bad it is: monkeys get diabetes from bananas now

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/monkeys-bann...

⬐ watwut

I have yet to meet someone who is obese and his calorie intake is primary from fruits.

Edit: I just did napkin calculation. Sedentary 170cm high male weighting 66kg would need to eat 20 apples a day to keep his weight. Or 3600 grams per day. The shocking high sugar content still means nearly uneatable quantity of apples just to get enough calories for rather small office worker who does no sport.

⬐ goatinaboat

I have yet to meet someone who is obese and his calorie intake is primary from fruits.

I see people drinking smoothies thinking they are the healthy choice not realising a smoothie has more sugar in than a Coke. They are not even a good post-surf recovery drink for the surfers who invented them and gave them the infantile name!

⬐ jiofih

That, or 400g+ of chocolate. No conclusion to be taken here.

⬐ watwut

It is easy to eat 400g of chocolate per day. Not at one sitting, but if you have whole day for it, you can do it without any issue.

Also, it would be 350g of dark chocolate for my hypothetical guy.

⬐ webmaven

> It is easy to eat 400g of chocolate per day. Not at one sitting,

Challenge Accepted.

⬐ bregma

That's only 2 apple pies, assuming you don't eat any of the crusts. I don't think that's uneatable other than the fact the crust is the best part.

⬐ watwut

I would assume we talk about fresh apples. If you process it in such a heavy way it is something completely different. You can also eat a lot more dried apples then fresh ones. Or you can drink a lot more apple juice then eat apples.

⬐ Fumtumi

I don't think 20 apples is that much.

And we are talking about people who are obese, they are consumgint oo many calories per day, every day.

Now lets take a real example: obese people tend to drink juices and replacing soda with juice because they assumed juices are healthy.

I can easily drink 2 liters of water or 2 liters of juice/soda every day. 470 calories for 1 liter -> 900 calories additional.

easy

⬐ watwut

Juice is not apple, that is competely different argument. 20 apples is quite a lot and dude I picked is small - I intentionally made him smaller then average.

I am 100% confident that pearl clutching over need to replace fruit by vegetables else people will be obese is really not even close to why people get fat.

⬐ Fumtumi

I think its a combination of all.

I myself stoped drinking soda because of it; Its surprsing how quick you consume extra calories due to needing caffeine.

⬐ dragonelite

Fruit is pretty much sugary water in fruit form these days.

⬐ wyldfire

> The amount of sugar (especially fructose) in fruits like apples, oranges and bananas is shockingly high, and can cause or exacerbate conditions such as obesity, fatty liver, type 2 diabetes, gout and other metabolic or inflammatory diseases.

While vegetables are often superior to fruit for the reasons you indicate, if your diet contains neither then you could still consider fruit a 'step down' from the ever-popular refined carb snacks. Most fruit contains enough fiber to help you feel more satiated than a refined carb snack would.

⬐ namdnay

Melons are basically sugar water: 84% water, 14% carbs, 1% protein, 1% fibre

⬐ hombre_fatal

Obese people avoiding fruit is one of the biggest eye roll on offer. I had a fat roommate who measured out the raw almonds he ate because they were calorie dense the same day he’d eat two whole pizzas for dinner.

Meanwhile, almonds and bananas aren’t the things making people fat. Looking at my own fat friends, some tasty fruit is the only fiber they even get.

And vegetables aren’t even on the menu of most fat people I’ve lived with. Don’t discourage the only healthy habits people do have.

Look at the the actual diet of an obese / fatty liver / type2 person and you’ll see how silly this advice is. It ain’t the fruit.

⬐ jerf

It wasn't "advice". It's a true statement: Most fruit isn't as healthy as people think it is.

If you've got someone eating an unhealthy diet, but sticking some token fruit in, then that means that even their token nods towards good diet aren't as good as they think, and they should be made aware of that.

⬐ rusk

Even so they’re getting fibre, vitamins and other micronutrients they wouldn’t otherwise get.

⬐ jjav

> making people fat

This thread isn't about being fat, it was about gout.

I've never been fat but had plenty of gout attacks. Back when I was getting my worst gout attacks I was in the best shape of my life but the problem was I was consuming too much fructose. From a combination of drinking fruit juices (a single glass can have more than my limit of 10g/day!) and not paying enough attention to sugar content of regular foods. When I finally started adding it all up I was easily reaching 100g of fructose per day.

⬐ tuatoru

> From a combination of drinking fruit juices and [other stuff] ...

Yes! Juices and smoothies are bad for you. Eat fruit in solid form only, to make your digestive system work harder (as designed), and slow down your rate of calorie ingestion.

It's getting harder and harder to find fruit that hasn't been bred to maximised sugar content, though.

⬐ speeder

My grandfather was getting obese and had a risk of getting diabetes.

I always assumed he ate healthy food, since he always made an effort for it.

When his medic reviewed all his food choices... the issue was actually fruit, in particular various kind of oranges, my grandpa just loves oranges and will eat them often, several per day.

⬐ Fumtumi

To add to your very generic statement:

Fruit juice contains a lot of sugar; Oranges contain a lot of sugar;

Make sure you check how much calories you take in regardless of the food.

A good understanding of food healthiness is to understand what you are eating.

⬐ rusk

The difference between fruit juice and actual fruit is massive. Volume for starters it’s far easier to overconsume juice than whole fruits. Then there’s the matter of the rough fibrous matter being strained out and the glycaemic index ... (EDIT not to mention the various adulterations for shelf life and added sugar and stuff)

It’s far harder to go wrong with whole fruits.

⬐ Fumtumi

So my statement, you are commenting on, is wrong?

"Make sure you check how much calories you take in regardless of the food."

⬐ rusk

I was agreeing with you, and reinforcing your point.

It's such a shame our reflex is that if somebody responds to something they must be disagreeing.

⬐ ksdale

My own anecdote is that my dad was diabetic and he definitely didn't understand how much sugar was in fruit. He did ok controlling his blood sugar, but he considered fruit to be "healthy" and so ate about as much of it as he wanted, which regularly caused blood sugar spikes.

And I know it's not the same thing, but the number of times our small kids get offered juice as a "healthy" option when it's got almost as much sugar as soda... I think it's a real phenomena that certain things have a reputation for being much healthier than they are and it causes problems.

⬐ nextos

Sadly, as said elsewhere in the thread, many (but not all!) modern fruit varieties have been selected for sugar content.

However, some fruits and vegetables are particularly important for their fiber content even if you can't get rid of the fructose.

Things like inulin or resistant starch are very important to avoid having too many Bacteroides and too few Bifidobacterium, which is one of the big differences in westernized human guts vs more traditional ones.

I watched https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM a few days ago and was surprised to see is the #1 youtube link. It does have 11M views, however, and it is a great talk.

I’m sorry, I’m too lazy to find the studies. But there are lots. I’m not saying anything fringe or controversial here.

Check out these two things that come to mind, both cite an extensive list of studies:

- https://youtu.be/dBnniua6-oM

- https://youtu.be/tIuj-oMN-Fk

Don't take my word for it (how bad sugar is). Go to an expert: Dr. Robert Lustig, Endocrinologist at UCSF. "Sugar, the Bitter Truth" [0]. He'll describe the metabolic pathways of sugar. Key take-away: fructose is processed by the liver, and much of its calories is turned to fat.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Sugar is an addictive poison. These products should be outright banned. Folks can make wonderful pastries at home.

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2009/06/8187/obesity-and-metabolic...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

⬐ Cyclone_

This kind of comment asking for it to be banned is always from an extremely uninformed person. Addictive poison, really? Wait til they see what's in fruit. Or just talk to a sports scientist about why it's in sports drinks. Of course in excess it's bad, but normal sugar consumption is not an issue.

⬐ mschuster91

> This kind of comment asking for it to be banned is always from an extremely uninformed person.

Shifting the responsibility for solving a problem from the government towards individual consumers so that corporations can keep making money is a tried, extremely dirty and old PR strategy, originating at least with BP: https://mashable.com/feature/carbon-footprint-pr-campaign-sh...

⬐ ntsplnkv2

The PR strategy works because people believe in personal agency.

⬐ minimuffins

There is a book called Sweetness and Power by the anthropologist and historian Sidney Mintz with a thesis that the way we consume sugar is not actually so arbitrary.

According to Mintz, the production of sugar was at the heart of the transition from pre-modernity to industrial modernity. Pre-modern human diets all over the world varied widely but consisted of very little or no sugar. The production process required a ton of technological sophistication and intensive labor. Colonial era economic slavery regimes developed mostly in service of the production of sugar.

Sugar is now a huge part of diets in just about every modern culture. It really is addictive in a sense, both for individuals and in a collective economic sense (like oil, sugar consumption and production processes are dialetically self-reproducing, the argument goes).

Myself, I don't really know if we should try to constrain sugar consumption via law for moral reasons. Those efforts sometimes reek of a moralizing paternalism that I don't much care for. But the way we consume sugar, like everything else, has a history. We didn't always do it this way. We need not do it this way forever. And there's more to it than just disparate isolated individual consumption choices.

EDIT - To summarize, the way we consume sugar today is not arbitrary or "natural," but an outcome of the particular way that industrial modernity has developed.

⬐ hh3k0

> Addictive poison, really? Wait til they see what's in fruit.

Is that supposed to be a contradiction? It is in fruit and therefore it can't be bad? The poisonous fruit of Atropa belladonna comes to mind.

> Of course in excess it's bad, but normal sugar consumption is not an issue.

The thing is, though, that normal sugar consumption is borderline impossible in a modern diet. You have to go out of your way to avoid sugar, it requires informed decision-making and -- all too often -- purchasing relatively expensive products. Consequently, people who lack education and/or have a low-income are particularly vulnerable.

I agree with the original comment, these products should be outright banned.

⬐ elchief

Sugar itself isn't the problem. It's sugar without fiber.

Fruit has sugar, but also fiber. Fiber slows the ingestion of sugar, and helps your gut bacteria too.

https://type2diabetes.com/living/tips-for-improving-post-mea...

Also, 95% of Americans don't eat enough fiber https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6124841/

⬐ anoraca

A 20oz bottle of Coke, which is a very common consumption choice given it's prevalence, has 65g of sugar. That is not normal sugar consumption. Fruit sugars are offset by the fiber content. Sugary beverages have no redeeming nutritional qualities.

WHO recommends no more than 50g per day for adults, and preferably less than 25g. https://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2015/sugar-gui...

⬐ Fricken

Just avoid eating sugar when sedentary, the specific amount isn't so important. When you eat, and what other activities you're doing also matter. Chugging Gatorade and playing basketball is no big deal. Sipping Gatorade while surfing the internet is not so great.

⬐ kaiju0

While I agree, I've never seen rage like taking someones preferred foods away.

⬐ spacephysics

As much as I am a libertarian on allowing people to choose what to eat, the outrage reminds me of an addict being told they need to cut down/remove their addictive substance.

⬐ smt88

Taking away someone's preferred food can mean taking away part of their culture, a connection to memories of their childhood, the only part of their day they look forward to, etc.

People can love and care about unhealthy things without being addicted to them. Most white people would hate to give up cancer-causing time out in the sun, but that doesn't mean it's an addiction.

⬐ rurp

I don't think that rage has anything to do with addiction. If someone took away the healthy foods I like to eat I would be enraged too. People just don't like outsiders micromanaging their daily lives.

⬐ toomuchtodo

I’ve seen addicts get violent for a fix too.

⬐ dj_mc_merlin

> These products should be outright banned.

This attitude is more dangerous than sugar.

⬐ smt88

What is dangerous about banning products with added sugar?

I mean, I'm against it. A lot of traditional foods, like fruit preserves, have added sugar.

But what is danger, exactly? People would just not have food that tastes as good...

⬐ kube-system

I think the person you are responding to is calling prohibitionism dangerous, not this consequences of this particular proposal.

⬐ ntsplnkv2

It's a deeply unpopular opinion.

Healthy and unhealthy people alike like sweets. Just because some abuse it doesn't mean an outright ban is in order. And why stop at sugar?

⬐ dj_mc_merlin

The danger is not in banning products with added sugar, but in the government having the power to regulate what one may do with one's body. If I wish to drink beer, smoke cigarettes and drink/do coke, that is my decision.

The primary argument against that is that it puts strain on society to provide for people when they experience health issues from that. I have paid my entire life for social health programs and health insurance though, why? So I will be nannied until the age of 90, eating only approved healthy food and doing no activity that may be in some way risky?

If we are going to ban dangerous things which people do for no reason other than they enjoy it, should we go after scuba diving and mountain climbing too after we ban Snickers?

⬐ smt88

> The danger is not in banning products with added sugar, but in the government having the power to regulate what one may do with one's body.

But... that's not what Mexico's proposal is. It's also not the goal of any of these public health bans.

The goal of the bans is to prevent people from selling and profiting from unhealthy products. It doesn't stop individuals from producing and consuming whatever they want.

⬐ dj_mc_merlin

How are you going to produce a KitKat?

⬐ aisengard

The government does have the power to regulate what you do with your body when your body interacts with the public. Cigarettes are rightly banned in enclosed spaces and shared public spaces. Alcohol is rightly banned if you combine it with operating heavy machinery. I agree that drug use should be decriminalized (complex topic), and that the outright banning of sugary products is a dumb idea.

⬐ dj_mc_merlin

> The government does have the power to regulate what you do with your body when your body interacts with the public.

I agree, and think this is probably for the best. My opinion is that these laws are rightful when the interaction is direct and obvious. If I smoke in enclosed spaces, I am directly increasing other peoples' chance of cancer, giving them no choice over their bodies. This is analogous to how one's freedom to move their body doesn't extend to hitting other people in the face.

I do not agree with the government imposing restriction based on indirect, ambigous harm, like the "harm to society" that drinking sugary drinks which might lead to obesity causes. Harm to society has been used to justify a myriad of harmful policies. Unless there is a very clear, direct link between an action and harm to a person, the government has no business stepping in.

(Of course, this is all just my opinion, I'm presenting this as a justification for my viewpoint.)

⬐ aisengard

Maybe, but there doesn't seem to be much danger in them being enacted on a global scale. Even the OP article is treating added-sugar products like age-restricted alcohol, not an outright prohibition. We've seen what happens to laws that try to prohibit consumption in adults (soda ban).

⬐ tridentlead

You really want to ban Coke?

⬐ Press2forEN

"All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone." - Blaise Pascal

⬐ sorokod

Very nice, works bit less well with internet, but still...

⬐ fullshark

It would be a lot easier for statists if humans were merely cogs to plug into machines to advance the state, and spent all their free time at home doing nothing.

⬐ macspoofing

>These products should be outright banned. Folks can make wonderful pastries at home.

Sugar is sugar. What's the difference between a homemade pastry and store bought pastry?

⬐ ebg13

> What's the difference between a homemade pastry and store bought pastry?

People consume less when consumption is less convenient. A billion people aren't going to start baking cupcakes every day.

⬐ fafk

I make sugar-free pastries at home. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erythritol

⬐ Hitton

What kind of flour do you use? Usually it contains sugar too.

⬐ bkor

Where do you find flour that contains sugar? I've never seen that in NL and a few countries around it.

⬐ artificial

Maybe they consider all carbs sugar? ~shrug~

⬐ FreeFull

What kind of flour has sugar in it? Most flours are a mixture of starches and protein from grinding up a grain. Starches take more work to digest than sugars, so they don't spike blood sugar levels as quickly.

⬐ donarb

Flours do contain some naturally occurring sugar, usually less than 1%.

⬐ lhorie

You can choose to put less sugar in your homemade pastries. I sometimes bake cookies at home and I use less than half the "recommended" sugar amount, and they still taste sweet. I've never really liked commercial sweet baked food because the high amount of sugar causes a "burning" sensation when I eat them.

⬐ macspoofing

You can also buy sugar free pastries. You can also add extra sugar when you bake your pastries.

I don't understand how this invalidates my point that sugar is sugar. That there is no difference between sugar in commercial goods, and sugar you add when you bake at home.

⬐ lhorie

Sure, I think the parallel you're trying to draw is that you can also buy diet coke instead of regular coke, but many will vehemently argue that it's not the same thing.

I'm sure given enough effort, I _could_ find cookies made with half the sugar and dark chocolate, but if you asked me right now, I honestly couldn't tell you where to find such a thing, let alone at a price comparable to run-off-the-mill chips ahoy (never mind the cost of baking them from scratch).

We can certainly be pedantic and say one molecule of glucose is identical to another, but the logistics of buying cookies on impulse at the supermarket vs taking out a mixer to make them on a saturday morning will realistically not likely yield identical amounts of sugar intake. There's also something to be said about the shock of learning how much butter goes into these things!

⬐ badrequest

> What's the difference between a homemade pastry and store bought pastry?

I can't effortlessly and cheaply acquire a honey bun when I've had a bad day if I have to make them at home.

⬐ aikah

> Sugar is sugar. What's the difference between a homemade pastry and store bought pastry?

You can control the amount of sugar within something you bake yourself for starter.

⬐ ploika

The amount of sugar in them, very often.

⬐ macspoofing

You can certainly buy low-sugar/no-sugar commercial goods. You can also bake pastries with extra sugar. Quantity of sugar does matter but sugar is sugar.

⬐ fouric

A homemade pastry has fewer preservatives and additives, you have greater control over the contents, requires a time and effort investment, and is not heavily marketed with prominent placement in grocery stores and appealing, colorful packaging. There are both nutritional and psychological differences between the two that make the homemade version effectively much less unhealthy for you.

⬐ macspoofing

>A homemade pastry has fewer preservatives and additives

Sugar is sugar.

⬐ fouric

False and irrelevant. False, because there's way more than one kind of sugar - glucose, fructose, sucrose, lactose, and more, not to mention cane sugar vs. HFCS. Irrelevant, because there are other non-sugar things in commercial food products that cause you to want to consume the products more, which causes you to consume more sugar. Finally, who says that I put more sugar in my pastries than Hostess does?

⬐ jeffreyrogers

Those things aren't sugar though.

⬐ throwaway0a5e

I'm not sure if you're missing the point intentionally or unintentionally but while those chemicals sometimes can cause health problems later in life but the sugar is what's causing the calories that are causing the obesity that is causing the health problems we want to mitigate.

The sugar is the problem and both the pastries have the same sugar. The homemade one may be marginally better but it's a distinction without a meaningful difference. The problems caused by oddball chemicals used in industrial food manufacturing are less than a rounding error compared to the problems caused by obesity.

⬐ jeffreyrogers

No, it is actually both things. The sugar causes people to eat the stuff and does contribute to obesity, but sugar is only a contributer. The additives and ingredients like vegetable oils (which cause health problems of their own due to their chemical structure) also contain a lot of calories (fat contains more calories per gram than sugar).

In Australia obesity increased while sugar consumption decreased. The additives really matter and have a huge impact on human health--they are not a rounding error, but it was a great marketing tactic on behalf of various food industry groups to vilify sugar while deflecting from the other ingredients that are similarly problematic.

⬐ throwaway0a5e

>ingredients like vegetable oils (which cause health problems of their own due to their chemical structure) also contain a lot of calories (fat contains more calories per gram than sugar).

Which are present in home cooked baked goods too.

I know it's not as simple as just "sugar=fat" but the difference between home cooked junk food and industrially cooked junk food is vanishingly small.

⬐ liability

> but the difference between home cooked junk food and industrially cooked junk food is vanishingly small.

In terms of chemistry/nutrition I agree. However there is a huge difference in convienence. Pastries are a huge pain in the ass to make, and consequently I only make two or three pies a year. Store bought pastries are trivial to acquire and gorge on seven days a week.

⬐ ehutch79

Not really. There's a difference between cane sugar, and high fructose corn syrup.

Not that too much can sugar is good for you either, but it's more expensive, so before the advent of corn syrup, less was used.

This video from UCSF explains the correlation of corn syrup, obesity and diabetes, which also explains the corona mortality age distribution in the US:

Sugar: The Bitter Truth (2009)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

It's a 90 minute video, so to summarize:

- US decreased fat in processed food, but compensated with HFCS (corn syrup)

- HFCS contains fructose, which is poisonous in large quantities, which we are now eating (almost half a pound per day per person)

- the additional calories in processed food caused Americans to gain 25 pounds in 20 years

If you drink regular soda with HFCS, then you should switch to one can of cane sugar soda (from Mexico), or one diet can per day. Look at labels and avoid HFCS whenever possible.

You can do a quick reality check on the above by comparing group photos from the 1960s and today - nobody was fat back then, except for Mama Cass.

⬐ lookdangerous

Is corn syrup (instead of HF corn syrup) ok to consume, or is it too pretty darn bad fer ya?

⬐ redis_mlc

The reporting says it's the fructose amount that's highest in importance, since the liver warehouses it, and that seems to cause metabolic diseases, followed lower in priority with large sucrose/glucose amounts.

So fructose in a single fruit with natural fibers is ok, but half a kilo per week or more of raw fructose is toxic.

This is a more watchable video with industry slides admitting there's a problem (similar to cigarette industry):

The Secrets of Sugar - the fifth estate (2014) (42 minutes)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3ksKkCOgTw

I really encourage people to learn about this topic since it directly affects quality of life. If you get free soda at work, skip the HFCS containers.

The problem with hfcs is much higher obesity and diabetes type 2 risk, not Mercury.

https://youtu.be/dBnniua6-oM

⬐ teslabox

Your link is a video of anti-sugar crusader Robert Lustig's talk at UCSF. It was posted on July 30, 2009, right around the time that the revelations about the contamination of HFCS with mercury started to become known. Mercury exposure is associated with diabetes and metabolic syndrome [2].

While I think Lustig is genuine, he was not aware in 2009 that Fructose is also manufactured/metabolized by the brain [0] [1].

I think the stealth calories in HFCS (as starch), above and beyond the label, is an additional as-yet unappreciated factor in presentations of insulin resistance and obesity.

The HFCS problem is multi-faceted.

[0] The human brain makes fructose, researchers discover – here’s why that might be a big deal (2017) - https://theconversation.com/the-human-brain-makes-fructose-r...

[1] Specific regions of the brain are capable of fructose metabolism (2017) - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28034722 - "Furthermore, rates of fructose oxidation in these brain regions are 15-150 times that of liver slices, confirming the bioinformatics prediction and in situ hybridization data. This suggests that previously unappreciated regions across the brain can use fructose, in addition to glucose, for energy production."

[2] Is mercury exposure causing diabetes, metabolic syndrome and insulin resistance? A systematic review of the literature (2017) - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28482296

I searched for "sugar" and "fructose" and found no matches in the article. I think the article is correct insofar as it says that blaming the patients is wrong, but it only tells half the story. Dr. Lustig explains why they're not to blame: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Obligatory "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" link for those that haven't seen it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Best watched on a lazy Saturday morning or train ride. It's a long (but rewarding) lecture on how sugar is somewhat like poison to our bodies in the quantities we consume. It starts out jovial and gets very scientific.

⬐ benatkin

He's not the only doctor to suggest that the average person eat less sugar, but he does it in a way that oversimplifies it and makes people susceptible to fad diets with excessive meat consumption. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/brainwaves/is-sugar-rea...

These "most valuable food brands" make products that kill people. They've become the tobacco industry of our generation.

If you want to understand why the above claim is true, I encourage you to watch "Processed Food: An Experiment That Failed" by Robert Lustig, M.D., M.S.L. a whirl. Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvgxNDuQ5DI

Also, Sugar: The Bitter Truth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

[Sugar is already a known cause of obesity](https://youtu.be/dBnniua6-oM). The food being processed is irrelevant other than the important observation that processed foods tend to have lots of added sugar.

⬐ mywittyname

> The food being processed is irrelevant

It's absolutely relevant, considering the conclusion of the study was that people feel less satiated after eating a diet high in processed food, thus continue to eat and consume more calories.

⬐ smaddox

My point is that the conclusion is specious.

⬐ newen

But then, "While we attempted to match several nutritional parameters between the diets, the ultra-processed versus unprocessed meals differed substantially in the proportion of added to total sugar (54% versus 1%, respectively)."

So, couldn't they have equivalently said, that people feel less satiated after eating a diet high in sugar, thus continue to eat and consume more calories?

From the article:

>“[Sugars] represent the single leading source of increased bad calories that are being promoted in our communities and pushed on communities of color,” Monning said during the floor debate, citing a “national epidemic” of diabetes.

>Senate Bill 347, which goes to the Assembly next, would require labels on drinks with added caloric sweeteners that contain 75 calories or more per 12 fluid ounces.

>The label on container would say: “STATE OF CALIFORNIA SAFETY WARNING: Drinking beverages with added sugar(s) may contribute to obesity, type 2 diabetes, and tooth decay.”

I find the article surprisingly void of substance, just like the refined sugars it was supposed to report on.

Health warnings will achieve absolutely nothing, seeing how the problem lies in understanding how refined sugars impact the body and shape the sense of hunger to power the modern processed food market. In short, people who understand are powerless; people who have the power to do something are clueless; people who understand and have the power are in charge of food companies, making money hand over fist, at the expense of health of the entire nation.

Dr. Robert Lustig explains the danger of distilled and concentrated sugars, fructose in particular, in his "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" lecture [0]. The lecture is packed with chemical formulas but is extremely informative.

Fructose is a poison that disintegrates the liver. In nature, fructose is found in combination with other sugars and nutrients that lessen the impact; in processed foods, fructose is shoveled in to mask manufacturing defects and make the food more "marketable" i.e. addictive.

"Salt Sugar Fat: How the Food Giants Hooked Us" by Michael Moss [1] goes into greater detail how scientists tweak foods such as cereal to make it as addictive as possible, using whatever chemicals aren't outright banned. The very last chapter of that book features Michael's interview with a IIRC Nestle CEO who says, paraphrased, "We envision the future where there's no other food than the goop we produce, and stomachs of people can't handle anything else because that's what they've been eating since childhood."

FDA helped out the processed food industry by making the definition of sugar [2] the following:

“Sugars shall be defined as the sum of all free mono- and disaccharides (such as glucose, fructose, lactose, and sucrose)"

Notice the trick? By involving fructose with all the other regular sugars, FDA absolved the processed food companies of the need to put sugar intake limits on packaging, which is why sugar is the only category lacking RDV.

"Reward-based stress eating" study [3] states that "treatment with Naloxone, an unspecific opioid antagonist, powerfully suppressed intake of highly palatable food". Sugary food is literally addictive, and yet it's peddled to children exactly to turn them into addicts that gorge until they die.

Slapping a warning label on products does absolutely nothing except appease the average consumer, who sees Something Is Being Done (tm). Unless fructose is controlled like alcohol (Dr. Lustig compares the damage of ethanol and fructose), the diabetes epidemic will become the norm. Fructose is already in nearly every processed product due to HFCS, high fructose corn syrup, gotten from government-subsidized corn.

Trying to reduce the amount of fructose in processed items makes them unpalatable; trying to remove it altogether makes the food taste like cardboard to the average consumer. Attempts to make mainstream processed food healthy will undoubtedly bankrupt large swaths of companies and crash the US economy.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

[1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/15797397-salt-sugar-fat

[2] Code of Federal Regulations Title 21 subsection 101.9(c)(6)(ii)

[3] https://www.medicinasistemica.it/doc/biblioteca/Stress,%20ea...

Yea, I was surprised to learn this. I love orange juice like a pirate loves rum. Alas, it's better to eat fruit and avoid juices.

Fruit has sucrose. Sucrose splits into glucose and fructose. Calories and glycemic index aside: glucose good, fructose bad. The fiber in fruit helps block the metabolism of fructose, protecting the liver.

Dr Lustig's video was my intro to this stuff. It's hard to watch, but I haven't read anything yet that contradicts any of it.

Sugar: The Bitter Truth https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Update: Downvoted for science. Yay! I need something to kick my HN addiction. Stop doing this to myself.

⬐ EForEndeavour

Seconding Lustig's work and his "Bitter Truth" lecture. He comes off as a bit argumentative, even conspiratorial in his delivery, but presents solid, peer-reviewed research.

⬐ throwaway55554

> I love orange juice like a pirate loves rum.

Only with champagne.

⬐ josefresco

Dude I empathize. "Diet advice" invites almost as insane a reaction as "political debate" online. Keep sharing science and ignore the haters, and "hole pokers", the "tech diet nerds" and of course, the astroturfers.

I'm quite sure eventually this will all align with the research into sugar which basically says that sugar is poison. Especially in the quantities that the modern people eat these days.

Dr Lustig has done the sugar research. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

> I'm waiting for similar conclusions to surface for added sugar.

Haven't they? I saw "sugar coated" several years ago ( http://sugarcoateddoc.com/ ). Not on Netflix any longer, but can still be found on Kanopy I believe. Also, one of the main doctors has videos on Youtube about added sugar and fructose ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM ).

I think fruit, especially the modern stuff, is bad for you. In particular the stuff you want to avoid is. fructose, which is toxic for humans. Fructose is harder on the human liver than alcohol on a gram by gram basis, and over consumption of fructose can cause cirrhosis and fatty liver disease.

Edit: source: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

⬐ tom_

"The modern stuff"?

⬐ village-idiot

We’ve selectively bred our fruit for a millennia or two to make it significantly larger and sweeter than the versions we evolved with. The advent of pesticides as exacerbated the problem, as pesticide sprayed fruits produce a much lower level of useful anti-oxidants.

⬐ Larrikin

I guess it depends on the country. Fruit and vegetables in the US have had most of the taste bred out of them in favor of produce that can survive transportation while still looking good and will last a long time on the shelf and fridge.

⬐ village-idiot

America probably goes the furthest in this regard, but the trend is also older than America the country.

Examples:

The strawberries you and I eat are actually a hybrid species created in 1715. The wild variety, the woodland strawberry, is about 1/4 the size and much more tart.

Bananas largely come from one of two species, the main one having been domesticated 8,000 years ago. Humans of that era domesticated it for some reason other than the fruit, because the fruit was inedible, it took a few thousand years before we could eat it.

The lemon was hybridized citron and the bitter orange around 1100. Citron has a very thing rind, with the edible center part being typically the size of a golf ball. The bitter orange is ... not very sweet.

The oranges you and I buy in the store, tellingly called the “sweet orange” is a hybrid first mentioned in 314CE.

⬐ rgbrenner

I thought you would get from the "balanced diet" part that I generally don't feel the need to demonize individual food groups. Moderation is a good thing.

Fruit packages fructose with fiber, giving your body more time to process it. It also includes vitamins, minerals, etc that are good for you.

I don't know how you jumped to saying it's worse than alcohol. Alcohol actually damages the cells of the liver, making it function less efficiently. Whereas fatty liver caused by fructose is because of the quantity in a short period, overwhelming the liver.

If you're worried about fructose, then you should be focusing your efforts on hfcs, sugar/sucrose, etc that are roughly half fructose, half glucose that are put into so much processed food with no fiber to slow digestion. A 12oz can of cocacola has 2-3x (39g) the sugar as a piece of fruit. Added sugars account for 14%[0] of the daily calories in the average american's diet (note, added means not natural sugars like that in fruit.. but sucrose, hfcs, etc). Any increase in fatty liver disease would be caused by the inordinate added sugar intake of american's, not fruit.

0. https://www.cdc.gov/nutrition/data-statistics/know-your-limi...

⬐ village-idiot

> I thought you would get from the "balanced diet" part that I generally don't feel the need to demonize individual food groups. Moderation is a good thing.

I despise the notion of a "balanced diet", it's generic nonsense that gives no specific guidance towards what one should eat. How do you balance a diet? Nobody ever says.

> Fruit packages fructose with fiber, giving your body more time to process it. It also includes vitamins, minerals, etc that are good for you.

True and false. The fiber aspect is true, and a strong argument to stay as far away from juice as possible, but the vitamins story is ... mixed. It depends on what fruit you're talking about, where it was produced, and how it was handled.

For vitamins and other micro nutrients I personally think organ meats are highly underrated.

> I don't know how you jumped to saying it's worse than alcohol.

By looking at my source.

> Alcohol actually damages the cells of the liver, making it function less efficiently.

This is also true of Fructose. Except unlike Alcohol 100% of it goes to your liver. Also unlike alcohol there are no obvious cognitive effects for fructose, so we're free to consume as much of it without suffering any immediate and obvious consequences.

> If you're worried about fructose, then you should be focusing your efforts on hfcs ... processed food ... coca cola ...

Take a guess what I also recommend avoiding. But "avoid HFCS and processed food" is well into the "no shit" category of dietary recommendation these days, which is why I don't really bother to talk about it a ton. Whereas there are a large number of people who think that fruit and especially fruit juice is healthy, and I disagree.

⬐ darkpuma

> "I despise the notion of a "balanced diet", it's generic nonsense that gives no specific guidance towards what one should eat. How do you balance a diet? Nobody ever says."

To expand on this, what the hell is "balanced diet" anyway? In what sort of environment is fruit year-round "balanced"? In anything other than a tropical environment, fruit being part of a "balanced diet" is an ecological impossibility barring the modern global agro-industrial complex that ships you fruit from the other side of the planet no matter the season.

The idea of food even having seasons seems alien to most of us these days! At most whether a fruit is "in season" is a matter of how cheap it is, or whether the texture is precisely right. A food that is out of season might have a slightly undesirable texture and cost more, because it's been sitting in a warehouses and cargo vessels for too long.

The "balanced diet" as we know it today is a cultural artifact, not some biological truth.

⬐ betterbeehome

In an ideal world, a "balanced diet" would mean eating only locally, in season and have none of this fad diet nonsense (vegetarian, vegan, carnivore, keto, etc). This would produce a universal diet that adapts to environment, wild life and the success and failures of local agriculture. It would be a cyclical diet, ever changing.

Maybe balanced diet is a poor choice of words... Local diet? Seasonal diet? Cyclical diet? IDK.

⬐ village-idiot

I do get annoyed about the definition of keto as a "diet", especially a "fad" diet. Ketosis is a biological process, and the "keto" diet is just designed to produce the state of ketosis on purpose. As such there really is no "keto" diet, as there are a pretty wide range of dietary choices that could produce the state of dietary ketosis.

Also, literally every religious tradition in the world follows the "keto" diet on a semi-regular basis: it's called fasting.

⬐ betterbeehome

I'm not knocking ketosis itself. Just the absurd hoops people jump through to pretend their doing keto... how about just stop eating for a bit and you'll get a more robust ketosis. No need for hundreds of recipe books about keto desserts, keto friendly cakes and breads.

Just want people to keep things simple. That's why I was saying that stuff about cyclical dieting. In summer, there's a lot more carbs. In winter you'd change to eating more meat and fat. Since animals fatten themselves up for surviving winter. Eats what's currently in your environment. Prepare it properly. Move regularly throughout the day. Take time to relax and rest.

It’s not refined while it’s in the fruit. High content, but not refined.

Even with oranges which have very high sugar content, you cannot easily eat four oranges but you can drink their orange juice along with most of the sugar and none of the fiber.

The sugar lobby’s talking points steer the conversation toward equalizing refined and non refined sugars, and calories from refined sugars vs calories from non refined sugars.

I found this in depth lecture really enlightening

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Relevant talks by Robert Lustig:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmC4Rm5cpOI "Sugar -- the elephant in the kitchen" (20 minutes, year 2013)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" (90 minutes, year 2009)

⬐ newnewpdro

Lustig's "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" talk when it first appeared on YouTube completely changed my attitude towards refined sugars. I highly recommend it.

My parents are European, in childhood my mother (and her mother) would regularly give up sugar completely for months at a time to control their weight. They weren't scientific people, and couldn't explain any of the mechanisms or anything - but they taught us kids that sugar and sweets make you fat. It was not treated as any special lesson or profound knowledge, it was basic common sense back in their home country. I vividly remember them riffing me for putting so much ketchup on hotdogs or hamburgers whenever we grilled american style, saying it's mostly sugar (and I was getting fat...).

As a result I've always controlled my sugar intake in adulthood, but the Lustig video gave a scientific explanation for the mechanism of action behind my inherited vague understanding of sweetened foods being fattening. I went from somewhat moderating consumption to avoiding it and refined carbs in general like the plague. My health has improved substantially. It was impactful enough that I emailed Robert Lustig to thank him years later, he even replied.

⬐ TomMarius

I'm European. Is it not common sense in the rest of the world that sweet things make you fat? Wow.

⬐ ericd

The conversation around this in the US has been almost entirely around fat, until relatively recently.

⬐ newnewpdro

I don't know about the rest of the world, but the American public has been heavily misinformed on myriad subjects. My European parents were constantly baffled by how unexpectedly bad it was, with my father often wondering aloud how they won the war.

Raising a family here isn't ideal, but the economy is strong arguably because of the poorly-informed, convenient-entertainment obsessed, consumer society. It's a great place to start businesses and/or earn money. This is what attracted my parents to leave Europe, but they were very young and hadn't predicted how potentially bad the culture and education would be, and seemed to regret not raising us kids back in the motherland.

⬐ TomMarius

Do you know other examples of such misinformation?

⬐ newnewpdro

An obvious one which comes to mind from childhood memories is the campaigns surrounding the effects of tobacco smoke. The industry flooded the media with misinformation for a number of years, and it was incredibly effective at turning smoking into a divisive topic where smokers were fighting for something by embracing ignorance just to spite the non-smokers / be "free". It was a serious battle just to get smoking banned from common interior spaces like restaurants then bars, that wasn't very long ago. It's insane.

I don't think I need to make some kind of exhaustive list here. Climate change is another obvious large-scale disinformation campaign.

EVs vs. gas vehicles is another particularly hot one over the last decade. Countless times I've seen a talking head on a screen claiming EVs are no better, that it's just a longer tail pipe. Completely disregarding the fact that EVs enable options for clean energy production, an impossibility when everyone's physicaly driving the actual oil combustors. Even if we continued using fossil fuels to generate electricity, you can do it a lot more efficiently without being space, safety, and weight constrained like you are under the hood of an automobile. Not even considering solar/wind it's an obvious win.

This stuff is so effective on a large subset of the population because we don't do a good job educating people and have long had a strong culture of celebrated ignorance. We don't optimize for producing skeptical, critical-thinking folks in our public education system. Such people don't make good consumers, it's bad for business.

An unfortunate effect is when you optimize your population for consumerism/business interests, and politicians are marketed for elections through the same means as commercial products, you don't really have a democracy anymore. It's just something going through the motions of being a democracy. The influence is too reliable and its control too concentrated. The recent Cambridge Analytica scandal is a good example of how bad it's gotten.

⬐ Applejinx

I've known and talked about the latter one for years. I can't follow all the science, but a surprising amount is comprehensible and the conclusions are always straightforward. The takeaway: it's sugar that makes you fat, and all sugar is sugar. There's NO advantage to other forms like fruit sugars etc, it might as well all be high fructose corn syrup.

⬐ superpermutat0r

The guy is a quack. Bunch of stuff he says in his Bitter Truth talk is false.

For example, Japanese consume much more fructose sugars than an average USA citizen. He somehow skipped that, when he used the Japanese as an example of healthy diet people. Japanese individuals consume 1000kcal less than USA daily average. That's probably the only thing that matters.

⬐ None

None

For starters, stop ingesting all things that have fructose in them.

The U.S. government is really kind of complicit in allowing the spread of diabetes and NASH to happen in the first place by allowing harmful substances such as high-fructose corn syrup and to be infused into anything you can find in a store or fast food.

Sure, it's ultimately an issue of education, but when the vast majority of foods have this stuff in them, educating every person on non eating most of the available foods in stores becomes very difficult.

Watch how the metabolism of alcohol and fructose compare:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM&feature=youtu.be...

Here is a doctor that disagrees and gives a fairly detailed explanation of why it is unhealthy for you: https://youtu.be/dBnniua6-oM

> 2. Most people assume dietary sugar creates high blood sugar. > I'm stating that, like saying dietary fat makes you fat, > it sounds intuitive but may not be true.

Consuming excess amounts of fructose will (via complicated metabolic pathways) produce a lot of uric acid by your liver. That's what's causing hypertension. This shows the metabolic pathway diagrammed out:

https://youtu.be/dBnniua6-oM?t=3395

Pretty interesting.

Is there a competing theory?

> 3. Yes, wheat is glucose. Why do you mention fructose? I didn't.

Glucose is not sugar; fructose is. They take different pathways when metabolized. It's true that lots of white bread has added sugar, but that's not the wheat. I would say that if wheat is a silent killer, France would be in big trouble, and they're not.

⬐ darkerside

Hypertension? How is that relevant??

Glucose is absolutely sugar. Fructose and glucose are both simple sugars (table sugar is sucrose, a disaccharide composed of glucose and fructose).

The starch in wheat is made up of long chains of glucose, which again, is a sugar. It sometimes has added sugar as well. Both those facts are true for both white and wheat bread.

RE: France, are you kidding me? French people do get fat. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity_in_France

⬐ justinator

> Hypertension? How is that relevant??

Hypertension is another word for high blood sugar - that's what you were talking about. It's part of a larger related problem called, Metabolic Dysfunction/Syndrome

> Glucose is absolutely sugar.

Glucose is a complex carbohydrate. Sugar is not, it's a simple sugar.

Edit: As other's have pointed out, I am wrong: glucose is a simple carb - the fact remains that it is not fructose and still feel that this is important.

Fructose is metabolized in the liver via Fructolysis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fructolysis

Glucose can be utilized by almost every living cell on earth:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbohydrate_metabolism

And that big difference is why taking in cals. via sugar is different than taking it in via glucose, even though, as you say, glucose is just a long chain of simplier carbs.

> RE: France, are you kidding me? French people do get fat. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity_in_France

Fat isn't necessarily unhealthy; Metabolic Syndrome is the underlying problem.

It's all interesting stuff, huh?

⬐ tomjakubowski

Glucose and fructose are both monosaccharides - also known as "simple sugars".

Sucrose, "table sugar", is a disaccharide of one glucose group and one fructose group.

"Complex carbohydrate" is ill-defined, but I guess could refer to polymeric saccharides, a classification which wouldn't apply to sucrose, glucose, or fructose. In any case, you'd need a strange perspective to see glucose as a "complex carbohydrate": it's only got six carbon atoms.

⬐ justinator

> Glucose and fructose are both monosaccharides - also known as "simple sugars".

Point taken.

The metabolism of the two are still, very different (glucose and fructose)

⬐ pmichaud

This thread has sunk into absurdity. I assume at this point that you are a hilarious troll, but in case you are actually serious: virtually everything you said is wrong on a basic level you could verify with Wikipedia or whatever.

⬐ justinator

I am being as honest as possible - I'm not a troll. Do trolls usually have 6+ year accounts?

But, I do try to study up on the subject, since I am an athlete. If I bobbled two things up: calling glucose a complex carb, and mixing up high blood pressure with high sugar levels, I believe I believe I have already apologized and conceded that I was wrong. If it isn't clear, take this post as doing that again.

⬐ makemoniesonlin

>Glucose is a complex carbohydrate

Citation? Everywhere I look says that it is a simple sugar.

⬐ inimino

Hypertension is high blood pressure. Glucose is a simple sugar.

With respect, please do some fact checking before restating whatever you think you know outside your area of expertise.

⬐ justinator

As a professional athlete, health is an area of my expertise. Desk jockying is the hobby.

Lots of different issues are related, and I'm not going to say there can be a simple way to make it all make sense - for example: what is the symptom, and what is the disease?

I'm trying to share what I know to help others, not to stroke my own ego. If I make mistakes in typing things out, I apologize. I never said I was a doctor, and I appreciate the feedback.

⬐ bad_user

Hypertension can be caused by many factors, including genetics, however there are indications that one of the biggest factors is sugar consumption and not salt, as was previously believed and still is to some extent.

I've been reading The Salt Fix (http://thesaltfix.com), it has references to many studies ... not sure what to think of it, but being confronted with a serious electrolytes deficiency lately and having the symptoms to go with it, I tend to believe it.

⬐ bad_user

> RE: France, are you kidding me? French people do get fat.

Like most of the world that switches to a "western diet", France is not immune to it. They've got McDonald's and junk food there too.

That said France has been a "paradox", as noted since the 1980s, due to their low incidence of coronary heart disease or other chronic diseases, in spite of their high consumption of dietary fat and cholesterol.

Of course, the French diet is only a paradox due to the American dietary guidelines being dead wrong. And as they switch more and more to the American diet, of course, they stop being a paradox.

Yeah, you have a good point. When/while you exercise fructose can be more easily converted to glucose, to be used right away by the body (faster than glucose alone). That's what's meant by, "a higher metabolism"

Under rest, 30% of fructose is converted to fat by the liver.

https://youtu.be/dBnniua6-oM?t=3873

The real reason to exercise (for health) is it improves your skeletal muscle insulin sensitivity - it's certainly not because you burn a ton of calories from the exercise,

https://youtu.be/dBnniua6-oM?t=4300

Sugar: The Bitter Truth https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Can you please offer a fructose-free option? Or at least tell your customers which products contain added fructose?

This matters because there is an ever-growing mountain of evidence that shows that fructose is the primary cause of the obesity epidemic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

⬐ buildawesome

Do you mean to say sugar-free option? Or high fructose corn syrup? Tangentially, I would argue that fructose isn't the primary cause of obesity but the excess of sugar (fructose, glucose, sucrose) consumption.

⬐ maxharris

No, I mean specifically fructose, no matter what the source (sugar, honey, agave, HFCS, natural fruit that has been turned into pulp or frozen, etc.)

Regarding your tangential point, watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM. I used to be quite the Atkins dieter, and I didn't gain any weight when I started eating _some_ non-fructose carbs. Thanks to the fact that weight tends to correlate with age, I look a lot younger than most people think I am. (I've been doing this for nine years...)

It's a factor in inflammatory response, and heart disease is an inflammatory disease which creates conditions where cholesterols can then bind and cause plaques.

Here's one good talk by Dr. Robert Lustig. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Here's an overview in a pop-sci article: https://www.kqed.org/bayareabites/85169/sweet-revenge-dr-rob...

Robert Lustig argues that the rate is precisely what's important:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Fructose "fruit sugar" is so named due to its occurrence in fruit. Check this[0] list to see the fructose content of various fruits.

Lustig[1] says the reason naturally occurring fructose is not as harmful as industrial fructose is that fruit also contains fiber, which slows down the absorption of fructose.

[0] https://thepaleodiet.com/fruits-and-sugars/ [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

At the pure physical level, yes: calories remaining = calories in - calories out

However, the "calories out" portion of that equation is actually quite complicated. In recent years many studies have indicated that the body does not process all calories in the same way. So "calories out" depends on a lot of things, including:

- metabolism, which can be increased by exercise and muscle mass

- what specific kind of "calories in" you're getting, and how your body processes these

- calories burned directly by exercise

To highlight one specific example of this, a calorie of fructose may be processed by the body very differently than a calorie of, say, vegetable fat: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

⬐ Andre_Wanglin

>However, the "calories out" portion of that equation is actually quite complicated. In recent years many studies have indicated that the body does not process all calories in the same way.

I think of this as the "calories in" portion. There was never any reason to assume the means by which we measure the caloric content of food truly represented the caloric energy available to the body.

⬐ WorldMaker

It's the phlogiston fallacy that all heat is equally the same chemical energy, and that all chemical reactions "just" produce or consume heat. The body is not an ideal furnace, and food is not an ideal fuel.

⬐ xutopia

The process for storing fat as fat is paradoxically very difficult for the body chemically. The easiest way for the body to add stores of fat reserves is through sugar and the more refined (HFCS comes to mind) it is the easiest it is for the body.

⬐ tacon

Paleo Diet & Strength Training Biochemistry | Doug McGuff M.D.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7GB3h82tcQ

⬐ kmm

Can you source that? Because as far as I can tell, de novo lipogenesis is a relatively rare process, exactly because our body prefers to just store the fat in the blood as fat. Sugar is burned preferentially, and only when your carb intake exceeds your total daily energy expenditure, it will start converting it to fat: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10365981

I'm not sure what chemically needs to happen, fat is transported from the bowel to the bloodstream in a relatively complex process, but once it's in the blood, it's in the same form as in storage, as triglycerides.

In fact, the triglyceride content of a person's fat stores will reflect their diet, which is a strong indication it comes directly from the food without processing: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4072956

⬐ wutbrodo

> However, the "calories out" portion of that equation is actually quite complicated

The "calories in" part is more complicated than people like to admit too, and probably more important for weight loss. The way our body handles hunger and its relative primacy in our mental state makes it unnecessarily difficult to calorie restrict and then maintain, when eating certain diets. It's like telling an alcoholic "just stop drinking, duh" or an insomniac "just relax and sleep, simple as that". Just because something is in our brain doesn't mean we have full control over it, and I'm not sure why food is treated like something that everyone magically has complete self-control over, in contrast to _literally everything else_.

I'm really really fortunate to have grown up in a good food culture, and worked on it a little more in college. Meeting CICO goals and losing weight when I want to is really not that difficult for me, but I don't think this has much to do with self-control or my genetics. The way I eat just makes hunger less of a factor in my life: I rarely get hungry, skipping meals is never a problem, I get satiated quickly, etc etc.

You're wrong. If you want to know why:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

A brilliant lecture by Robert H. Lustig, MD, UCSF Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology. He knows his stuff. :)

⬐ rurban

Ok, thanks. I do trust Lustig. Interesting then that the Europeans do have the opposite opinion. They are not influenced by the sugar lobby.

Fructose, maybe?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

They actually are quite different. Glucose is directly usable by every cell in your body, whereas fructose has to be processed by the liver. There are no adverse health effects from taking pure glucose.

Here is a good video explaining it in more detail: https://youtu.be/dBnniua6-oM

⬐ cup-of-tea

> There are no adverse health effects from taking pure glucose.

Most people shouldn't be taking glucose. People should get their energy from food so that they get the nutrients and fibre with it. For most people taking glucose means either you'll get too much energy (and get fat) or not enough nutrients from real food.

On top of that it causes a strong insulin response which will decrease insulin sensitivity.

Very different; glucose is metabolized by all cells in the body; fructose only by the liver.

Fructose isn't good for you (or sucrose 50% fructose, high fructose corn syrup 42%-65% fructose etc) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

But its sweeter than glucose; and has side-effects like switching of appetite suppression and prolonged exposure does similar damage to the liver as alcohol. Glucose doesn't do that.

coincidentally, lustig is also a "big" name in sugar as a disease https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

The article features an image of the KFC "double down." The idea that this should be the emblem of the obesity crisis has no credibility with me, because the true cause of obesity is sugar (specifically fructose), not lipids.

See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM - fructose specifically dysregulates appetite feedback loops between the gut, liver and brain. The only healthy way to consume fructose is when it is trapped in a great deal of fiber, which limits this effect. And the only way to do that is to eat it in the form of fresh fruit that has not been processed in any way (i.e., frozen, chopped up, etc.)

So the primary thing wrong with the KFC double down is the fructose in the bacon and the mayo-like goop they put into the middle. But compared to a milkshake, or a Big Mac, it's actually pretty healthy, if you ask for it without the bacon and "sauce." At least as of two years ago, KFC's original recipe batter had no sugar added to it. (NB: The "extra tasty crispy" batter does contain sugar!)

Also, did you know that food labels routinely lie about sugar content? Turns out that the USDA allows anything <1g per serving to be rounded down to 0g! Do this with enough servings, and you'll run well past the safe daily fructose limit. Also they permit fructose to under something like 60+ different names. My way of dealing with this is to refuse to eat any food containing any amount of it, even if it is at the very end of the ingredients list. And when in doubt, I ask the restaurant/grocery store/relative about what's in the sauce. Don't leave anything to chance!

The result is that I'm quite fit at age 37, and I've managed to stay this way for about a decade. Many other people my age have rolls of fat hanging off their bodies, and they are very sad about it...

At any rate, there is no substitute for educating oneself, studying chemistry, biochemistry, reading labels, keeping up-to-date with the facts. If you don't put the effort in, you're not going to get the results you want back out.

Nice to see this hitting the mainstream. I vaguely recollect Robert Lustig of "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" [1] fame (or someone following/close to him) making a similar point a few years ago.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

All that and no answer to Dr. Robert Lustig, an endocrinologist at UCSF? Not even a mention?

Sorry, but it's hard to take an article seriously that does not even engage in the actual facts or debate.

Here's "Sugar: The Bitter Truth," Lustig's breakthrough talk that changed the world: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

⬐ teslabox

Maybe you know why sugar is demonized, but starch gets a pass? Is starch not chains of glucose? Calorie for calorie, is white bread not actually twice as fattening as an caloric equivalent amount of sugar?

This is know scientifically for ~10 years now (in a sense that there are some studies, and the biochemistry of mechanisms is know, but the statistical power of the studies might be low... can''t remember, left the biomedical field years ago), and anecdotally since like for ever (google "making fois gras").

Also, for cats and dogs, other sugar (xylitol if I member well) can destroy their livers pretty fast. Fortunately, we come from sugar-happy monkeys (that used to eat lots of rottenfruit), so we can safely enjoy our booze in moderation :)

And for extra self-destructive power, mix fructose and fats: your liver will be too overloaded processing the fructose (that btw, also gets transformed to extra fat and collesterol if its other metabolizing pathways get saturated) to be able to handle the fats correctly, so "bad collesterol" will accumulate in you blood, and then clog your arteries (yeah, it needs some extra help from inflamation).

But, oh, wait, there's a name for that: donuts! ...or virtually every other fatty sweet stuff. Oh, and for extra-extra-damage the fats should be fried (for reason I don't have time to detail). And there's a name for that too: KFC + dessert!

Now go enjoy your deserts! Or the fois gras you had before it ;)

EDIT+: video explaining some (older) science behind it, form UCTV: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

⬐ misja111

Plus, when you eat sugar your body produces insulin, which instructs your body to stop burning fat and store it straight into your fat cells.

⬐ s4vi0r

That's not true at all... What would possibly make you think that?

⬐ alex_hitchins

I can't point to anything specific, however I was under this impression from listening to a few Keto diet enthusiasts.

⬐ nnq

First search shows: http://www.vivo.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/endocrine/panc...

> Insulin promotes synthesis of fatty acids in the liver

> Insulin inhibits breakdown of fat in adipose tissue

...but don't take that to mean "insulin is what gets you fat". It does not... or not as in it being a bad thing. It's more like "insulin just tells your body to process away that damn extra sugar"... and your body does whatever it can with it, like converting it into stored fat. It would be much worse if it didn't! You'd have diabetes then, and that sugar standing unprocessed in you blood would do tons of damage to your body! Making you a bit fatter is kind of the best thing your body can do with the extra sugar that got dumped into your blood...

⬐ sgroppino

Donuts and KFC are terrible. You should stick to Ben & Jerry's.

⬐ KozmoNau7

Dr. Lustig's argumentation is questionable at best.

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-ab... https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/brainwaves/is-sugar-rea...

Eat less sugar? Sure! But don't do it because of Dr. Lustig's exaggerations and paranoia. Do it because sugar is calorie-heavy with no real benefit.

⬐ birksherty

"because sugar is calorie-heavy". That's it? What about all the studies that shows high consumption of sugar leads to diabetes, heart disease, mental health etc.?

Who knows what is true any more? May be big sugar companies are fighting back using fake studies and blogs to lessen the blame like they did with fat before.

Edit: I forgot to mention 2 real examples:

1. My father is not fat. We don't eat any junk foods, everything is cooked at home. He goes to office by cycle, it's long commute. But eats too much sweets and sugar, kind of addicted. He got diabetes, glucose reading 290 without food.

2. I started eating lots of sweets/sugar after I stayed at my parent's home for four months. When I sleep on my stomach, I started to feel my heart beat. It was not like this before. It was a bit scary. Then I read all those articles about sugar, and I figured that might be the reason. I stopped eating sugar completely. I no longer feel heart beat while sleeping on stomach. My heart beat per minute came down from 67 to 61. I only stopped sugar, everything else was constant.

Okay, these are only 2 cases, it proves nothing. I know. But, I don't care what anyone says about sugar now. I know what I experienced and I believe on that.

⬐ alex_hitchins

Just because your fathers main meals are home cooked doesn't necessarily mean they are healthy.

⬐ KozmoNau7

And what about the studies that attribute those same maladies to fat, excessive protein intake from red meat, aluminum and countless other factors?

I know people who are fit and well within normal weight, blood pressure, cholesterol and everything else, eat a very healthy diet and they still got diabetes.

One of them lives almost exclusively on home-grown and home-cooked meals (they run a small farm), he's very into working out and is one of the most fit people I know. Yet he has type-2 diabetes.

You're absolutely right that we should all eat less sugar, but there's no great mystery to it.

⬐ apple4ever

Those studies are starting to be shown as wrong.

I bet those people who eat "healthy" it a lot of carbs, which the body just changes into sugar. So they really aren't eating that healthy.

⬐ KozmoNau7

So what makes you so sure the studies demonizing sugar are not equally as flawed as the previous studies?

⬐ birksherty

I'm not saying there are no other factors.

But, lots of studies have showed sugar is highly related to diabetes, heart disease, mental health etc.. And here you are saying avoid sugar only because of calorie. Like there can't be anything more to it. Where did you get that?

⬐ nnq

> calorie-heavy with no real benefit

Wtf does that even mean?! You mainly eat to get your calories... the calories are your main intended benefit, that's mainly why you eat, to get your fuel to burn. It's like the stupid phrase "empty calories". Also, the calories that you need to burn, will inevitably deal damage to your body in the process of being burn (free radicals -> aging, cancer etc.) and that's unavoidable.

But you can try to find the least damaging combination of source of calories (like at least don't mix high-fat with high-sugar in the same meal), and yeah, also so get your vitamins micronutrients, fibers etc. that you also need besides those calories.

And I agree with you too :) ...Lustig's paranoia is way over the top, especially when he gets to comparing fructose with alcohol (we're not cats and dogs - 'carnivores', we're 'rotten-and-occasionally-toxic-fruit eating monkeys', we can take our liquor and drugs as long as we don't overdo it :P), or calling it "toxic" or "poison".

⬐ KozmoNau7

When I say "calorie-heavy with no real benefit", I mean that you get glucose and fructose and that's it. No vitamins, no minerals, no fiber, just pure straight carbs. In other words just calories that your body can use or store, and unless you've been doing strenuous activity within a short time frame, those calories will be stored as fat.

⬐ nnq

The less confusing distinction would be between "slow (absorbed) calories" and "fast (absorbed) calories". That's what "glycemic index" and all that is all about. Most fibers are especially about this: they slow the absorbtion of sugars and other stuff, so they don't cause a spike in blood sugar concentration.

You can even have basically pure carbs that are absorbed slowly and have a good glycemic profile (they are glucose polymers that take longer to break up into the glucose monomers they are made of). One of these is the modified starch that you can also get "naturally" by reheating some types of pasta, others are pretty weird chemical inventions that are not proven safe yet I think...

You could eat just "pure slow carbs" and throw in some vitamin pills, essential fats, essential amino acids and antioxidants (they would all amount to like a small fist of pills a day I think) and be quite healthy I guess. Not sure why would anyone want to leave such a tasteless life though :)

EDIT+: actually, scratch that, your liver might actually fail long term if you don't pass something more akin to "real food" through your gut at least occasionally, for probably complex reasons that amount to "the liver is a damn complex chemical plant that is expected to actually run continuously on all pathways, not to be left abandoned" ...I'm really looking forward for 10+ years results for the people living on that soylent thing only btw.

The main title in the article ("The Toxic Truth") is a tribute to UCSF's famous Dr. Lustig of the lecture "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" [1], which is a fascinating and well worthwhile lecture about the biochemistry of fructose as it relates to obesity. I thought I'd just watch a few minutes of it and ended up sitting through it and learning a whole lot.

He also wrote a book on the topic("Fat Chance: Beating the Odds Against Sugar, Processed Food, Obesity, and Disease")[2].

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

[2] https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0095ZMPTU/

⬐ KozmoNau7

Here's another serious and level-headed look at Dr. Lustig's claims. He's an alarmist, and we don't need those.

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-ab...

⬐ smohare

Lustig has always stuck me as a bit alarmist. Another red flag are his attempts to capitalize on his increase in popularity. That being said, he does seem sincere and not attempting to spread disinformation as such.

A somewhat old, but measured take on some of Lustig’s claims: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/brainwaves/is-sugar-rea...

> But why has obesity not been such a problem in the past, despite sugar being available?

Sugar, usually in the form of HFCS is added to almost any processed food these days, to make it more delicious and to make the food more profitable. HFCS is very, very cheap to produce. You're eating more sugar without perhaps even knowing you are. Low fat foods, introduced in the late 70's have the same amount of calories, but sugar was added to make the food more palatable.

Sugary items, like sodas, are also coming in larger portions, as well.

Sugars from fruit are less of a problem, as the fruit also contains fiber, which slows down the absorption of the fructose, and helps to not overload your liver.

Calories in the form of glucose are digested differently than fructose or HFCS - the latter two which are processed in your liver. You shouldn't worry about eating too much bread - you should be looking at if the bread contains added sugar.

Good video to watch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

If you’re genuinely curious here’s a lecture of his with a lot of research.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Most of your statements are addressed in it so hopefully it helps you clear the confusion.

In his lecture “sugar the bitter truth” [1] Robert Lustig talks about the obesity epidemic starting in the 70s. His hypothesis is that the shift from high fat to high sugar diets and excessive use of high fructose corn syrup are likely one of the primary causes for the obesity rates we see now in the western world. It is quite insightful and full of data.

[1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

If the problem were a simple matter of sheer gluttony, this would make sense.

However, it's not a matter of people merely choosing to eat more than they should. If that were the case, obese 6-month-old children would be an extraordinary rarity.

Fructose is the primary cause of the obesity epidemic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

It's difficult to eliminate fructose from your diet because it's put into everything from mayonnaise to ketchup to bread. And people suffer from the twin delusions that consuming small amounts of fructose won't add up, and that healthy-sounding sweeteners such as "agave nectar" are somehow better for them than high-fructose corn syrup.

"Agave nectar" contains between 50 and 90% fructose, depending on the supplier. Although it contains slightly less fructose, honey is dangerous for exactly the same reason. And while eating a few strawberries is perfectly healthy, eating too many all at once, or separating the fructose from the fiber content through any kind of processing (blending, freezing, etc.) is enough to induce these same toxic effects on appetite control.

Oh, and one more thing. Food manufacturers have a LOT of different names that allow them to conceal the fructose content of their products. Here are but a few (61!)

Agave nectar, barbados sugar, barley malt, barley malt syrup, beet sugar, brown sugar, buttered syrup, cane juice, cane juice crystals, cane sugar, caramel, carob syrup, castor sugar, coconut palm sugar, coconut sugar, confectioner’s sugar, corn sweetener, corn syrup, corn syrup solids, date sugar, dehydrated cane juice, demerara sugar, dextrin, dextrose, evaporated cane juice, free-flowing brown sugars, fructose, fruit juice, fruit juice concentrate, glucose, glucose solids, golden sugar, golden syrup, grape sugar, HFCS (high-fructose corn syrup), honey, icing sugar, invert sugar, malt syrup, maltodextrin, maltol, maltose, mannose, maple syrup, molasses, muscovado, palm sugar, panocha, powdered sugar, raw sugar, refiner’s syrup, rice syrup, saccharose, sorghum syrup, sucrose, sugar (granulated), sweet sorghum, syrup, treacle, turbinado sugar, yellow sugar.

If this article is correct, please explain why my blood pressure and cholesterol figures go through the roof when my diet includes fructose.

Please also explain how and why everything goes back to normal when I cut fructose out entirely. I am an quite serious - I do not allow even trace amounts in sauces and mayo and the like, nor in hidden sources such as "agave nectar" (which is 50-90% fructose).

Oh and BTW, I eat TONS of pasta, saturated fat (including butter), plants, and a really nice steak every month. I pour heavy whipping cream into my coffee every morning (not the usual trash, but the fancy expensive stuff free of polysorbate 80 and carrageenan.)

Unless you're eating a fresh strawberry that hasn't been mutilated in a blender (and even then, not too many all at once), fructose makes you fat because it messes with your appetite regulation in the bad direction. Even a little fructose makes you hungry.

Dietary fat (saturated or otherwise) does the exact opposite: all other things being equal, it makes you feel sated.

Don't just take my experience over the last ten years into account - here's a leading endocrinologist that's overturning decades of dogma. He'll set you right: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Robert Lustig does a good talk about sugar metabolism in "Sugar: The Bitter Truth": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Also, "The Trouble with Fructose": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yh4JBXaKnmA

Despite the baity titles, it's a good talk with real biochemistry.

Edit: better video added up top

⬐ agumonkey

Lustig is not a joke, but I'd love to have other wise point of view on the matter.

⬐ deegles

What would this other point of view show? I don't see how there can be alternative opinions on this, metabolism isn't that different between humans.

I guess you could argue that he didn't reach the correct conclusion, but that's different point.

⬐ agumonkey

Because I'm not a doctor or a biologist, so I need a few counterpoints as checks in order not to be blinded. It's just a quick check valve while I read more about the subject.

⬐ wutbrodo

Googling 'Lustig criticism' gives you a good place to start. Though with nutritional science, everything is so far from consensus (and when there is a consensus, it's 20 years behind the science) that you should treat this as a jumping-off point to read the literature instead of an authoritative rebuttal.

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-ab...

There's a section about halfway down where he discusses Lustig's claims that things like HFCS are metabolized differently and negatively.

⬐ tr1ck5t3r

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fL5-9ZxamXc&t=16m52s Insulin = obesity 25g of carbs or less.

Fasting with just water - After 3-4 days of putting up with Ghrelin the hunger hormone which also increases spatial intelligence arguably a survival mechanism in its own right, the body goes into Ketosis which is fat burning. At the same time the body will start repairing itself as seen in one extreme study carried out in 1971 at the University of Dundee on a 27yr old obese male who fasted on just water with periodic intakes of vitamins & minerals for 382days. Its what Christian Lent is about, its what the ancient Greeks call the "physician within", Ramamdan fasting which includes no fluids during daylight hours has the effect of causing a spike in blood sugar levels but is not quite as beneficial as plain old water fasting.

Water fasting before chemo also increases the survival rates of some cancer patients, if you read the studies or even the summaries of the studies.

Highest peak seen in Human Growth Hormone was 1250% which is more than you see in puberty, it also increases your metabolism so you lose weight properly, and under extreme conditions grey hair will turn back to its original colour, moles and skin inperfections shrivel up and dissappea. The liver is the only organ that is rejuvenated from the food you consume.

Fasting basically rejuvenates the body, so much so it was reported in one encyclopedia printed in 1836, that Arabs used to live to be over 200 years old, not bad if you have a nice pension plan in place to retire soon!

⬐ ibejoeb

Me too. I know this is essentially his gig now, but I haven't seen anyone attack the science. If there's a reasonable refutation out there, I'm all ears.

⬐ jeffdavis

In his video he talks about the amount of salt in Coca Cola like it's part of some grand conspiracy.

Coke has very little salt, so it makes me question a lot of his other claims.

⬐ crottypeter

I'm gonna echo GP

>I haven't seen anyone attack the science. If there's a reasonable refutation out there, I'm all ears.

⬐ imcoconut

Ray Peat addresses the science better than anyone I've read. He's a biology phd from University of Oregon with a specialization in biochemistry, physiology, and endocrinology. Many of his ideas are not the mainstream but everything he writes about is extensively researched and cited.

He has a number of articles on sugar but a good one to start with is Sugar Issues[0]. It can get a bit technical so I would recommend keeping wikipedia and google handy. It looks to have around 50-100 references for further investigation. Here's also one of his many radio interviews where he discuses sugar (starts in earnest with respect to sugar at around 14:35, but whole talk is great)[1].

Basically, sugars (glucose, fructose, sucrose, lactose) are healthy and protective for a wide variety of reasons - as long as they are able to be fully oxidized by the mitochondria, to produce carbon dioxide and a greater number of ATP. Many of the alleged "evils" of sugar are actually due to the polyunsaturated fats, which inhibit proper metabolism of sugar and damage cells in a variety of ways. One well established mechanism is by competing with glucose for oxidation, resulting in higher blood sugar levels. This is known as the Randall cycle (or glucose fatty acid cycle) and actually serves as the foundation for an as-of-yet unchallenged theory of type 2 diabetes.

I highly recommend reading ray peat, and listening to his interviews. His intelligence, recall, and ability to synthesize information to form coherent biological models across a variety of topics are all-together astounding. I honestly recommend all of his articles and interviews. It takes some time and re-readings to fully grasp the concepts he advances, but it is well worth it.

[0] http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/sugar-issues.shtml [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lx96YYKvA9w

This sounds a bit extreme. I just avoid processed food as much as possible. Include most restaurants in there.

Everyone should watch as much of this talk as they can: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

This is almost right, but still manages to be dangerously wrong.

Frustose and glucose are very different, one never gets converted to the other. All cells can and will take up and metabolize glucose, but only the liver can import and metabolize fructose. Metabolically, fructose does not behave like a carbohydrate, but like alcohol.

Insulin affects mostly fat, muscle and liver cells. They react by storing the excess glucose, which they do harmlessly. Excess glucose does not cause insulin tolerance; fructose seems to do that, thought I don't remember the whole mechanism.

Neither chitin nor lignin are carbohydrates, lignin isn't even chemically related. Even ruminants can't digest lignin, only a few funghi can do that.

At any rate, the bottom line is that frustose is a problem, glucose isn't, and lumping both under "carbs" confuses matters. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM for lots of details. (But don't take Dr. Lustig's words at face value---check other sources. Most of it is uncontroversial.)

⬐ maxerickson

Conversion to glucose in the liver is a major metabolic pathway for fructose.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3533803/

The main similarity with alcohol metabolism is the "in the liver" part.

⬐ greendestiny_re

I appreciate your input on the matter. You know as well as I do the complexity of dietary matters. You also know that there is a worrying dearth of first-hand information regarding diet. We mostly rely on aggregate studies that lump individuals together and try to answer extremely complex questions. What we find raises new questions without answering the old ones.

Now, as soon as you mentioned "fructose" and "alcohol" in the same sentence, I thought about a Youtube video I watched a while back. In that video, an energetic professor had a rapid-fire exposition of how fructose is toxic and affects the liver like alcohol, how cholesterol indicates risk of heart disease and that people are in danger because they have no idea what they're eating or how it affects them.

I scroll down through your comment and see a familiar name "Dr. Lustig". Hey, that's the name of the guy in the video I watched! Isn't that a coincidence? Don't you find it disconcerting that we both use a singular source of information, simply because there is no other?

I'm not saying Dr. Lustig is lying; I actually trust what he's saying, I think he has good intentions but our knowledge of diet is so limited, he's like a guy looking through a pinhole and trying to convey to us the wondrous sights he sees.

Now, that brings me back to my original comment. I've been a professional writer for 4 years now. I quickly discovered what I call "Writer's dilemma". In theory, there is a perfect piece for every occasion, the only problem is it takes an infinite amount of time to write it. So, I have to decide on where to cut corners.

No matter what I write, someone will disagree with it. No matter how I write it, there will be those who don't understand what I said. In that case, I can only make a bona fide effort to convey the information while making a good story. But simply quoting someone else doesn't make a good story. In fact, it's called plagiarism and can result in my client's AdSense account getting suspended.

Also, chitin is a derivative of glucose. I checked that in 5 seconds on Wikipedia, it's the very first sentence. So, in trying to correct me, you also got at least one of your facts wrong. But I wrote a good story.

It's so difficult to eat healthy in the US because we're still in this false mindset of "reduce fat intake" when in reality is we should be reducing starches/sugars (carbs except for fibre and limited sugar alcohols).

Most of the "light" and "healthy" foods in stores are LOADED with sugars or starch. The FDA really needs to revisit the weight given to carbohydrates when creating the total calorie count.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

This lecture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Basically it says that the metabolic mechanism of fructose is different from other forms of nutrition. Our bodies have no good ways to break it down without harming ourselves. The long term effects of eating fructose are comparable to long term alcohol drinking. I assume nobody would say that calories from alcohol are the same as other food sources?

Robert Lustig[0] and Gary Taubes[1] are excellent places to start to understand that obesity is not simply about 'calories in/calories out'. Lustig has a now-infamous talk that surveys the research.[2]

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Lustig [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Taubes [2]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

⬐ Jemmeh

Relevant short video from the Documentary "FatHead" that talks a little bit about what Gary Taubes is talking about in his book. The effects of carb/sugar and the insulin response that causes fat storage. https://youtu.be/mNYlIcXynwE

It's free on Amazon Prime Video if anyone wants to watch it. I'm still only halfway through it though, so if he suddenly says we should just eat helium at the end I'm sorry. :P

⬐ Jemmeh

Well...as of today it's no longer part of prime video. :/ But you can sign up for a 7 day trial of the extra subscription for documentaries that allows you to watch it and then cancel.

Again anecdotal, but I've had a similar experience. I've been trying to reduce the amount of refined sugars in my diet, with the aim of being completely off refined sugars/artificial sweeteners at some point this year.

I've been eating mostly just fruit for dessert after dinner. It's really good because after dinner is one of my sweet tooth triggers. Well I got the dumb idea to eat a piece of a chocolate turtle candy instead and within 5 minutes was sweating and my heart was racing. I had the lightheadedness too. I felt awful. On the plus side like you said this kind of experience helps me not want to eat it more.

I started an open facebook group with a few friends so we support each other in not eating it. It's been super helpful too to have someone help keep you accountable. It's pretty new but if anyone wants to join feel free: https://www.facebook.com/groups/1411638028861122/

Edit: A lot of the reasoning behind quitting can be found in this lecture by Robert H. Lustig, MD, UCSF Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology titled "The Bitter Truth". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM&t=1s This, in addition to a lot of reading about world history of sugar trade and how disease is usually right behind the introduction of sugar is a large part of my personal decision to try to stop eating it.

Here is an actual, biochemical take on the subject of refined sugar:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Here is probably what happened to advertise fat as bad in the first place:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-ind...

The first link I can't argue with, the second one maybe.

We do need balanced diets, but, natural balanced diets. Throwing pure sugar into it, isn't making it balanced of any sort.

⬐ victorhooi

Your first link is to a video from Robert Lustig. You should probably have mentioned that his viewpoints are quite controversial, and there's hardly yet a scientific consensus on them.

You shouldn't post his videos as the gospel truth.

⬐ vixen99

Bottom line: fructose (50% of ordinary sugar) is not metabolized in the same way as glucose (the other 50%). The latter is used by just about every cell in the body whereas the liver is mainly responsible for handling fructose. This organ also metabolizes other things like alcohol and paracetamol. Overloading the liver is not a good idea. Anyone can read up on what 'overloading' means for any of those or other nutrients and go figure. None of this is controversial though the definition and effects of 'excess' fructose obviously are, for any individual.

⬐ quickben

I apologize but I do not track controversies that much as I don't have the time for all that. Also, I'm a programmer, not a biochemist, so:

If I go to wikipedia, I get

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Lustig And I see nothing about controversies there.

If I google about the term for a bit, I see no scientific rebuttals of his points in that video.

I mean, it's biochemistry, if he's that much wrong (he seems quite educated) then some of his science is also wrong; would you be so kind to provide few links of rebuttals to his research papers or whatever you are reading.

I would greatly appreciate if you stick to actual scientific papers, as I really don't have time to get dragged into the whole USA 'omg hes from <political party> and that's why he states his pro [trump/hilary] views.

TLDR: I honestly don't know about any controversies streaming from that video, but would like to read the scientific rebutals, if any, with respect to that guy's work.

I agree with you. This article also mentions they're focusing on fats/saturated fats; which is also a terrible focus.

The real danger is not fat, even saturated/trans-fats, but starches and sugar. The increase in these types of carbohydrates in products like baby formula is actually leading to obesity in infants!

Excess sugar can stress arteries and damage them. Cholesterol is carried to these artier by lipids (LDLs and HDLs, which are not actually cholesterol, but proteins that carry it through your bloodstream). If you eat a lot of sugar, cholesterol can build up between the walls of arteries as they fix the damage. They can eventually break down the wall, releasing plaque into the bloodstream and potentially causing heart complications.

I highly recommend Dr. Lustig's video (UCTV) to learn more:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

A few years back I switched to a keto normal fat/very low carb (excluding fiber) diet. I've lost weight, gained energy and have felt a lot better. Of course this isn't for everyone. Some people have a body type that lends itself to higher carb intake (I knew a runner who'd eat 30 bananas a week) and as always do your research, consult with your doctor, dietitian, etc. before drastic changes in your diet.

It's a common myth that Adkins died of his own diet. He didn't, and Reuters rededicated their column implying that he did. I honestly wonder if the obesity epidemic would have gone down today if the world didn't dismiss his ideas, or the ideas of many nutritionist for decades before him that made similar claims about the dangers of sugar.

⬐ FrancoDiaz

It's a common myth that Adkins died of his own diet.

And there was a whole bunch of nutritionists, doctors, "advocates" that went after him after he was six feet under.

I'd like to see those prominent people that went after him held to account now.

⬐ Marazan

Why? The Atkins diet is based on nonsense and garbage. Just because conventional thinking about fats was wrong doesn't make alternative views automatically correct.

⬐ baron816

It's also a myth that runners need a high carb diet. I was a competitive distance runner for many years with a high carb diet and I'm confident that my performance suffered because of it. You're cells become much more efficient at using energy as you train, so you really don't need to eat that many calories at all. I was running 80+ miles per week, with a not above average calorie intake (for Americans), and my weight was stable.

⬐ LeifCarrotson

The point of improving your running economy is not simply to reduce your ml O2/kg body mass/km and kcal/kg/km. That efficiency is nice, but the volume of oxygen you can inhale per minute doesn't change with your diet. A competitive distance runner would use increased efficiency not to reduce their dietary intake, but to increase their speed while maintaining a high-calorie diet.

It doesn't make sense that your cells could become more efficient to the degree that you "don't need to eat that many calories at all". Typical efficiency values are on the order of 1-1.5 kcal/kg/km, so your 80 mpw represents at least 1200 calories per day above baseline. Furthermore, this 1200 calories is just while running - after stopping the workout, you'll need to metabolize protein to help your muscles recover from exertion, and rebuild the glycogen stores which are larger in volume as a result of training, and which are more effectively drained as a result of training, and to rebuild the fat stores which you'll use on your long runs.

And yes, I may be biased in this reasoning due to the fact that I can sit here and type this out while munching on this delicious caramel popcorn and not worry about weight gain. There's no denying that it's high-calorie.

⬐ brianwawok

The average American probably eats 60-70% carbs.

They would do well on more like 25% carbs aka Paleo.

As a distance runner, I don't perform well at 25% carbs. I need more like 40% carbs. So not "high carb", but "higher carb then a sedentary person needs".

⬐ coldpie

Paleo is crap nonsense, but yes, the typical American high-carb diet is bad news.

Edit: Where "paleo" is defined roughly as "eating only foods that [I think] were available ~10,000 years ago": http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2013/09/10/3842158.ht...

⬐ argonaut

There's a certain irony in calling something a myth based on your personal anecdote.

⬐ Dylan16807

When disproving a need, an anecdote is pretty effective.

⬐ argonaut

Except nobody is claiming all runners need a high carb diet. If anyone actually claimed that it was that most runners would benefit from a high carb diet (I have no idea if anyone actually makes this claim scientifically).

⬐ revelation

Plenty of people make that claim, just search carbohydrate loading. The scientific reasoning is very simple. Aerobic exercise performance is limited by the rate of oxygen uptake, turning fats into usable energy takes considerably more oxygen than it does for CHO. You can in a single race/session exhaust your glycogen stores, but the supply of fats is essentially limitless. So for ideal performance you want to maximize your glycogen stores before an event, and for long ones, take additional CHO during, though rate of consumption is usually significantly higher than replenishment through digestion if you are going at all fast.

That point when you have exhausted your glycogen stores is what they call bonking. Now you can fine-tune your low carb diet to hopefully have enough glycogen at any point to sustain you through an exercise session (more realistic for running than cycling) but everyone else just eats a high-carb diet.

⬐ Dylan16807

"most [runners] would benefit" is a pretty weak and unhelpful assertion. If we instead go with "almost all [runners] would benefit" then the anecdote is pretty good evidence against it.

⬐ argonaut

No it's not. Most is quite a strong assertion.

⬐ Fnoord

> If we instead go with "almost all would benefit" then the anecdote is pretty good evidence against it.

No, one anecdote is not pretty good [scientific] evidence against anything.

I can give you an anecdote about how I drove through red lights multiple times. That does not mean you should follow the example.

Why not? You have no idea about the circumstances. I was actually talking about driving a bike, I was a teenager, and there was barely (if any) traffic. There's pro and cons there, but what matters is I omitted the details. Hence, YMMV. Plus, the statistical evidence is too small (sample size is one). Good luck reproducing the outcome, too.

Its the same in our runner's example. There's simply hardly any -if any- evidence presented to even make the anecdotal claim. Which still lacks any statistical evidence.

What anecdotal evidence can lead to is scientific research. But we should not conclude on the outcome yet. We must keep an open mind, accept on a method and test circumstances, and gain statistical relevance.

It is absolutely mind blowing, btw, how much 'scientific' research these days is not statistical relevant yet gets passed good grades (and yields the paper) at say college & universities. I'm not sure if its incompetence or laziness or lack of time or lack of money. I've even witnessed this first hand recently when my significant other was completing an assignment for her higher education degree which I was reviewing. Four interviews lead to a conclusion. Which, yes, is anecdotal ;)

⬐ Dylan16807

> I can give you an anecdote about how I drove through red lights multiple times.

As evidence for what? If you're trying to disprove an assertion that everyone running a red light gets hit, it's good evidence.

> You have no idea about the circumstances. I was actually talking about driving a bike

Assume good faith.

⬐ ageofwant

Personal anecdotes are considerably more valuable to the individual that generalized truths. Every human body is unique and while trends and generalizations matter, they do not matter as much as empirical observed facts. Much more so in the context of personal health.

⬐ argonaut

> Personal anecdotes

> observed facts

These are not the same thing.

⬐ Fnoord

You're forgetting all the biases (& fallacies) which may or may not have affected the experience or the memory leading to the anecdote. These biases (& fallacies) are detectable or the lack of them is verifiable, with the scientific method.

I'm not denying an anecdote is not valuable to the individual. It is, for the individual who made the anecdote; not the rest of us, not the readers.

I'm also will admit I, too, use anecdotal evidence. But that does not mean one has strong evidence when they do; they don't, and neither do I.

⬐ TheSpiceIsLife

I feel like waving my hands around in the air while running around screaming.

The bullshit that's been pushed on us for decades about cholesterol isn't science.

And to add to that, I've never heard any anecdotal evidence that goes "I went on a low cholesterol diet and my symptoms improved".

The scientific method is valuable. Science as it is practiced...? Let's just say it's reputation has been tarnished.

⬐ evidence_first

What is this 'bullshit'? There are studies that show correlations between LDL cholesterol and risk of heart attacks (happy to show you some if you're curious).

It's true that we're still making sense of how to operationalize those observations (restrictive diet, exercise, statin therapy, etc). This doesn't make the science worthless; it's just an intermediate step in this particular area of research.

⬐ pessimizer

> There are studies that show correlations between LDL cholesterol and risk of heart attacks (happy to show you some if you're curious).

Why wouldn't you? It seems like it would be unambiguously helpful both in general for the thread, and specifically for your argument.

For evidence that the lowering of LDL cholesterol lowers the risk of heart attacks, though, the evidence can't just be an association between heart attacks and naturally high cholesterol, which could obviously both spring from the same cause. An association between low cholesterol diets and heart attack rates, or good evidence that statins lowered mortality would both be interesting.

⬐ ageofwant

Dr. Tim Noakes of "Lore of Running" fame agrees. Not everybody is happy about that though http://foodmed.net/2016/05/03/noakes-exposed-real-beef-dieti...

What's interesting is that most of the population of this planet does not even realize that glucose is not the only source of energy and that we can be powered entirely by beta-hydroxybutyrate (which comes from fats); our carbohydrate requirement is zero because our body can synthesize all the glucose it needs.

Here is a pretty good and scientific talk about what is happening (warning > 1 hour long): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Edit: just noticed this y/t has already been cited in another comment - evermore reason to pay attention to it :)

⬐ pier25

I've switched to a low carb / high protein / high fat diet and it's great. I'm eating lots of food and losing weight along the way. Each Saturday is cheat day and I eat anything I want.

Breaking the sugar / carbs dependency was really difficult for the first weeks but now I'm "fat adapted" as they call it.

I've been doing this diet for a year or so and broken it a few times for weeks at a time. Getting back was super easy and I didn't gain much weight. In 2016 I've lost more than 20 kilos, or about 6 belt notches. I even had to buy a new smaller belt.

If you want to know more about this look for the Atkins diet, 4 hour body diet, keto diet, etc. Those are all variations on the same idea of reducing or eliminating carbs from your diet.

⬐ amelius

I didnt' watch the video yet. But do you need to be "in ketosis" to benefit from this energy source?

How difficult is it to incorporate this in your diet? And is it expensive?

⬐ koolba

> I didnt' watch the video yet. But do you need to be "in ketosis" to benefit from this energy source?

Your body will handle that naturally. If it doesn't have enough of resource A, it'll try resource B, then C, ... It happens automatically.

⬐ None

None

⬐ jacamat

I did Keto for a month in September. It requires a good deal of self-control to stick to it (you'll quickly realize that only about 1% of the grocery store is food you can eat on Keto - resisting that temptation constantly is a trial) but it's not particularly expensive. You do have to be "in ketosis" to get the full benefits of Keto, but I've also found that just sticking to a low carb diet (under 100 carbs p/d) is a good start to ease into it. For Keto you will need to stay under 50...some people stay under 20.

I lost about 15 lbs during the process and my diet mostly consisted of salads with lots of chicken + cheese + high fat dressing. I was a vegan before I switched to Keto so eating my veggies was not difficult, but some of my friends struggled to keep a "healthy" diet during the process.

The most difficulty you will have doing Keto is your own self-control. Finding recipes & food to buy is easy.

⬐ IndianAstronaut

Keto was the only diet I could lose weight with. One thing a lot of other diet plans ignore is satiety. If you are hungry or crave food, it is basically an addiction. You will not stop till satieted. Sugars and starches spike glucose levels and thus trigger insulin responses which puts one back in a hungry state.

⬐ sametmax

Yes we evolve from a common ancestor with the monkey, which used to eat mainly fruit, hence sugar.

⬐ overgard

Fruit tends to be healthy because the sugar (fructose) is wrapped in protein and fiber. In other words, it's very very distilled. That's the reason why eating an orange is a lot healthier than drinking orange juice. But we do know that fructose is VERY bad for you (high fructose corn syrup is much worse than sucrose alone).

⬐ sametmax

I don't think it's the distilled part that is important. I doubt the quantity is as important as the other nutriments you get that makes your body functions well enough so that you can benefit from all the sugar.

⬐ JamesBarney

I don't think there exists any evidence that high fructose corn syrup is much worse than sucrose. They are pretty close to the same thing.

HFCS is 45-58% glucose, and 42-55% fructose, and sugar is 50% glucose and 50% fructose. There is one more bond in sugar, but enzymes in your gut break that bond apart very quickly.

⬐ hash-set

I'm also simply tired of the excuses fat people make "Muh HFCS did this." Yeah, that and drinking 4 2 liters a day.

⬐ overgard

Well, I'm not exactly saying your should eat a bunch of sucrose either, so I might have overstepped by saying it's MUCH worse. But I do think the evidence points to fructose not being good for you, and it's certainly not better than other sugars.

⬐ PepeGomez

Why are you lying like that? Are you trying to hurt people?

⬐ overgard

Huh? I'm a liar for saying "sugar is bad and certain sugars are worse"?

⬐ PepeGomez

So what is the evidence for fructose being bad for us?

⬐ overgard

Fructose can only be metabolized by the liver (whereas glucose is useful in the rest of the body) so in terms of generating energy it's not particularly useful, but your liver has to deal with it. If your liver gets more fructose than it can use, it turns it into fat which is stored on the liver, leading to fatty liver disease and insulin resistance (same thing with alcohol).

⬐ PepeGomez

I didn't ask you to repeat yourself, I asked for evidence confirming what you said.

⬐ overgard

If your argument is that "eating sugar is good for you", I encourage you to eat all the sugar you like. It'll be a fun science experiment. Let us know how it turns out.

⬐ PepeGomez

What happened when you tried to eat more sugar?

⬐ DanBC

You've stated all of that as fact, when there's some debate about some of it.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm...

Page 209 onwards.

It's worth reading those few pages, but here are some snippets.

> Products sweetened with HFCS are not necessarily significantly higher in fructose than foods sweetened with sucrose as HFCS has a similar composition to sucrose, which is 50% glucose and 50% fructose.

> The body absorbs free fructose and glucose, or the same sugars derived from sucrose and HFCS, in exactly the same way. Therefore it appears unlikely that fructose, as consumed as a component of most HFCS or other glucose-fructose syrups, causes metabolic abnormalities or promotes weight gain more than other sugars consumed in an isocaloric diet (Klurfeld et al., 2013).

Especially this:

> A3.10 Therefore on balance, it is considered that there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that fructose intake, at levels consumed in the normal UK diet, leads to adverse health outcomes independent of any effects related to its presence as a component of total and free sugars.

⬐ overgard

Well look, with something as complicated as metabolism you're likely to find evidence that goes both ways, but I don't think any sane doctor would object to "eat less sugar", whether that be fructose or glucose or whatever. From what I've read, I think fructose is worse for you, but I'm not going to claim that with 100% certainly. I will claim you'll be better off not eating sugar regardless.

⬐ calvano915

There are costs to gluconeogenesis (glucose via protein catabolism), kidney issues to name one (deamination producing ammonia). The body does not synthesize glucose from fatty acids (beta-oxidation occurs producing aceytl-coA in the mitochondria, thus producing energy, but aceytl-CoA cannot be converted upwards in the pathway to glucose). A small amount of glucose can/does get created from glycerol.

Nutrition recommendations up to this point still recommend high ratio of carbs (45-65% of kcals) because they are the most direct metabolic pathway. Also incredibly important for gut health is fiber, which is a complex carbohydrate (and prebiotic). The concern of carbs is non-complex ones as a high percentage of intake.

They have found that the brain runs on ketones (for a long time it was thought that it required glucose specifically) but long term research is non-existent. So yes, the body can live off of "no carbs", but stating that our carbohydrate requirement is zero is just false according to the literature and nutritional history of the majority of humans.

⬐ lucisferre

So you're saying HN comments are not a good source of my daily nutritional information?

⬐ calvano915

:) Like everything else in life, nutrition as a science is incredibly more complicated than we want to believe or describe. A seriously good place to start is MyPlate (their nutrition AND physical activity recommendations).

⬐ overgard

I'm always skeptical when I hear "Nutrition recommendations" because it implies some sort of authority. Nutrition recommendations from who? The USDA?

It's worth reading the history of the food pyramid. Here's a quote from wikipedia:

"The first chart suggested to the USDA by nutritional experts in 1992 featured fruits and vegetables as the biggest group, not breads. This chart was overturned at the hand of special interests in the grain, meat, and dairy industries, all of which are heavily subsidized by the USDA.[10] If Americans followed the chart suggested, they would buy much less meat, milk, and bread. On the other hand, if they ate as the revised chart suggested, it "could lead to an epidemic of obesity and diabetes," as original composer of the food Pyramid, Louise Light warned. "

I know from a personal standpoint, once I removed refined carbohydrates from my diet I dropped 25 pounds in two months (without bothering to excersize.) So the idea that somehow the diet that made me fat is somehow the "good" diet because the USDA says so strikes me as being silly.

⬐ calvano915

Skepticism is important for any advice. MyPlate/USDA dietary guidelines are updated often, based on all the research and debunking that has happened before and since 1992. As I mentioned in another comment, it's a good place to start for most people. There is going to be some influences affecting their recommendations but most people can benefit from the overall approach.

A diet with high carbs should be mostly complex carbs. There is no minimum refined carb recommendation. The only recommendation is to limit added sugars to <10% of daily kcals. That recommendation may be reduced further in later revisions.

⬐ overgard

I think we both agree that complex carbs are better than refined ones, and there are foods that are somewhat heavy in carbohydrates that are still good for you (kale, for instance).

I'm super skeptical that 45-65% of diet being carbohydrates is healthy though. Unlike proteins and fats carbohydrates don't have much nutritional value other than being useful for creating glucose. Since your body can synthesize glucose anyway, you don't really need that much. In terms of fiber, you can get that from vegetables. I don't necessarily think you have to cut out carbs completely and go on ketosis, but of all the major macronutrients carbs are the least useful, so it seems odd that they should be the vast majority of the diet, especially when we've known for at least a hundred years that carbohydrates are fattening. (I'm amused when people act like ketogenic diets are "new" -- historically high fat/low carb diets were common. And historically we didn't have an obesity problem.)

⬐ PepeGomez

"the body can synthesize glucose" is a horribly misleading statement. The body can create glucose only by destroying protein and the amount it can create is limited by the buildup of toxic waste the process leaves behind. It's absolutely not the same thing as the body synthesizing vitamin A from carotene. You will be much better off eating carbohydrates, and 45% may be still too little.

⬐ overgard

I've read a book[1] -- by an actual doctor -- saying the exact opposite. If you think about it from an evolutionary standpoint, our ancestors would have had many times when food accessibility was scarce and they would have needed to maintain their strength through a long fast. An animal that burned muscle/protein over fat is an animal that wouldn't have survived long, that would be a terrible evolutionary disadvantage. The design of our body isn't stupid -- we store fat for a reason, so that we can burn it in times when food is scarce. Burning fat for energy is both normal and totally healthy.

From a personal standpoint, I barely eat any carbs and I've lost zero strength despite dropping 25 pounds. Apparently the diet that has made me thinner and increased my energy and mental clarity is the "dangerous" one, and the diet that has made everyone obese is "healthy" and "balanced".

[1] The Obesity Code by Dr. Jason Fung

⬐ hash-set

I'm not comfortable with the word "designed." There is evolutionary adaptation, there is no design.

Would you have lost the same 25lbs. if you had just eaten less? In other words, does it really matter that you cut out carbs only? Are you chowing down on bacon and steaks?

⬐ calvano915

Fats do not become glucose (with the exception of the glycerol from triglycerides...a minute amount of the total kcals from one trig) but they do become energy. The majority of energy is in fatty acids which have no pathway to glucose.

For example, it is believed that when we sleep our energy comes from fats. We are not doing anything exerting, so the process of (fat catabolism -> energy) >= energy needs. The brain needs glucose however, so it gets it from glycogen catabolism or protein catabolism (gluconeogenesis).

Edit: For some reason I cannot reply to the comment below. The recommendation is 45-65% based upon individual need. I've mentioned elsewhere in this thread that the brain can use ketone bodies.

I disagree that glucose = obesity as you seem to see it. Many, many things (nutrition, PA, stress, hormone issues, etc) are related to obesity.

A lot of what you emphasize is related to the lack of physical activity that the population no longer gets. If we truly want to solve obesity, it takes adjustments to diet and consistent purposeful physical activity. There's a lot that can be done with nutrition, but continuing our highly sedentary ways will always have consequences for health that nutrition alone will not completely solve.

⬐ overgard

Ketone bodies can be used by the brain. It prefers glucose, but you don't absolutely need it.

Lets say for a second you're right and you need glucose, though. 65% is a really high number, and we basically know exactly what it leads to (obesity).

⬐ PepeGomez

Stop spreading misinformation. 65% is well within historical norms. People commonly ate that much or more, oils and meat used to be expensive.

⬐ overgard

I'm only giving advice that I've personally tried myself, and have seen it work. I actually have a coherent theory for why people get fat, you just have... anger

⬐ JamesBarney

I think it's important to separate health and obesity when considering exercise. A large body of evidence shows us that exercise makes you healthy. A smaller body of evidence shows that exercise helps prevent obesity. But there is virtually no evidence that shows exercise has a large part to play in curing obesity.

⬐ calvano915

A large percentage of our dietary need is strictly for energy (via glucose). Carbohydrates are most efficient over fats or protein to fulfill this need, among other needs like fiber intake. Complex ones work best, not only for sustained energy but other benefits as well.

Yes we have needs for micronutrients, which are acquired from all of the macros. If your diet is truly varied, balanced, and adequate (in all three macro categories) on a regular basis you will likely not be significantly deficient in micros.

⬐ overgard

Ok but, the only reason you would care about getting energy super efficiently/quickly is if you're an athlete. Also while glucose is certainly easier to burn, I've seen evidence that ketones are actually a better source of energy. Since we have an obesity epidemic, and the vast majority of (fat) people are on the diet you're proposing, I would suggest that energy efficiency is not exactly a high priority for most people. If we know that carbohydrates will cause weight gain (not just in humans, but in animals too -- there's a reason why they feed cattle grain and not grass), and we know that the biggest health problem we have right now is obesity, suggesting that people should eat a lot of carbohydrates seems like terrible advice.

And if you're going to suggest that the solution there is to decrease caloric intake, I also think that's bad advice. We know, from type 1 diabetes, that your body doesn't store fat if insulin isn't present. Certain foods have a much stronger insulin response than others, and not surprisingly carbohydrates have a much stronger insulin response than fats. IE, the notion that all calories are equal is not supportable by the scientific evidence. So if the culprit is insulin response, it would make much more sense to adjust what you eat and when you eat it, instead of measuring a number (calories) that isn't that useful anyway.

⬐ hash-set

Obese people are obese because they eat--A LOT. I had a relative like that. The amount of food put away was epic.

⬐ overgard

I used to eat one (small) meal a day and I got fat. And then I switched my diet and I got not fat. I don't know why people make this stuff so personal, body chemistry is complicated and it's not that weird that certain foods are better than others.

⬐ GrinningFool

Certain foods can be better than others, but the basic tenet "eat less than you need to power yourself" seems like it should be a consistent formula for anyone who adheres to the first law of thermodynamics.

I (and presumably many others) have used it with notable success, so when I see a data point that suggests it's not a valid approach, I immediately question the validity of that data point.

⬐ calvano915

I disagree that the vast majority of people are following the dietary guidelines (they aren't just AMDRs) I base my assertions from. However, unless you/I present evidence for either case, it's a non-starter.

You're ignoring the complexities of insulin/components of a healthy diet/physical activity regarding carbohydrates. Technically, you could just eat only protein and survive. Doesn't mean this is the best advice and without many complications.

Of course carbs have higher insulin response as insulin regulates blood sugar uptake. Fats dont produce sugar, therefore insulin is unrelated. And many, many things cause weight gain, including fat intake for some.

Current guidelines allow for up to 35% of total kcals to be fats, with minimal/no risks. This encourages plenty of consumption of fats for energy. Perhaps if we continue our extremely sedentary ways then this will be raised higher in the future.

I found this talk by Dr. Robert H. Lustig very interesting: "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM It has been previously discussed on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1006980

Here's a video Dr. Robert Lustig explaining how the body metabolizes different sugars:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

He gets into the chemistry around the 40 minute mark.

Third year nutrition undergrad. Simple sugar consumption as a high percentage of carbohydrates/calories has the effect of chronic inflammation via oxidative stress, which is a factor of diabetes and other chronic disease.

This article briefly discusses inflammation and has mostly sound nutritional advice: http://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/what-you-eat-c...

This lecture by Dr. Robert Lustig has been very popular on this topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM . Unsure of its veracity since I watched this quite a few years ago.

Many other factors should be considered as many have mentioned like micronutrient intake/absorption, physical activity, gut biome, and genetic predisposition.

⬐ hash-set

So do you still eat birthday cake?

⬐ piva00

As a layman who got into nutrition for weight training purposes I want to ask you: why have I seen an uptick in the use of "inflammation" more broadly in nutrition from an year or so ago?

You may be well aware of the whole broscience that runs in fitness forums and it's very hard sometimes to find good and scientifically accurate sources and until now I've been lumping most of those "inflammation" articles together with the "toxins" ones, mostly a very broad umbrella term that had no real meaning.

But reading your comment and seeing this article from Harvard made me reconsider it so, again, what is this thing about "inflammation" regarding diet? It really just feels like an umbrella term...

⬐ ak217

There is a complex relationship between your diet, your gut microbiota (which pre-process your diet for you), and your immune system (which is sensitive to both gross and fine (signaling molecule) changes in the gut). The scope of this relationship was only recently realized, much of it due to new molecular biology techniques. For example there's the recent article about a boost in neuroinflammation observed from the presence of gut microbiota implicated in Parkison's progression in a mouse model, http://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(16)31590-2.pdf ). Celiac disease and inflammatory bowel disease are two well-known categories of disorders, but more generally your gut is the most permeable interface of your body, so the immune system is very buffed up and sensitive to all kinds of signals there, affecting the background state of the entire system. That has the potential to cause harmful unnecessary inflammation in other parts of the body.

⬐ justinator

You can almost think of, "inflammation" as a synonym for, "detrimental reaction". The inflammation is going to be a wholly different thing, depending on what you're talking about. But it usually causes response in the body that then becomes a different, chronic problem.

Example: too much sugar -> inflammation of arteries (because reasons) -> buildup of cholesterol -> heart attack.

It's not the sugar that cause the heart attack, it's the inflammation from the sugar and the body's response to it. This may seem like a small detail, but remember the theory was that it was the buildup of dietary cholesterol that caused clogged arteries. That was an easy narrative to follow, since, "(because reasons)" wasn't something you can market easily. Fat-free food usually doesn't have cholesterol either so it's good for you, if you're worried about having a heart attack!

This is the same falisty of thinking that merely eating fat makes you fat.

Excessive sugar causing Type 2 Diabetes is much less a theory than the above (insulin resistance)

Anyways, different inflammation is the pain I feel in my wrists typing this, or the pain my ankle from an accident last year. That inflammation is Not Good, and could lead to other Bad Things, like perhaps cancer (so I'm told by an MD)

So it is a very broad term, but it does def. have meaning.

⬐ calvano915

Inflammation = immune response, and isn't always detrimental (immune response to a foreign body, or healing from trauma are good responses) but can be a bad thing (arthritis from antibody complexes, or artery inflammation as we are focusing on for this discussion).

Otherwise the parent's comment is pretty on point.

⬐ justinator

Inflammation = immune response, and isn't always detrimental

Yeah, you're right. I would say that one theory is that chronic inflammation can lead to Bad Things, but this is just areas of research at the moment and it's as diverse as types of inflammation.

I'm no where near an expert on the subject, But I have heard convincing arguments[1] that fructose is very bad for you (especially when concentrated in a fruit drink).

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

⬐ ZeroFries

I'm not a biochemistry expert either, so I have to defer to the arguments of others. I find Ray Peat more convincing than Lustig. It also makes sense to me that fructose, especially from fruit, is incredibly healthy to humans, since pretty much every ape gets a good chunk of their calories from fruit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXqoAhZtVmg

Ah, you are right. I think I'm misremembering. I'm basing most of what I wrote on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM but I watched it years ago and my memory isn't the greatest. (I also didn't fact check the video's content, so... grain of salt and all that, it does seem well sourced though)

There have been several documentaries about this issue in the past few years:

- Sugar Coated (2015) - That Sugar Film (2014) - Fed Up (2014)

Some of the authorities who are found in these movies are:

Robert Lustig - Professor and pediatric endocrinologist at UCSF who speaks out against added dietary sugar. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Gary Taubes - journalist and author of Good Calories, Bad Calories: Challenging the Conventional Wisdom on Diet, Weight Control, and Disease and Why We Get Fat: And What to Do About It

Yoni Freedhoff - Medical doctor from Ottawa, Canada who criticizes the food industry's use of sugar. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BdFkK-HufU

It seems like a case is building, much like the case against the tobacco industry. Maybe there will be class-action lawsuits against soft drink and processed food companies based on recent suppression of potentially life-saving research.

Glad this is finally hitting the mainstream news.

Here's a video that gives a great presentation on it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Here's a rather detailed lecture on the biochemistry (and history and everything) about sugar (and why the sugar in fruit is not problematic).

"Sugar: The Bitter Truth" by Robert H. Lustig https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

The lecture "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" by Robert H. Lustig explains some details about the harmful effects of sugar:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Generally, the advice is that fruit is good for you primarily because of the quantity of fibre it contains. I seem to recall Robert Lustig discussing this point. Fibre keeps sugar in your gut longer, which in turn means it's broken down by bacteria there rather than having to be broken down by your liver. It was in this talk he gave, at around 1hr 13min 52sec or so: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

> There is actually very little sugar in fruit

that's incorrect. in fact drinking a glass of orange juice is similar to drinking a coke. just because its fructose does not mean it's any better for you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

⬐ ufo

That is largely because you need to squeeze more than one orange to get one glass of orange juice.

⬐ lowbloodsugar

Yes, let me go and pick a glass of orange juice from my glass of orange juice tree.

⬐ tbomb

I lol'd

⬐ SonicSoul

http://thepaleodiet.com/fruits-and-sugars/

pretty far from little sugar.

This is Robert Lustig's well-known talk on the subject:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

The bitter truth about sugar: https://youtu.be/dBnniua6-oM

⬐ degenerate

CTRL+F to see if anyone posted it, and sad to see it so far down. This is the #1 video to show anyone that thinks sugar is fine. It's literally, at a biological level in high doses, poison to our bodies. Watch the vid. It will open your eyes. Too bad the food industry fabricated their lies decades before we had the internet to share information like this. The damage is done and will take decades to undo.

My wife and I rewatch the obligatory Lustig lecture about once a month to re-anger ourselves at sugar. Nothing motivates like a bit of biochemistry mixed in with political intrigue.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

⬐ joesmo

This lecture is amazing. I sort of put some of it in the background the first time I watched it, but now I want to delve deeper into it, so thanks for bringing this up. For people who haven't seen it, IMO, it's a real eye opener. I intend to verify a lot more of the science he explains myself as the industry--and let's face it, it's certainly not alone in this--is hardly trustworthy. Interesting how most--if not all--issues of science and technology boil down to trust.

⬐ acconrad

The problem is Lustig is on the far end of the spectrum on anti-sugar. No added sugars? Sure, I buy that. Labelling fructose as a poison simply because it is directly metabolized in the liver is stretch. I'm not going to worry that my kids are eating berries because of their fructose content.

⬐ yotamoron

Clearly you didn't fully understand what lustig is saying. Its not the fact that fructose is metabolized in the liver that is problematic - its the effects of the process that are horrible and poisonouos.

⬐ cconroy

Regardless, people coming away with the conclusion that fructose is bad for you is bananas ;) Also it is not clear that he is for/against eating lots of fruits and starchy veges of which humans thrive on. Lots of evidence for this too!

⬐ jacobolus

Fructose is bad for you. A couple pieces of fruit every day is generally fine, because fruits are packed with fiber, but if you e.g. drink 3 glasses of fruit juice per day, that’s terrible for you.

Even eating fruits isn’t the best though. Modern fruits are bred to be as large and sweet as possible.

⬐ cconroy

Fructose is bad for you in isolation, but so is almost anything, but packaged in the fruit is a different story.

Do you think eating 5 oranges is any different than drinking the juice of those 5 oranges?

"Eating fruits is not best" is something that not only goes against science but common sense. Perhaps eating high amounts of fruits could be bad and but im not aware of a study confirming this (when the fruit is eaten whole).

⬐ jacobolus

There were days in college when I drank 3 glasses of fruit juice with each meal, plus a couple cans of soda during the same day. For some reason, I was convinced that fruit juice was an entirely “natural” and “healthy” beverage. I know better now.

But I also still know people who eat large quantities of fruit continuously throughout the day, probably 8–10 servings daily. They’ve convinced themselves that as long as they avoid soda, candy, donuts, and ice cream, they can just eat as many fruits as they want with no effect. It’s true that the fruits are better than just guzzling Coca Cola. But it’s not a healthy balanced diet.

They’d be much better off replacing some of the oranges with carrots, some of the bananas with spinach, some of the mangos with broccoli.

Fruit isn’t inherently evil, but like everything, it’s best in moderation.

⬐ Jemmeh

A large glass of OJ can contain 5 oranges and I can down it in 2 minutes and not feel full.

Eating 5 oranges would take me a while. I eat oranges a lot and usually after one it's taken a while so my body can register I'm full.

⬐ sethammons

Eating fruit comes with fiber that triggers your body to feel full. Most juice is missing most of its fiber, so you don't get that full feeling. So, yeah, having a cup of apple juice vs eating 5 apples is different: you are more likely to go for the next glass of apple juice than another 5 apples.

⬐ PieterH

Fructose and sucrose are chemically identical (as in, the same) except that sucrose has an extra glucose attached, which breaks off in the stomach. Fructose tends to come in fruit, surrounded by fibre, which arguably reduces its cost to our bodies. Arguably, I say, because modern fruit is so extremely high in fructose, and because the sugar then hits the lower intestine where it messes up your bioflora, which affects your immune system and so on.

⬐ daxorid

Would you be that sanguine about your kids tossing back a shot of vodka every day? If you take Lustig's analysis of fructose's effect on the liver at face value, you should treat them the same.

⬐ gohrt

One drink of alcohol per day is generally regarded as quite healthy.

⬐ minsight

Alcohol is a carcinogen. Every drink you have increases your chances of getting cancer.

http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/al...

⬐ hammock

In nature, fructose is almost always found in conjuction with fiber. For example, fruits and vegetables. This combination of sugar and fiber tempers the impact on the body. In contrast, many processed foods have added sugar and reduced fiber content.

⬐ cconroy

It also appears phenolic compounds in plants play a role in helping too.[1][2]

[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23365108 [2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22935321

⬐ Osiris

My wife is having kidney issues which she believes is associated with her nearly daily intake of Advil, but I had no idea that fructose was also a major potential factor in kidney disease. She consumes about 24 oz of soda per day, which is about 60% fructose. So it looks like it was a double-whammy, Advil + fructose has destroyed her kidney function.

⬐ stevenwiles

Your wife drinks 2 cans of soda and takes Advil every single day? And you let her do this?

Can I ask why you don't care about the well-being of your spouse?

⬐ thedaemon

I am not in control of any person. I can only advise. "letting" someone do something is not something that I can stop. If I want to drink 20 cans of soda a day, my wife can only complain about it. If she tried to force me to stop doing what I want, I would leave her and continue to do what I want. No-one should be a slave master and control another person.

Also, 2 cans of soda is very little compared to most Americans.

⬐ Jemmeh

She's a human being who feeds herself, not a dog.

⬐ stevenwiles

Let me make sure I understand your logic:

If you had a girlfriend/boyfriend who drank gasoline and ate glass and small, powerful magnets every day, you would not lift a finger or speak a word attempting to stop them? Because they are "not a dog, feeding themselves"?

Might I suggest you have a critical lack of empathy if you lack the desire to help people?

⬐ hnbroseph

i suspect the problem is your verbiage: "you let her do this". there is no "let" unless you're someone's master.

⬐ dragonwriter

> Let me make sure I understand your logic:

I'm pretty sure you have not only failed to understand your interlocutors logic, but failed to understand how your "And you let her do that?" reads, and would better (presuming the question you seem to think you asked judging from this followup is what you actually meant to ask) phrased, "And have you done anything to dissuade her from this course of action?"

What you actually asked treats the spouse as an infant or chattel to be controlled, and is the reason you got the negative response that you got.

⬐ asbestas

I agree with you. I suspect people think you're being sexist? I am a woman and if my husband drank so much soda I would lay down the law.

I find it surprising and alarming in other people's relationships (in America, anyway -- I noticed this was very different when I lived abroad) how little each partner seems involved in the other's fitness and health. I've heard "oh, but they would get offended!" or something. Like yes, that's certainly true with friends and strangers. But you have a major stake in your spouse's health. It's you who will take care of them when they are sick, you who will pay their way if they cannot work.

I exercise with my husband, I eat well with my husband. We tell each other when we are getting extra pudge. I wouldn't have it any other way.

⬐ Jemmeh

Of course you should care about your spouse. But you're ultimately not in control of them as you would be with a dog or a child. They control their own actions. You should totally discuss it with them! Even if it hurts their feelings sometimes.

But if I'm pondering getting dessert and my SO says, "Hmm, let me think on if I'll allow it" I'd think he was an arse.

And as far as sexism, if anyone said that they'd be an arse.

This needs more detail before it becomes convincing. Is "sugar" on the left the same as sugar on the right? Or is one glucose and the other fructose or sucrose?

If you haven't watched Sugar: The Bitter Truth [1] yet, you should. (Warning: It's 90 minutes long.)

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Fructose, if this video by Lustic is anything to go by:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

You pull the child-card to justify discriminated taxation against the poor, but I pull the 47y/o free-willed bummed out waiter card. Shall we start unfairly taxing sugar as well, which is probably a bigger epidemic than tobacco amongst children[1]?

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

⬐ Naritai

You forget that a sugar tax is increasingly popular in progressive circles.

⬐ majewsky

This is actually being discussed by some politicians, and some are past the discussing step AFAIR.

There's a lot of discussion on here about stupid consumers vs evil corporations, etc. As is often the case, the blame lies with just about everyone involved to some extent. The US government choose to promote a low fat diet with it's original nutrition guidelines in the 70s [4] which led the public to demand the food companies to produce low fat everything in the 80s and into the 90s. It's now emerged that there was little evidence to support the health benefits of a low fat diet.

When you remove fat from food it becomes unpalatable unless.... you add sugar. Thus the increase in added sugar in just about everything which has helped to contribute to the rise of obesity and metabolic syndrome and all the diseases that come with it from diabetes to fatty livers, heart disease, etc.

So who's to "blame"?

The government in some ways, even though they seemingly meant well when recommending low fat diets (they're just now beginning to recommend reduced sugar and ease up on fat warnings).

Food companies in some ways who seem to have known about sugar's addictive properties and engineered their food to keep you coming back for more rather than keeping you healthy [3].

Consumers in some ways for not reading labels, exercising more, reducing portions, etc. But who could blame you when the government and the food companies were trying to convince you that what you were eating was good for you? (unless you had time to dive into the research yourself but let's face it, that's not an option for 99% of people)

One of the best explanations I've read of not just why sugar (fructose to be specific) is bad for you (in the quantities Americans but also most of the world eats it at) is the book "Fat Chance" by Robert Lustig [1]. You can also get a glimpse into his arguments via his youtube lectures [2].

[1] http://www.amazon.com/Fat-Chance-Beating-Against-Processed/d...

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

[3] http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/food-cravings-engineered-by-in...

[4] http://time.com/3702058/dietary-guidelines-fat-wrong/

⬐ jebimeuguzu

But sugar is not bad for you, not even fructose.

I recommend on reevaluating that position by reading the article below. Robert Lustig is a liar and a scaremonger.

http://anthonycolpo.com/sweet-stupidity-part-2-the-bitter-tr...

In 2009, the same year Lustig gave his lecture, there was indeed significant consumption of fructose in the Japanese diet. Anyone with an Internet connection can easily verify as much for themselves by visiting the Food and Agriculture (FAO) website, and checking the per capita intake of sweeteners in Japan for that year. Do that, and you’ll see the Japanese were averaging 52 calories per day from fruits, and a far more significant 174 calories daily from sugar. “Sweeteners, Other” and “Honey” supplied another 86 cals/day.

So just from sugar alone, the Japanese were obtaining 22 grams, or 4.4 teaspoons, of fructose per day. The Japanese do indeed eat fructose-containing sugar, and have been doing so for hundreds of years.

I think "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" [1] is worth watching. And the newer "The Skinny on Obesity" [2].

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

[2] https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL39F782316B425249&fea...

⬐ pitchka

No it is not. Because it is filled with lies and scaremongering.

HackerNews should promote culture of science and critical thinking and shouldn't be accepting of the fad diets like lchf, paleo, keto and other scaremongering bs.

This below is worth reading.

http://anthonycolpo.com/sweet-stupidity-part-1-is-sugar-real...

http://anthonycolpo.com/sweet-stupidity-part-2-the-bitter-tr...

The reason why people are fat is because they eat more carbs, fat and sugar, not because they eat a particular thing. They also sit a lot, and lie around. Something that can affect your weight and life significantly.

⬐ dewyatt

I don't really consider Anthony Colpo to be a reputable source.

⬐ pitchka

About what? Debunking Robert Lustig's claims or diet advice?

Because I do agree I do not find his diet advice relevant. But he definitely showed some lies and idiocy that Lustig displays.

⬐ cbd1984

He is, though.

⬐ dewyatt

I'm open to it, but based on what?

Lustig studied at MIT+Cornell and is an MD with years of experience. He spent decades researching biochemistry and obesity and published numerous papers on these subjects.

Anthony Colpo, unless I'm mistaken, is just some random guy.

⬐ dang

> HackerNews should promote culture of science and critical thinking and shouldn't be accepting of the fad diets like lchf, paleo, keto and other scaremongering bs.

No, Hacker News should promote good conversation: civil discourse that respects people's right to differing views. This is a pluralistic place where everyone has a right to be wrong. Strident denunciations—even (or rather especially) in the name of correct scientific positions—are corrosive of the social contract here and should be eschewed regardless of how right you are, or believe you are.

Otherwise the endgame is a few absolutists yelling at each other, and everyone else leaving.

⬐ pitchka

HN doesn't promote a good conversation on the subject of nutrition and diets.

Just take the fact that angry users can downvote me to oblivion or flag my posts which are on topic.

Every time a Guardian subject on demonizing sugar and praising fat or any similar material was posted, my responses, which were sometimes less denouncing than this one, were downvoted or censored.

The majority just likes to believe fadists are saving them, instead of outright misinforming and scaring them into healthier but pseudoscientific lifestyles.

⬐ None

None

⬐ cbd1984

So you censor his side and leave the rest up?

⬐ dang

The only 'censoring' was done by user flags.

⬐ cbd1984

It could be unflagged by the moderation staff.

⬐ pitchka

they shadowbanned me.

dang is obviously a low-carb paleo-saved-my-life advocate.

i just checked my posts and a lot of them are flagged.

okay, i'll leave the community.

thanks for loving me.

⬐ okket

I don't know why this got flagged. There were two links to Anthony Colpo. I tried to read them and get his point, but his style is borderline unreadable. No scientific arguments, only vitriol / straw man with lots of overloaded images. Feel free to Google him.

The flagged post was in this tone also, calling lies and requested we do not discuss the sugar hypotheses here. So you could interpret this as "The call for censorship got censored" ;)

⬐ Evgeny

I tried to read them and get his point, but his style is borderline unreadable. No scientific arguments,

The first link has 28 references to scientific texts and studies, the second has 57.

Speak what you want about his style, but his works are always well-researched and well-referenced.

⬐ okket

Adding random citations to straw man arguments proves nothing. It only make it look "sciency". Is his "work" cited anywhere in relevant science journals?

So far I only find a lot echo-chamber forums and questionable publishers (Kopp-Verlag, esoteric/far right stuff)

⬐ cbd1984

You are obviously too biased to be reliable on this subject.

⬐ pitchka

If you really find Robert Lustig scaremongering a scientific argument, then do you find the relative increase of meat consumption relevant and scary enough (Is Meat Killing Us? jaoa)?

It is absolutely not necessary to be a scaremongering pseudoscientist to notice that epidemiological result on 1.5 million people implying that meat raises all-mortality risk isn't relevant, despite being published in a relevant science journal. When the data is flawed no statistics wand waving will be able to eliminate the effects of bad lifestyle that most meat eaters have.

I'm a vegan, and I'm probably the best man to enjoy using the result of that study as a perfect health argument, but I'm not silly enough to believe that the result is relevant.

⬐ Evgeny

Adding random citations to straw man arguments proves nothing.

Did we even read the same articles?

Here are some examples I picked up in five minutes that look like completely reasonable referencing to me.

Anyone with an Internet connection can easily verify as much for themselves by visiting the Food and Agriculture (FAO) website, and checking the per capita intake of sweeteners in Japan for that year. Do that, and you’ll see the Japanese were averaging 52 calories per day from fruits, and a far more significant 174 calories daily from sugar. “Sweeteners, Other” and “Honey” supplied another 86 cals/day[7]

So just from sugar alone, the Japanese were obtaining 22 grams, or 4.4 teaspoons, of fructose per day. The Japanese do indeed eat fructose-containing sugar, and have been doing so for hundreds of years[8].

The same FAO data we just checked out shows that in 2009, the average per capita energy intake in Japan was 2,674 calories/day. The corresponding figure for the USA was 3,652 calories/day[7]

Unlike the US rise in obesity, which stems from both declining activity and a marked increase in per capita caloric intake[11, 7], Australia’s rise seems to have been caused almost entirely from decreasing physical activity.

The indignant paediatrician then completely refuted himself a moment later when he admitted that Americans were indeed eating more than they were in the 1980s[13]. And at 7:30 in his “Bitter Truth” video, Lustig acknowledges to his audience: “We are all eating more now than we did 20 years ago.”[4]

Taubes cites a 2004 CDC article reporting that since 1971, total fat intake increased among women by a mere 6.5 grams but decreased among men by 5.3 grams[14]. This gives the impression overall fat intake has remained relatively unchanged.

⬐ cbd1984

Are you going to uncensor it?

⬐ cbd1984

These are factually incorrect, as has been proven:

http://anthonycolpo.com/sweet-stupidity-part-1-is-sugar-real...

http://anthonycolpo.com/sweet-stupidity-part-2-the-bitter-tr...

Unfortunately I can only summarize.

On the starvation study it's merely one example that highlights how calorie restriction affects people. Yes, it's an extreme version, but it is different only in degree from any other calorie restriction, and when people try to reduce by X calories, it's probably a linear effect; more restriction, more of these effects. Oddly though, fasting tends not to have these effects, it's only in sustained calorie restriction, so fasting in various forms is one of the tools people can use to lose weight.

As for the lowered energy output Jason Fung wrote (pg. 53 of the Obesity Code, "One major problem is that the basal metabolic rate does not stay stable. Decreased caloric intake can decrease basal metabolic rate by up to 40 percent. We shall see that increased caloric intake can increase it by 50%."

If you want to learn more here are some sources:

Jason Fung - The Obesity Code: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01C6D0LCK/ref=dp-kindle-re...

Robert Lustig on sugar: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

and also here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxyxcTZccsE

Peter Attia on ketosis and fat: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqwvcrA7oe8

Reversal of diabetes by diet, also Jason Fung: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAwgdX5VxGc

⬐ wdewind

> On the starvation study it's merely one example that highlights how calorie restriction affects people. Yes, it's an extreme version, but it is different only in degree from any other calorie restriction, and when people try to reduce by X calories, it's probably a linear effect; more restriction, more of these effects. Oddly though, fasting tends not to have these effects, it's only in sustained calorie restriction, so fasting in various forms is one of the tools people can use to lose weight.

No dude, you are ignoring the fact that these people did not have ample fat stores. It is completely unreasonable to expect that obese people would behave the same while restricting calories than people who are already borderline starving (4% BF). These aren't effects of caloric intake restriction, they are effects of caloric restriction in general, which is a state obese people are not, have not been in for years and will not be in for years.

> One major problem is that the basal metabolic rate does not stay stable. Decreased caloric intake can decrease basal metabolic rate by up to 40 percent

This is basically unrelated to your statements about insulin though, so don't conflate the two. This statement does not support the idea that obese people cannot harvest energy from their fat stores, it supports the idea that you get less energy output from less energy input which is almost tautologically true.

⬐ buzzcut

> "No dude, you are ignoring the fact that these people did not have ample fat stores."

I don't think I am ignoring it. You seem to be asserting that their issues with calorie restriction were lack of body fat. There is no evidence for that I am aware of. A simple rejoinder based on anyone's experience, do fat people get hungry? If they do, why? They have all that energy available. But I don't need to rely on arguments like that, since in the vast corpus of research on this at this point, it's pretty well established that calorie restriction by itself (even with exercise) does not work long-term. The failure rate is astronomical and it is in part due to what plain old calorie restriction as we've been told to do it does to metabolic energy and also due to the psychology of hunger. Also, and this is very important, a full fast does not have these effects according to the evidence. People can totally abstain from food for very long periods of time (depending on body fat), with very little hunger. It is smaller scale calorie reductions, without breaks (like the breaks intermittent fasting provides) and without much dietary fat since fat is highly satiating, that cause these reactions to calorie restriction.

> "This is basically unrelated to your statements about insulin though, so don't conflate the two."

Again, I'm not. I was responding to the request for a source on the idea of energy output reduction in response to lower calories. I'm not claiming there is a link between energy output reduction and insulin.

Fat people can get energy from fat stores, just not in the way we are typically told. If it was impossible to get energy from fat no one would ever lose weight, which is trivially and obviously not true.

⬐ wdewind

> You seem to be asserting that their issues with calorie restriction were lack of body fat.

No I'm asserting that what happens to people's bodies at 4% body fat when in severe caloric restriction is very different than what happens to people's bodies at 40% body fat with severe caloric restriction, and so we can't apply the metabolic damage/starvation models to fat people. Fat people just need to eat less, and the issue basically comes down to compliance. How do we get people to stay on a healthy diet long term?

> do fat people get hungry? If they do, why?

Because, as even you have shown, hunger is not a reflection of your bodies actual caloric needs, it's hugely a reflection of blood sugar levels, among other htings. Given enough time (in the order of magnitude of minutes to hours) in an obese but otherwise healthy person fats will be broken down and blood glucose will increase and hunger will decrease. It's getting through that period that is a mental compliance issue, but not otherwise physiologically challenging.

> The failure rate is astronomical

Again, this is a compliance issue. People absolutely lose weight on caloric restriction, and starvation issues like low metabolism do not become an issue until you are very low body fat. You simply do not see obese people going into so-called "starvation mode." In fact there are a few cases, though admittedly not many, of obese people that abstain entirely from eating for months at a time without long term "metabolic damage."

> People can totally abstain from food for very long periods of time (depending on body fat), with very little hunger.

I think we basically agree, then, that it's mostly a compliance issue and not an issue of caloric restriction working or not, and also that hunger is not a reflection of the body's actual metabolic state (especially in obese people).

> Fat people can get energy from fat stores, just not in the way we are typically told.

Fat people get energy from fat stores in the same way skinny people do. Very skinny people on severe caloric restriction are not a good model for the general population.

⬐ buzzcut

> "Fat people just need to eat less, and the issue basically comes down to compliance.:

On oversimplification, but the crux of the issue. The astronomical failure rate is because of compliance. The prescription you seem to be suggest is "comply more! comply better!" but the biology of this is exactly why it fails so often. The type of food you eat is what sets you up for sustainable long-term success or its opposite. What you wave away with a wash of the hand--compliance--is the reason people fail and more willpower is not the issue and not a solution. It's a dysfunction of the hormones brought on by high insulin resistance brought on by excessive sugar and flour, which becomes a hunger trap, unless you add fat to your diet, which is exactly what people are told not to do. So, I do think hunger tends to differ when you suffer from fatty liver disease and insulin resistance. People can endure calorie restriction and lose weight for a while doing low-fat but they do not stay on it. Saying that people should just comply more is like telling someone with sleep apnea to sleep better. They need a different intervention.

edit--A failure rate of 80-90% is not an anomaly, it's a colossal failure. It's not something to be overcome, it's an indication of wrongness. By asking for more compliance you are asking people to fight their biology and they will lose this fight. Instead the intervention should be to employ their biology as their ally, and lose weight more easily and without much hunger and that's possible. It's just not helpful to tell people to eat less. We've been telling them that for forty years.

(Side note. The 4% bodyfat in the UofM study you mention is an assumption of yours, and not the starting weight of the people in the study. I think you're unfairly dismissing the study and presenting it as if it's a binary condition between starving/not starving, and that may be a thing, but it's not certain that it is. I'm merely cautiously using it as evidence that calorie restriction is difficult (actually more than difficult) to maintain, which anyway we all know from experience. It would be good to explore other studies on the topic). Intermittent fasting, for example, is vastly easier than consistent calorie restriction, and you're consuming the same number of calories as calorie restriction (if you design it right). That's not a matter of willpower, that's a different intervention).

Unfortunately I don't have time to continue the conversation, but take the time to explore some of the links I posted (there are tons more)--they go into way, way more detail and make the argument better than I have.

⬐ wdewind

I don't really disagree with a lot of what you are saying. Note that you've backed down from low calorie diets cause metabolic damage to low calorie diets are mentally difficult to sustain which I agree with.

You've offered introducing fats as a way to stave off hunger (aka increasing satiety) but introducing fats are far from the only way to increase satiety. Introducing fiber, for instance, is another way.

You also seem to be in favor of a ketogenic diet. Let me say that I totally believe that a keto diet is a great way to eat healthily and boost compliance for some people. Others have a really hard time tolerating large amounts of fat, and so we still need to find alternative solutions for them.

I agree that simply telling people to have more willpower is not the solution, but I think it's important to recognize that the diet is not causing physiological damage to the vast majority of people (it's not the insulin spike in and of itself that causes damage, it's what happens after that, ie: more food intake). So maybe we can attack this from the pure will power front and leave the diet alone (or maybe not, but let's be deliberate about what we are doing).

Regardless, the UofM study is heavily discredited and I still maintain that it is not relevant to what you are arguing either way: the study is designed to study extreme starvation and famine. Brink of death type stuff. Obese people who feel hungry are not that. We know this because if you don't feed them they don't die.

FWIW I actually have read/watched all the links you've posted (I had before this conversation as they are all relatively well known), and I still hold by all my points.

The main dangers with sugar (table sugar, high fructose corn syrup) is how your body absorbs it, and the amount of fructose in it. Fats and proteins are broken down to glucose, yes, however this process is done over time, and it is almost ALL glucose, which is what your body uses as fuel. However when you drink sugary beverages like soda or orange juice (yes even orange juice is bad for you), you get an extreamely high dose of fruit sugar, very quickly (fruit sugar is different than sugar because it has a higher concentration of fructose in it which is bad).

Also, the reason fruits are healthy while fruit juice is not is that fruits have sugar in them, but between all the sugars, there is fiber, cell walls, and other parts of the fruit that slow down the absorption of the sugar. Another reason is that there is simply less sugar in 1 apple than there is in 1 glass of apple juice (there is around 8 apple squeezed into 8 ounces of juice).

Here is an amazing lecture which goes into amazing detail of the chemistry of sugars, and how they affect your body (also this is where I got most of my information): "Sugar the Bitter Truth" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Here is a short clip from a show called "Adam Ruins Everything" where he talks about how unnatural "natural orange juice" is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuYPdTvqitg

I think people here will appreciate the following information. To understand fat production, I recommend everyone research the way a liver metabolizes sugar, and its connection to fiber - it is most important. Long story short, the liver metabolizes excess sugar into fat cells when there is not enough fiber. Presence of fiber allows excess sugar to be broken down into waste which leaves the body, avoiding production of fat cells. In essence, this is why eating a bag of apples is healthy while eating just the sugar from the same amount of apples is not. Consuming adequate amounts of fiber is key to healthy sugar consumption. If you noticed, fat people tend to not eat much fiber. The smaller the ratio of fiber to sugar the fatter you are. Simply focusing on increasing fiber consumption leads to much better health because you naturally begin to consume more vegetables and fruits which also have the nutrients. Additionally, and this is perhaps the most understated health fact. The importance of pH balance. The body depends and thrives when the environment is alkaline, and dies when it's acidic. Although acidic foods are also healthy, it's important to eat more alkaline foods than acidic. And the pH is determine only after the body digests the food. This is why for example lemons are actually one of the most alkaline foods. Especially when you're sick, eating alkaline vs acidic foods is the best way to regain immune system strength and health. _ Dr Lustig's video presentation about sugar/fiber/fat metabolism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM _ List of alkaline & acidic foods: http://www.rense.com/1.mpicons/acidalka.htm

Dr. Lustig is known for his interesting and thorough, if somewhat controversial, case against sugar https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Sugar: The Bitter Truth Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM (as I did not see it linked)

It is very important to distinguish between fructose and glucose sugars. Fructose is actually much more poisonous then glucose is. It seems metabolized mostly like alcohol. Now, with the high fructose corn syrup everywhere, makes the situation not better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

EDIT: fructose is not so problematic if it's still embedded in fibers like in fruit. Bacteria then eat most of it, before it is absorbed.

⬐ anon4

Yeah, the language mix-up is making it hard to tell people. We "know" that the brain eats sugar and that sugar is a simple form of energy. Unfortunately this applies to glucose specifically, not to any sugar-class molecule and not to the white crystalline powder called table sugar. Glucose is ok for you. Practically every tissue in your body can use it right away. Fructose is, as you said, metabolised in the liver, and is practically toxic. Table sugar and HFCS are both 50-50 fructose-glucose and biologically equivalent.

⬐ sjwright

Table sugar is sucrose, which is a molecular combination of fructose and glucose.

HFCS is, as I understand it, just a bunch of fructose and glucose mixed together.

Does that make them biologically equivalent? I've always been curious about that. I recall reading a claim that the body's need to split the sucrose molecule makes it lower impact than if it were pre-split.

⬐ teslabox

Many producers' batches of HFCS used to be contaminated with mercury [1]. Thanks to the efforts of a lone FDA whistleblower, industry no longer uses mercury to make this substance. But high fructose corn syrup may still be contaminated with starch - chains of glucose - thereby giving HFCS a much higher calorie count than is on the label.

Sugar is fine if your liver is healthy. It keeps me from wasting away.

[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01...

And that makes you're both right now!

Lustig goes through all the processes here:

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

I'm curious what the consensus is around Lustig and his work. He seems to have impeccable credentials in medicine and nutrition. He seems forthright with the science, but I don't have the requisite biochemistry skills to evaluate it myself.

I'm don't know if he's biased or just right. I'm happy to hear a refutation of his arguments.

For those unfamiliar, here's the talk the probably gave rise his noteriety: https://youtu.be/dBnniua6-oM. It's long, but it's interesting.

⬐ pointeroffact

the extremely poor quality of this study and the irresponsible PR campaign that has accompanied it is enough reason not to take him seriously.

It's due to sugar in the vast majority of cases. Some starting point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

⬐ agravier

I'd like some explanations for the downvotes. What I wrote is documented and I provide a link to a good source of explanations.

⬐ citeguised

The explanation is that facts don't matter for some people.

Here's the video that started a lot of the public awareness of the issue:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

And there's also now a great documentary on Netflix called "Fed Up" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCUbvOwwfWM), for anyone who has a subscription. It particularly tackles this silly idea that it's okay to eat and drink shitty food all day, so long as you exercise for a little bit too.

Here is an alternative view to these corporate 'studies': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM Or simply watch pictures taken in the 1920-60's, it's pretty shocking how most north americans were much much leaner.

⬐ r00fus

Having visited Europe recently another thing I noticed is that the car wasn't nearly as ubiquitous there. I don't think people there specifically ate less, they are just less sedentary.

I've also noted folks who spend significant time on both in big cities with public transport, and also significant time in car-centric cities, their weight fluctuates appropriately (about 15% less weight when decent public transport is available).

⬐ mkohlmyr

Definitely true, in large part I believe this is heritage (older cities not necessarily built for massive numbers of cars) but also towns and cities just being smaller or "tighter" in general if that makes sense.

I live on the south coast of the UK and I take the bus to work and then walk home in the evening, takes about an hour. It's pretty pleasant and a good way to both process the day and move around a little. I feel far better when I walk home than when I used to take the bus.

It's actually one thing I'm slightly bugged by as I'm getting ready to move to the bay area for a year. I don't want to buy or lease a car. I haven't actually wanted or needed a car since getting my licence.

In fact there is substantial evidence that a sugar calorie is not the same as any other calorie -- that fructose is metabolically toxic in large doses. I recommend watching the well-known Robert Lustig video "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" [0]; if you prefer reading, here's an article [1].

To give you a TL;DR I'll quote from [1]:

In animals, or at least in laboratory rats and mice, it’s clear that if the fructose hits the liver in sufficient quantity and with sufficient speed, the liver will convert much of it to fat. This apparently induces a condition known as insulin resistance

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.htm...

⬐ matwood

Lustig has an agenda and has been questioned (I feel outright debunked) numerous times on his cherry picked studies and lack of rigor. See here for a good overview.

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-ab...

I can't speak for all the science behind sugars and sweeteners, but this guy does a really good job of explaining how different sugars are metabolized (and the implications of those processes) here:

Sugar: The Bitter Truth https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Here are some videos that convinced me to try low-carbs a few years ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM Sugar: The Bitter Truth

1h29 - One of the best information (as in biology) video around about sugar.

----

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDneyrETR2o Why We Get Fat

1h10 - A little less technical (IIRC), but still a great insight on what's going on.

----

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vfK5U9qKaI TWiT Live Specials 124: The Sugar Hill

55min - Steve Gibson on his discovery of low-carbs, how and why it works.

----

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSLf4bzAyOM - Dr Eric Westman - Duke University New Atkins Ketogenic Diet for Weight Loss and Health

38min - Dr Eric Westman guide patients through what they can eat and what will be transition 'symptoms'.

>Who told you that? Insulin does not produce inflammation.

These are just from the first page of google. The covariance between insulin, inflammation, and heart disease is well established at this point.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021915008...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2704240/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16936531

>On anything resembling a normal cuisine the relative share of carbohydrate vs. saturated fat really doesn't matter much.

Vegetarian diet isn't a normal cuisine. Vegetarians tend to reduce protein intake and compensate with something else. The easiest substitute being carbs. If you aren't actually increasing your vegetable intake and eating quality food the vegetarian diet can be very unhealthy. A couple vegetarians I know are technically obese.

>I hate to break it to you but the Taubes shtick is laughable garbage.

I don't know who Taubes is. The guy who convinced me is Dr. Lustig from the "Fed Up" documentary.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

⬐ a8da6b0c91d

Insulin resistance is about being diseased already. You don't understand what insulin does in a normal, healthy person. It's good and fine.

I personally wouldn't advocate for a vegetarian diet but with plenty of dairy it's fine. The irish peasantry got along famously well on almost exclusively milk and potatoes for a very long time, for example. Traditional indian "vegetarian" diet was loaded with dairy.

⬐ s_baby

Insulin resistance is caused by leading a lifestyle where you are constantly spiking your insulin levels through diet, lifestyle, genetics, etc... Like any hormone or steroid your body develops a tolerance and you need to increase the dosage to have the same effect while also increasing the side effects. Everyone who eats carbs has some level of resistance not just "diseased already".

A typical Irish or Russian diet without meat is fine by current norms but not optimal. Eating a veggie burger with fries and milk is not a great diet though.

⬐ DanBC

You're replying to someone who has strong opinions about sugar.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8343010

⬐ a8da6b0c91d

I'm a bit tired of your passive aggressive sniping. You post everywhere constantly and pretty much never make an interesting or insightful point. It's all either meta-sperging about HN, banal fluff write-ups of things you just googled, or passive agressive sniping and tut-tutting. Maybe go put on your anorak and watch some trains for a change. It'll do your mental health good.

⬐ s_baby

That's pretty extreme...

⬐ CuriouslyC

You're wrong, you're looking at covariates in a disease state and assuming causation. In actuality, insulin is ANTI-inflammatory, while circulating blood glucose is mildly inflammatory, and the problem is insulin-RESISTANCE.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17563472 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21899513

⬐ s_baby

Routinely spiking your insulin levels through excessive carb intake is what leads to insulin resistance.

>you're looking at covariates in a disease state

Insulin resistance as a discrete state is useful for experimental purposes but everyone has insulin resistance to some degree.

⬐ CuriouslyC

Insulin resistance is defined by abnormally high blood glucose concentration in the presence of insulin. It may be true that for sedentary people who consume a typical western diet, abnormal is "normal" but that doesn't justify the statement "everyone has insulin resistance to some degree".

As for "spiking" insulin levels as the cause for insulin resistance, that is hardly proven. Inflammation has been shown to directly induce insulin resistance. Current evidence seems to indicate the problem is blood glucose levels remaining elevated (despite elevated insulin); this happens because there is a limit to the rate of receptor mediated transport.

I bet this video will make you think - Robert H. Lustig, MD, UCSF Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology, explores the damage caused by sugary foods

Sugar: The Bitter Truth

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

⬐ steveplace

Obligatory rebuttal whenever this video is posted

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-ab...

If you can sit through 90 minutes of what feels a lot like a sermon, this is fairly informative - and I think (?) more or less accurate although there's one glaring math error you can't help but see. Sugar: The Bitter Truth: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

⬐ chillax

Also check out this critisism:

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-ab...

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/02/19/a-retrospective-of-...

Of course our bodies handle HFCS and "sugar" differently. There are about a dozen types of common simple sugars and all of them are handled differently because they are different molecules.

Here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

⬐ jjoonathan

Straw-man. The relevant question is whether or not HFCS is significantly worse than sucrose.

A few years ago I watched "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" [1], by Dr Lustig of UCSF. It's a very interesting watch, which convinced me to change my diet away from most everything sugary, and put much more more fiber and fat into my diet.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

⬐ dazc

My father developed alzheimer's in his early 60's. One thing I know didn't cause it was sugar because he rarely touched it.

You might find this video on fructose and metabolic disease (of which glucose intolerance is a symptom) interesting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

⬐ pyre

It's worth noting that there are many critics of this guy.

⬐ ddebernardy

True. As I understood them though, the criticism was primarily about his message that fructose would be the key or only reason of metabolic syndrome, or his depiction of sugar as pure evil rather than as something which you can consume in small amounts, more than about the effects of fructose itself. (When not, connections between the critic and the sugar or food industry were quick to Google, thereby reducing the credibility to zero.) This may have changed since I spent time digging into it, though, so please expand if it has.

⬐ pyre

My point was just to point out that criticism exists. Loads of people watch that video and don't do other research on the topic.

a) Fructose is only metabolized by Liver, and not brain nor muscle. The liver converts it to energy form like bad cholesterol. In small quantities that exist in fruits with the fiber limits the speed of absorption so it doesn't overwhelm the livers primary mechanism for dealing with it. But moderation of sugar is impossible without actually spending time to find how much sugar there is in different products, and cutting those that come with mercilessly until you consume 15 grams of it a day. Its about 1/3rd of smallest coca cola bottle here or single serving of yogurt. I remember some study that majority of food items in market have added sugar in USA so moderating it is extremely hard without spending time to think about it.

Also sugar messes up the system that tells the brain that you are no longer hungry, which means if you eat stuff that has sugar in it, it takes longer for you to feel full.

Also while there is health reason to exercise burning more calories isn't it. Single snack is often more than hour of exercise.

You should watch "sugar bitter truth" lecture by dr. Lustig on Youtube. www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Because carbs are not created equal.

Fructose is much more of a problem than glucose. Here's a video from one of the authors referenced in the article that explains the two metabolisms in depth:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Besides whether they eat processed food or not, look into what they drink and what they have for desert in particular. In e.g. Italy or France, consumption of soda or fruit juice is low, and deserts are small and refined when it's not a simple fruit.

It's a completely different story in e.g. the UK where they binge on soda, candy, and sugary chocolate, Malta where they binge on a local soft drink so sweet your entire body is sweating with sugar from merely tasting it or Hungary where they frequently eat sweet bread and enormous sugary cakes.

If carbs are bad, sugar is horrible. Just in case you haven't seen these:

Sugar: The Bitter Truth: http://youtu.be/dBnniua6-oM

Fat Chance: Fructose 2.0: http://youtu.be/ceFyF9px20Y

It's still disputed, but there's a lot of evidence the problem is fructose, not glucose. Meaning that bread and potatoes aren't particularly bad on their own.

Here's "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" that lays out the theory. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

⬐ a8da6b0c91d

Lustig is a crackpot.

http://www.andrewkimblog.com/2013/02/quick-commentary-on-dr-...

⬐ greenyoda

Unfortunately, I don't have enough time or knowledge to track down and understand all the references in this article. So I need another way of establishing the author's credibility.

What are Andrew Kim's qualifications (his web site doesn't list any)? Why should I believe him more than Lustig, who is an endocrinologist who has treated and studied a lot of obese patients?

⬐ whyme

I'm pretty sure, in that video, the argument was that while glucose is still really bad for you, fructose[1] is much, much worse - it's a poison that's causing an epidemic.

1. And specifically the manufactured fructose isolates vs. natural fructose found in fruit.

Edit: rather glucose in high quantities as noted in response below.

⬐ _delirium

> And specifically the manufactured fructose isolates vs. natural fructose found in fruit.

Is there an explanation as to why this would be the case (if it is)? With a lot of vitamins the argument is over absorbability of different forms, e.g. there are various forms of dietary calcium, and various kinds of calcium supplements, and they may not be equivalent. But my understanding was that fructose in fruit is pretty much just fructose, readily absorbable just like the isolated version is. The only plausible difference I can come up is concentration; there's a limit on how much fructose you can get from fruits because the average person is not going to scarf down a half-dozen pears in a sitting. But if high concentrations are the issue, it would also apply to concentrated "natural" fructose, e.g. the pear-juice concentrate that some "naturally sweetened" products use.

⬐ a8da6b0c91d

There is absolutely no explanation. It's just neo-puritanical mystical thinking. The only problem with eating refined sugars is the paucity of vitamins and minerals. Fruit juice is loaded with both of these, yet the lustigites still try to claim fruit sugars without the fiber are bad for you, with no sound basis.

⬐ hristov

There is an explanation. I urge you to watch the entire video. The problem with fructose is that the liver has only a limited ability to properly process it. This if you get too much the liver processes a lot of it through the wrong pathways, and that causes all types of chaos.

There are a couple of differences with natural fructose. First natural fructose almost always comes with fiber. The fiber if processed at the same time as the fructose allows the liver to properly process more fructose. This is because the fiber provides certain nutrients which allow the liver to process more fructose along the proper pathways.

Second, natural fructose is usually in plant cells. In order for us to process these, we much first break down the plant cells in our stomach. This takes some time, so the effect is that the natural fructose does not hit the liver in the same speed and concentration as refined fructose.

This all has scientific support by the way. Lustig mentioned a study in old Caribbean sugar plantations. There they tracked the health of the masters and workers. It turned out that while both the masters and workers ate mostly sugar, the masters had a lot of health problems associated with obesity and diabetes, while the workers did not. The difference was that the masters ate refined sugar, while the workers mostly just ate raw sugar cane.

There was another study in japan, where scientists tried to give people massive amounts of sugar in the form of apples. These people did not have any of the problems associated with high sugar intake.

⬐ raverbashing

I think you're almost there

Fructose is fructose, there's no "natural fructose" however it's one thing to eat it pure, another one in a fruit

"The problem with fructose is that the liver has only a limited ability to properly process it."

Correct, glucose can replenish muscle glycogen, fructose can't (the liver produces both types of glycogen) - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3592616

"This is because the fiber provides certain nutrients"

Fibers, per definition are not digestible but are other things that may happen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietary_Fiber

And of course glycemic index may be a problem with sugars as well.

⬐ stefantalpalaru

There's only one type of glycogen that's stored in different places. The article you linked only refers to "rapid glycogen restoration". Don't assume from that that the liver can't produce glycogen from fructose.

⬐ jonpeda

^ This is a model HN post. Instead of contradicting and insulting the parent poster, it acknowledges the value in the contribution, and adds further clarifying information to correct minor errors.

Thank you!

⬐ _delirium

Fructose is fructose, there's no "natural fructose" however it's one thing to eat it pure, another one in a fruit

That I can buy. What I'm more skeptical of is that there's a distinction between "manufactured" and "natural" fructose once both have been concentrated and are used as additives to sweeten other products. Eating a pear is one thing, but I'm less sure that a "naturally sweetened" product which has been sweetened with concentrated pear juice or a similar fruit-based sugar extract is really more healthy than the same product that has been sweetened with more conventional "manufactured" sugars. I don't doubt that eating an actual fruit is almost certainly better than either one.

⬐ sizzle

I've come to learn that "natural" is a marketing weasel word that adds nothing of value to describing a product.

⬐ a8da6b0c91d

> glucose is still really bad for you

Every cell in your body runs on glucose. To say glucose is "bad for you" is simply idiotic.

⬐ whyme

yeah, i should have said in high quantities, but I was just paraphrasing the video. The point was, in the video, he did not say it was just fructose, glucose can also be a problem.

⬐ a8da6b0c91d

It can be a problem if you're type I diabetic or are obese, both of which result in impaired insulin sensitivity.

Otherwise, you can quite healthily gorge on starch and sugars and your tissues will happily mop up the glucose and fructose into glycogen. And then if necessary into fat, but lipogensis from sugars is surprisingly inefficient and glycogen capacity is more than you probably think.

⬐ hristov

I don't think so. The video says that there is nothing wrong with glucose, it is the fuel of life. Fructose is the problem. More specifically, refined fructose.

This by the way reflects real life. You can find populations that live on mostly bread and pasta, or mostly rice and noodles and they do not have obesity problems. It is only when refined sugar enters the diet that obesity shows up.

If you watch the video, that is referenced in the article. Robert Lustig explains why sugar leads to obesity.

Here it is for easy reference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Chemically it is insulin that triggers the signal in our body to store fat. Carbohydrates trigger a large insulin response while fats cause no insulin response (protein is somewhere in the middle)

The nutrients in dairy are all fat soluble and so there some things that specifically target the excretion of fat from our systems. Drinking full fat milk will have more of those nutrients as it comes in bound to fat.

There may be some amount of causation going on because of milk (Dairy calcium specifically).

BBC documentary talks about the calcium thing here:http://vimeo.com/m/18339967

Gary taubes http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lDneyrETR2o and Robert lustig http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM talk about the carbohydrate hypothesis

⬐ Consultant32452

I was going to suggest this.. that people replace high fat foods with high carb foods which translate into gaining more weight. I've long said that fat doesn't make you fat, it clogs your arteries. Though the latter part of that is now up for debate based on more recent studies. You out-scienced me though.

⬐ jp555

Fat does not "clog your arteries". The buildup of plaque in arteries is a complex process. But it has much more to do with chronic inflammation and the immune system's response to it than dietary fat or cholesterol. In fact there is ZERO causative relationship between increased intake of dietary-cholesterol (e.g. lots of egg yolks) and increased blood serum cholesterol.

However there is a significant causative relationship between becoming overweight and increased blood-serum cholesterol.

It's more that being fat "clogs your arteries" than eating fat.

⬐ jp555

> Chemically it is insulin that triggers the signal in our body to store fat.

A misleading oversimplification. Maintaing a net-energy-surplus is the causes of fat storage. Insulin is just one piece of the mechanics of how surplus energy gets stored as fat. There's no need to worry at all about insulin; just don't eat too much, and you don't get fat.

> Carbohydrates trigger a large insulin response while fats cause no insulin response (protein is somewhere in the middle)

ORLY? Show me a biochemistry text book that dares to tout this nonsense.

Bust insulin mythology: http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319

Gary Taubes again.... sigh....

> The nutrients in dairy are all fat soluble

Sorry but I don't think those words mean what you think they mean.

⬐ ajcarpy2005

/// The results showed that both protein and fat reduced the glycemic response elicited by oral glucose in normal humans. The effects of protein and fat were independent of each other, but gram-for-gram, protein had a 2 to 3 times larger effect than fat. Fat reduced glycemic responses to a greater extent in subjects with low FPI, whereas protein had more effect in subjects with a high WC and a high intake of dietary fiber. SOURCE: http://m.jn.nutrition.org/content/136/10/2506.full

/// These data indicate that protein given with glucose will increase insulin secretion and reduce the plasma glucose rise in at least some type II diabetic persons. SOURCE: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6389060

It didn't take me long to find these two papers which find evidence of the antagonistic effect on glucose & insulin by the consumption of fat and protein. It doesn't look like nonsense to me.

Fat soluble vitamins and even chemicals like Caffeine or even Glutathione are absorbed more eficiently when mixed with fat.

Not that nature is perfect but it does get a lot of things right...whole fat milk seems to likely be more optimal than reduced fat milk.

⬐ jp555

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/66/5/1264.full.pdf#page=1&.... The data shows beef causes a much larger insulinogenic response than rice. There is little there isolating fat, but your first link is interesting.

⬐ ajcarpy2005

Highly interesting! This is new info to me. It seems the Insulin Index may be a more reliable predictor of the insulin response of foods than either the glycemic index or the glycemic load index. You mentioned there is very little other than fat in beef but don't forget that there's mostly protein. Now we just need studies showing which Amino Acids are the 'worst offenders.' I tried finding any info about whether meat contains any actual insulin based on a hunch/hypothesis but did not find anything.

Anyway, from what I've read, both blood glucose & insulin should be kept at reasonably stable levels. (ie. not too high) Therefore, maybe a combination of glycemic load index and insulin index would be helpful. Also, knowing now the effect of beef on insulin, I think it means we should be careful to eat small portions of meat or limit how often we eat meat.

I'm really amazed that these findings are only now being made.

⬐ jp555

> You mentioned there is very little other than fat in beef but don't forget that there's mostly protein.

No, I meant that the experiment I linked to didn't test fat's insulin stimulating ability in isolation. I didn't mean to suggest there's little other than fat in beef.

Testing the various amino acids would probably not be very useful. Do not subjugate fundamental principles to minor details. Which is also important when considering the effects of insulin. Basically it's not important at all as long as you don't eat too much food. Eating appropriate amounts of food is a fundamental principle; worrying about insulin levels is a minor detail.

> I think it means we should be careful to eat small portions of meat or limit how often we eat meat.

No, it does not. That may be confirmation bias at play. Are you a vegetarian/vegan? Remember that one of insulin's roles it to move nutrients from the bloodstream and into cells. beef is a very nutritionally dense food; you would need to eat 5 pounds of broccoli to get he same protein in an 8oz steak (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=100g+steak+vs.+1000g+br...). So it makes sense that when more nutrients enter the bloodstream, more insulin is required to move it all into our tissues. Carbs are the macronutrient "closest" in form to cellular fuel (glycogen). It takes a LOT more work to use protein as fuel than it does to use carbs. This is known as the "thermal effect" of food; how much energy is required to convert food into cellular fuel. .... and now I'm rambling... :P

⬐ alexc05

Thanks so much for your feedback. Clearly I've presented my understanding of things (with references to where that information came from)

While I'm not sure that "Taubes again sigh" is an argument I'm on board with (ad hominem fallacy?), nor is ORLY? A compelling argument (ad CAPS et meme fallacy?) I'm happy to adjust my understanding based on new evidence.

I'll happily read your reference and try determine if there is anything of value in it.

As well, fat solubility was presented to me as I passed it on in my comment, if my understanding is off I'd happily adjust to newer and better information.

⬐ jp555

You're right I shouldn't have been so crass. It's just that the more I learn the facts about nutrition science the more I rage at the mythology; and Taubes is a king of myth.

When I started learning, I fell for the fallacious claims of Lustig, Taubes, the low-carbers, the paloetards; damn I was convinced! But then I switched to biochemistry & nutrition college textbooks and now a couple years later I've shed most of my overconfidence-of-a-novice. But I get very frustrated to see so many other people like I was, believing things that are just not true.

The most important advice I've ever read about nutrition is: NO NOT SUBJUGATE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES TO MINOR DETAILS. Net-energy balance is a fundamental principle. Obsessing over carb-types and insulin levels are minor details. It's like worrying about the candied-cherry on top of a HUGE piece of cake. The calories in the cake contribute 1000x more to your body-comp than the cherry. Another example is that adding every supplement you read is "good for you" will not contribute to your health anywhere nearly as much as a daily 45 min walk. Do not subjugate fundamental principles to minor details.

You're right, but the extremely low visibility of wonderful resources like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM (and the articles it's based on, even in the medical research community) make "pulling in the other direction" (even if it's just as wrong) a good course of action for achieving a properly balanced view of the scientific facts.

Mentioned in the article, here is the direct link to Professor Lustig's talk "Sugar: The Bitter Truth". I can personally attest to its high quality: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

⬐ chillax

You might be interested in Alan Aragons take on it too: http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-ab...

⬐ pvnick

This is a brilliant article and everyone should really listen to people like Alan Aragon (and Lyle Mcdonald too fwiw). They know and communicate the science very well and aren't about to resort to the sensationalist rhetoric that's so prevalent in nutrition. Thanks for posting!

The research cited by Dr. Lustig demonstrates that sugar causes both mental and physical addiction. It's more addictive than cocaine: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

The author of this article is Robert Lustig, so there is a lot of relevant background out there about his views and the reception. Here is one of his well known youtube lectures about sugar: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM&list=TLQCIoJBjuT4.... Wikipedia has some background as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Lustig.

In short, know the source here. His view is thought provoking but not without controversy, and not widely accepted in the medical community.

⬐ a8da6b0c91d

Here's a quick take down on Lustig's sugar and fructose phobia.

http://www.andrewkimblog.com/2013/02/quick-commentary-on-dr-...

Sucrose alongside adequate nutrients to process it is good for you. Sweet fruits and honey are not to be avoided.

⬐ orbitur

Lustig hasn't rejected "sweet fruits". He acknowledges that they're okay since they slow/retard the distribution of sugar during digestion.

⬐ a8da6b0c91d

There is no need to slow or retard the distribution of sugar. Insulin and your liver will deal with incoming sugars just fine. Fruit juices are a very good source of calories and minerals.

⬐ bitwize

It is, however, widely accepted on HN that you should be eating pure paleo or keto, that carbs of any sort are bad, and that fructose is the equivalent of a Schedule I drug (highly addictive, highly toxic, no known benefits).

⬐ sanoli

No, it's not widely accepted on HN that palo or keto is the only healthy diet. However, suger is pretty widely accepted here to be highly addictive and to offer no known benefits besides tasting great.

⬐ run4_too

Based on wikipedia, he seems to have more knowledge of the subject that the "medical community" would have, to be honest, given he has the following qualifications:

Robert H. Lustig, MD

Nationality: American

Education: MIT, Cornell University Medical College

Medical career

Profession: clinical medical practice, teaching and research

Field: neuroendocrinology, pediatric endocrinology

Institutions: University of California, San Francisco, UCSF Benioff Children's Hospital

Specialism: childhood obesity

Research: biochemical, neural, hormonal and genetic influences contributing to obesity

I don't know too much about him, but I'm curious as to whether or not any of his detractors have similar specialties. On the surface, most of the data would seem to agree with Dr. Lustig.

⬐ dekhn

It's not impossible for a person to have stellar research credentials, yet be a terrible research MD.

Could you point to the data which agrees with Lustig? can you vouch for its accuracy, compared to, say, some data people who don't agree with him?

I've talked extensively with people in the Biochemistry dept at UCSF (my phd is from biophysics there) and they mostly seem to think he's a buffoon.

⬐ run4_too

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/4/537.full

http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/106/4/523.full

Admittedly, This isn't my area of expertise. However that's a 30 second google search compared to your "people I know say he's a buffoon" argument.

Given you are an anonymous voice in the inter-webs who may not even know how to get to UCSF, I'm pretty comfortable with my current assessment.

I can certainly be convinced otherwise, but "my buddies think he's a kook" is not exactly doing it for me.

(I'm confused ~ downvotes? There is absolutely nothing beyond ad homenem provided against me by dekhn, and yet I'm downvoted? Am I missing something here?)

⬐ dekhn

Duno about the downvotes, but in short the first link says "may" in the title and the abstract concludes with this pointless statement "Thus, the increase in consumption of HFCS has a temporal relation to the epidemic of obesity, and the overconsumption of HFCS in calorically sweetened beverages may play a role in the epidemic of obesity." which tells me as a scientist nothing.

The second article isn't very helpful either.

We are looking for high quality data that meets the criteria required to make nutritional advice:

1) almost certainly needs to be a controlled clinical trial with double blinding 2) needs to be replicated by multiple indepdendent groups who do not share data or methods or design before publishing 3) after that, get a Cochrane REview and ideally also allow Glantz and others to pick apart the methodology.

⬐ run4_too

From my second link:

In the absence of definitive evidence, recommendations must rely on professional judgment. No data suggest that sugar intake per se is advantageous, and some data suggest it may be detrimental. The studies above, taken in total, indicate that high sugar intake should be avoided. Sugar has no nutritional value other than to provide calories. To improve the overall nutrient density of the diet and to help reduce the intake of excess calories, individuals should be sure foods high in added sugar are not displacing foods with essential nutrients or increasing calorie intake.

Can you point me to something substantial that suggests I should not consider the above accurate? I appreciate that evidence in support of the Lustig claims may not be complete, but evidence against them seems non existent. Why should I ignore what seems obvious?

⬐ dekhn

Sure. Let's remember that Lustig's goal is to actually ban substances which he says are causing MASSIVE HARM to people.

First, the conclusion that it's detriment is admitted by the authors as being uncertain "some data suggest it may".

Second, most people in the area would say that in the absence of data showing harm, one should not conclude something is harmful, and then take action.

Third, let's turn their argument around. They state: "in the absence of evidence, use professional judgment. If something has no use, it should be avoided." OK. If that's their professional judgement, then to be fair it should apply to everything in their demesne, right? AKA, if there is somethign which is not absolutely necessary, and might be detrimental, these authors would say to avoid it entirely.

However, sugar makes food more palatable. So there are patients who don't want to eat food (cancer patients on chemo) but if the food is more palatable they eat it. Even sometimes getting kids to eat food is hard- shall I not add salt, or sugar if it gets them to eat a meal? Taken to its logical conclusion, their suggestion would shut down nearly all free choices that we make which have marginal risk concerns.

⬐ nitrogen

AKA, if there is somethign which is not absolutely necessary, and might be detrimental, these authors would say to avoid it entirely.

That seems to be a bit of a strawman based on an exaggeration of the quoted passage in the parent comment.

⬐ dekhn

I don't agree at all. That's what the authors say, quite directly!

It's hardly the most freaky, imho. The biggest one, to me, is how the enormous subsidies that US farmers receive directly contribute to global obesity and healthcare costs.

Here's a primer on what sugar (or more precisely, fructose) does by Dr Lustig (of UCSF, if memory serves):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

I wouldn't be surprised if US agribusinesses ultimately end up on the receiving end of lawsuits across the world -- much like tabacco companies did.

⬐ derleth

Does any other expert agree with Lustig, or is it just him and a bunch of people who've watched videos by him?

⬐ coldtea

Can't you make up your mind on your own based on information, without the need to appeal to expert consensus (which might as well be bogus and profit-driven?)

⬐ derleth

> Can't you make up your mind on your own based on information

The problem with this is multi-fold:

Do you know what good information looks like, or are you going to be fed crap from a circle-jerk of sources which all repeat the same lies? This is a bootstrapping problem, ultimately: How do you know where to get the first info you use to tell crap from good information?

Experts largely agree with each other in most mature fields. This is part of what it means for a field to be mature. The problem is, a lot of the liars and scammers agree with each other as well, or at least the ones all selling the same scams do. How do you tell the difference?

Since I don't have time to become a Ph.D. in biology, medicine, or an allied field, I have to trust the experts. Nobody has time to be an expert in everything.

Also, 'make up your own mind' is predicated on the idea that you are making up your own mind, as opposed to baby-duck-like imprinting on someone who makes good-looking videos and can string words. The people who follow Alex Jones think they're thinking for themselves, too. Following a body of knowledge as opposed to a single charismatic guru is a hedge against this baby-duck effect.

And:

> without the need to appeal to expert consensus (which might as well be bogus and profit-driven?)

How do you know Lustig isn't bogus and ego-driven?

⬐ coldtea

>Do you know what good information looks like, or are you going to be fed crap from a circle-jerk of sources which all repeat the same lies? This is a bootstrapping problem, ultimately: How do you know where to get the first info you use to tell crap from good information?

The way you do it for everything else you learn. Start small, explore the area, verify yourself what you can, talk to people and read from various sources.

>Experts largely agree with each other in most mature fields.

When it gets away from the core mechanics of some field, that agreement is based on some fundumental premises that not necesarrily you or everybody shares with them. A lot of that is also based on the prevalent paradigms and ideologies of a time -- phrenology was once accepted by "experts", as were electro-shocks for gay people. And don't get me started on economic "experts".

Basically anything that moves from an hard scientific explanation to a value judgement is suspect and should be scrutinized, whether experts agree to it or not.

I'd only accept a consensus of lots of independent experts with no state or corporate funding, but those are very hard to find (if at all possible).

>How do you know Lustig isn't bogus and ego-driven?

I don't. Hence I advocate for people to "make up your mind on your own based on information" -- not just trust Lustig or "the expert consensus".

⬐ derleth

> read from various sources.

Exactly. So, which other sources have you read from which confirm what Lustig said?

> phrenology was once accepted by "experts", as were electro-shocks for gay people. And don't get me started on economic "experts".

Oh, yes, the "Experts were wrong before" dodge, which is so beloved of quacks and alt-med nutballs in general. It so conveniently ignores the fact that lone people are wrong a lot more often.

> I'd only accept a consensus of lots of independent experts

So, where are all of the independent experts who agree with Lustig?

⬐ hackula1

Not particularly reliably. Peer review by people who actually know what they are doing is going to beat my puny brain 99% of the time.

⬐ coldtea

Wasn't that the exact same argument given to the expertise of priests and medieval scholars?

In any case, I wouldn't count on that. Recent meta-studies (if we are to at least believe those) show that a majority of scientific papers are non verifiable and non reproducible BS, contain fabrications and alterations, etc -- and that's talking about the "hard sciences". And having been involved with researchers, I don't doubt that at all.

E.g:

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21588069-scientific-re...

and:

http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21588057-scientists-t...

⬐ derleth

> Wasn't that the exact same argument given to the expertise of priests and medieval scholars?

This is the "Experts were wrong before" dodge, which conveniently ignores how often individuals are wrong.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Science_was_wrong_before

⬐ ddebernardy

It's a growing consensus insofar as I've researched it three or so years ago.

Dissent then came mostly between two extremes. Namely: "Interesting take, but the body can process a lot more sugar than Lustig suggests before becoming sick", and "NO NO NO! [That's not what I learned and believe is true!] Low-carb food is baaaad!"

Speaking personally, the first end of that spectrum stroke me as forming reasonable objections. The second end stroke me as quacks and curmudgeons on roughly the same level as economists -- i.e. they'll dismiss anything that won't fit their worldview, including evidence and reproducible facts.

It's several decades past due.

Robert Lustig, quoted in the article, gave a fantasticly informative talk which hit youtube a few years back, which explains the folly of the low-fat diet. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

⬐ csshelton

Seems like Lustig's point is that a high-fructose diet is worse for you than a high-fat diet. We have replaced the fat in our diet with fructose, but that isn't necessary. We could just eat carbs low in fructose and/or more protein instead of fat. Regardless, this article is discussing saturated fat, which is a subset of all fats. "Healthy" oils like olive oil, canola oil, and many nuts have lots of fat, but very little saturated fat.

⬐ jared314

> "Healthy" oils like olive oil, canola oil, and many nuts have lots of fat, but very little saturated fat.

Why do you consider those oils to be healthful?

⬐ selmnoo

Maybe he meant healthier than other types of oils. E.g., olive oil is healthier than corn oil.

⬐ csshelton

Quotations were used around the word to indicate skepticism. Believe those are called scare quotes.

⬐ SwellJoe

Healthy oils actually tend to have a lot of saturated fat in them. Nuts, olive oil, coconut oil, avocados, are all quite rich in saturated fats, and actually are good for you (no scare quotes needed). The reason those oils are considered healthy is because of the types of saturated and unsaturated fats they contain.

Canola, or rapeseed, oil is somewhat less certainly good for you. And is quite low in saturated fats; which is why it became so popular. It was a low saturated fat alternative to higher saturated fat oils. That was probably a premature optimization...a variable was optimized before the full effects of diet were understood. Grapeseed might be a healthier alternatve to rapeseed oil for high heat cooking (olive oil has too low of a smoke point for any serious cooking, it's more of a finishing oil, if you care about your health). I skip it, along with corn oil and soybean oil. I don't know that it's unhealthy, but I've been seeing evidence that it might be for a few years now. The evidence that it is more healthy than other oils has all but evaporated, however, so there's no reason to choose it over cooking oils that have more recent and convincing evidence of their effect on health.

⬐ DanBC

> The evidence that it is more healthy than other oils has all but evaporated,

I'm not sure how you reach that conclusion.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23939686

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/food-matters/2013/10/25/...

⬐ SwellJoe

Those articles don't seem to talk about canola/rapeseed oil, at all. They seem to cover olive oil, which I stated is thought to be a health oil. Am I missing something?

Or, was my parenthetical comment about high heat cooking with olive oil confusing? I was speaking of canola/rapeseed oil when I said the evidence that it is healthy have all but evaporated. Olive oil is great, but burned oil is carcinogenic. Olive oil burns at a quite low temperature. So, cooking in grapeseed oil is probably a better bet, and adding olive oil toward the end for flavor.

⬐ DanBC

> I was speaking of canola/rapeseed oil when I said the evidence that it is healthy have all but evaporated.

Ah, sorry, I mis-read you.

⬐ eddiedunn

I was of the impression that rapeseed oil was unhealthy compared to e.g. extra virgin olive oil, due to the common processing methods used to extract it (heating, chemicals[1]). Extra virgin olive oil is extracted purely by mechanical means, no heating is allowed.

Here in Sweden, however, it's easy to find and buy organic cold pressed rapeseed oil. I'm of the impression that this stuff is a lot better for you than "canola" oil.

[1]: http://wellnessmama.com/2193/why-you-should-never-eat-vegeta...

⬐ SwellJoe

I'm not sure, actually. My impressions on canola/rapeseed oil are quite vague. But, as I understood it, traditional rapeseed contained unhealthy acids and that canola was a modified variant to reduce those acids (thus the name: CANadian Oil Low Acid). Rapeseed, as far as I know, is always unhealthy, no matter how you process it. Canola has been made less unhealthy but is probably not as healthy as many alternatives, such as grapeseed oil (which has a fat profile somewhat similar to olive oil, but can be used in high heat cooking as it has a very high smoke point).

⬐ beagle3

But why do you believe you should minimize fat, saturated or otherwise, is bad for you, and that carbs (low in fructose) are better?

See e.g. http://blog.sethroberts.net/2013/10/25/saturated-fat-and-hea... for a different perspective (including some references)

⬐ csshelton

I said, "We have replaced the fat in our diet with fructose, but that isn't necessary. We could just eat carbs low in fructose and/or more protein instead of fat." Could, not should. I personally consume a lot of fat, probably more than most, usually in the form of nuts and some oils. I keep my refined sugar / carb intake to a minimum, and not because some article or organization tells me to, but rather because eating a diet full of refined sugars / carbs makes me feel lousy.

⬐ dragonshed

You gloss over the salient points in Lustig's presentation:

- A calorie is NOT a calorie.

- Fructose is a toxin; Liver hepatic fructose metabolism is completely different from glucose.

- A high-fructose diet IS a high-fat diet, due to how fructose is metabolized.

- The focus on saturated fats gave way to the low-fat diet, which is really a high-carbohydrate diet, which in fact raised incidents of cardiovascular disease, and increased the US's over all consumption of sugar.

- Lastly, the effort in the 1970s to try and control volatile food prices has yielded the cheap availability of sugar and high-fructose corn syrup, and that has in turn adulterated the food supply in the US and other countries, where sugar is in practically every sort of food product.

These are congruent with the points raised in the latimes article. No good, and quite a lot of harm, has come from the focus on saturated fat, and the continued assumption that a calorie is just a calorie.

The science is there, but public opinion and public policy are all still stuck in the past.

⬐ PanTardovski

Lustig's position is tenuous at best, and at times he either carelessly misleads people or outright fabricates points to support his little crusade. Here's (http://sweetenerstudies.com/sites/default/files/resources/fi...) a take-down of a number of issues, logical and factual, in his recent book, and here (http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-ab...) is a critique of his underlying argument about the unique threat posed by fructose (plus some follow-up based on comments and Lustig's own response to that piece http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/02/19/a-retrospective-of-...). Basically, even where Lustig is correct his points don't reflect any real-world situations.

I believe that American diet may have a hand in this. I don't know when it happened exactly, maybe it was when the new Coke formula came in, however, since then an increasing amount of Americans have been 'corn fed'. The meat is corn fed, the breakfast cereal is made of corn, the milk is from corn fed cows, the sugar is made from corn and everything else is made from corn give or take a soy bean here or there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Robert Lustig is the man to explain all this. He blames fructose (i.e. corn stuff) and fully expects this generation of Americans to have a shorter lifespan than previous generations could expect.

⬐ bluedino

We just eat too damn much. Any chain restaurant has 1,4000 calorie 'salads' and you get served 2+ lbs in a pasta dish. That doesn't even count the appetizer or dessert that cram down your throat for the $12.99 3-course meal

I sling code. I'm not a biologist. YMMV.

Not all calories are the same.

Doing the Four Hour Body, paleo, troglodiet (tm), I can't eat enough. In fact, the more I eat, the more body fat I lose. It's crazy. I even managed to convince my gf, who now eats with abandon, and she's lost 30lbs so far.

Ferriss warns in an early chapter that you will eat more than you've ever eaten before. Chomping thru 3 yummy kale salads (or equiv) per day, I stop eating when I'm tired of chewing. My salads are stuffed with calories, like bacon, turkey, avocado, tahini, craisins, etc.

Back to the fructose...

All I know comes from Lustig (sorry, I'm still not a biologist), why refined foods like HFCS are bad. The different metabolic pathway for fruit juice vs fruit. The sucrose splits into fructose and glucose. Body needs glucose whereas fructose is poison (just like alcohol). The fiber found in fruit et al blocks digestion of the fructose.

Sugar, the Bitter Truth http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

I don't have any cites for how fructose is crack for cancers. I assume it's true. Diabetes, hypertension, and obesity are reason enough to avoid fructose.

(Further, I vote with my dollars. Screw the corn lobby and their market distorting subsidies.)

⬐ StavrosK

What's the HN-comment-summary of paleo? I.e. what do you eat/not eat?

⬐ specialist

Lots of veggies, some fruit, nuts, meat. Four Hour Body throws in slow carbs like legumes (black beans). Ferriss also advises one "cheat day" per week, for eating treats, for both psychology and something about hormones (which I don't understand). This week it was cheesecake and croissants.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

It's a longer video (1h 30m), but it explains the problem with fructose in exactly as much detail as it needs and is very "average" people friendly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

"Robert H. Lustig, MD, UCSF Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology, explores the damage caused by sugary foods. He argues that fructose (too much) and fiber (not enough) appear to be cornerstones of the obesity epidemic through their effects on insulin. Series: UCSF Mini Medical School for the Public [7/2009] [Health and Medicine] [Show ID: 16717]"

⬐ tezza

I saw Prof. Stephen O'Rahilly give a talk in 2010 at TEDxCAM.

His research defines a clear link between genetics and obesity, fructose or no fructose. Obviously less intake is better, but many people cannot stop themselves if there is available food. On the other hand, there are people who will stay lean no matter how much food is available.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2570383/

Human Obesity: A Heritable Neurobehavioral Disorder That Is Highly Sensitive to Environmental Conditions

⬐ icelancer

Strongly recommend you read any of the numerous rebuttals to Lustig's psuedoscience, such as this one:

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-ab...

⬐ jwmerrill

This rebuttal doesn't seem to say that much about Lustig's central claim: that fructose is metabolized in a very different way from glucose, that large amounts of fructose metabolism harms the liver, and that this harm may be associated with metabolic syndrome.

What it does say is that overall calorie consumption has increased since 1970 but the fraction of calories from added sugar has not (no claim about fructose consumption specifically?), that fructose is almost always found along with glucose, so the fact that fructose does not induce an insulin response doesn't mean that foods containing fructose aren't satiating, that the Japanese do eat some fruit, that most fruits have less fiber than sugarcane, and that dosage is relevant to toxicity.

Couldn't Aragon be right about every one of these points without refuting Lustig's central claim? Can't it simultaneously be true that consuming too many total calories is harmful, and that consuming too much fructose is also harmful?

⬐ markbao

That was nearly four years ago; what's the current consensus on this issue? Has there been any new research that has come out in support of, or against, Lustig's conclusions?

⬐ lambda

Come on. He's a single-issue moralizing health crusader. I'm sure like everyone else who has focused on a single specific nutrient to blame, he's right in a few specifics, and massively overstating his case in a way that will ultimately be harmful to public health.

Remember when fat was the mortal enemy? Cholesterol? Carbs of any sort? Salt? Now it's fructose.

All of these things have, at one point or another, been singled out as one of the biggest threats to public health. And in all cases, while there has been some truth that in excess they can cause problems, it turns out that they aren't nearly as bad as some people made them out to be, and going on a crusade to eliminate them from diets has lead to either unhealthy elimination of necessary nutrients, or unhealthy substitution by something that's worse.

And yes, if you want more evidence, there have been studies that have shown that at low dosages, fructose can be beneficial:

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayFulltext?type=6&...

Basically, if you see someone singling out one single nutrient that has been a central part of our diet for thousands of years as being "toxic", you know you're being sold snake oil. Yes, almost anything can be consumed to excess. No, it is not "toxic".

Any diet plan should be based on your whole diet, not eliminating a single thing. Reducing refined sugar in your diet is generally good. Avoiding a cookie now and then, or some honey on your toast, is excessive (unless you are actually diabetic).

It can help a lot to cook yourself, and only prepare food from raw ingredients rather than processed foods or mixes, as then you see how much sugar and how much salt and how much fat goes into something. If you were to mix up a can of soda from scratch, you'd find it pretty gross how much sugar went in there; but many people are willing to grab a few and drink them throughout a day without thinking about it.

⬐ wissler

It's not clear that you actually watched the video. He's not saying you should never eat fructose. E.g. he points out that fructose is metabolized in a similar way to alcohol with similar bad effects, but he never said "no alcohol" either. The issue he's raising is that Americans have been consuming far too much fructose, and this consumption has been driven by government intervention going back to Nixon.

⬐ lambda

No, I haven't watched the video, but I've read several of his articles like the one that started this thread (I tend to prefer to read content than watch a video of someone speaking it; quicker to read, less disruptive of people around me, easier to quote, easier to refer back to later to make sure I got his point right, etc; if you have reference to a written description of the same content I'd take a look). Calling fructose a "poison" or "toxin" is excessive. It twists the conventional meaning of those words.

I definitely agree that people are eating too much fructose, and too much sugar in general, and that it has been driven by several government interventions (fat-free diet advice, corn subsidies, etc). I just object to calling it a "toxin" or "poison", and find his single minded obsession with fructose to be a bit of a poor way to attack the problem in the same way that single minded obsessions with "fat free" or "no carb" were. Human diet is a complex topic, with a lot of interacting factors, and over-simplifying advice can be quite harmful.

⬐ wissler

The main problem for me is the artificial bias the government has induced in our diet through subsidy and taxation. He's fighting against this government interference with our diet, that's a good thing.

⬐ specialist

Thanks for the link.

<= 10g/meal, or <= 30g/day.

Half the typical consumption.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2525476/

I'm reasonably certain that I'm hitting 30g/day eating fresh fruit. No HFCS required.

⬐ lambda

Really? You eat over more than three apples a day worth of fresh fruit? You do realize that the maxim is "an apple a day", not "three apples a day", right?

Anyhow, like anything, context matters here. Fresh fruit is high in fiber, which tends to lead to less absorption of sugars and other carbohydrates. The equivalent amount of fructose in soda or fruit juice is much worse for you than in the form of whole fresh fruits.

If you take a look at that study you link to about average consumption, over half of it comes from "sugar sweetened beverages" and "grains" (which includes cakes, pies, snacks, breads, and cereals). So, the average American could cut their fructose level in half, to under that suggested limit, by merely cutting out sodas and sweetened baked goods. My personal recommendation is to never drink soda, and only have sweetened baked goods occasionally, no more often than once a week.

⬐ specialist

Really don't know who you're arguing with here, or the point.

⬐ lambda

Sorry, didn't mean to be arguing, I was just surprised that you eat more than three apple's worth of fruit a day. I apologize if my tone came out argumentative.

My only point is that most Americans don't eat more than that amount in fruit, but rather that they go over that amount mostly due to sweetened beverages and baked goods.

⬐ specialist

We cool.

I've switched to a morning smoothie for convenience. 1/2 bunch of kale, chard, or spinach as a base. Plus variety of banana, apple, ginger, frozen fruits (blueberries, mango, peach, strawberries, etc), hemp hearts, heavy coconut milk, cinnamon, sometimes others stuff (mint, turmeric, yoghurt) to add variety.

Per Dr Terry Wahls, goal is to get 9 cups of veggies per day. I usually hit 6 cups.

⬐ specialist

What measure of proof do you require?

⬐ None

None

⬐ dools

Hmm that article seems to nitpick about the supporting data provided by Lustig (as well as some rather "rhetorical" devices) and does nothing to attack the information presented about how fructose is metabolised which, to me, was the most damning component of the talk.

The fundamental message is that the chronic effects of fructose are similar to the chronic effects of alcohol because they're metabolised almost identically in the liver.

Aragon's only argument against the biochemistry presented is that it's "all about dose and context" ... well if you chronically consume alcohol then you get pretty fucked up in the liver right? So if you're chronically consuming fructose in the same way you'll get fucked up, too.

Really, the article doesn't refute any of the core claims, it only says that we can eat some fructose just the same as we can eat some alcohol, big deal. That doesn't mean I'm going to start feeding my kids lollies, fizzy drinks, fruit juice and donuts now, does it?

⬐ specialist

I'm used to it, so ignored it, but I really wish Lustig would drop the conspiracy talk. I get that he's outraged. But it doesn't help.

I've been called out for citing Micheal Pollan (Omnivore's Dilemma). I was shocked. But apparently anything that challenges the status quo is suspect.

While not doubting the general findings I'd like to add a pointer that it is not a high level of glucose that raises the risk of getting diabetes II and heart disease, but fructose.

See this lecture of Dr. Lustig on sugars and how they are being metabolized in our body: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

⬐ a8da6b0c91d

A lot of smart nutritionists and biochemists seem to think Lustig is full of it.

http://www.andrewkimblog.com/2013/02/quick-commentary-on-dr-...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

The impact of alcohol (ethanol) on the metabolism starts around minute 50. Still, I strongly advised watching the entire lecture/presentation.

Calories and fat have been the go-to for mainstream publications as the cause of obesity. But I'd highly recommend watching this talk about high-fructose corn syrup:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

It makes a great argument that high-fructose corn syrup might be single handily the cause of the explosion in obesity in the USA in the last two decades.

⬐ nmerouze

I know this video and he's wrong (HFCS is bad, simple sugar and fruit fructose are not). I would recommend you to read articles on http://dannyroddy.com http://raypeat.com http://andrewkimblog.com backed by a lot of studies showing fructose is awesome.

⬐ pothibo

I'm appalled by your lack of judgment.

You dismiss the recording of a university class made by a Ph.D in Endocrinology that worked for 20+ years against the whole industry (which shows resilience and belief).

On the other hand you suggest to read articles on 3 websites that looks scammy at best?

I feel insulted.

⬐ a8da6b0c91d

Stephan Guyenet is a phd and he also kinda poo-poos the whole "sugar and fructose are toxic" thing. The problem with fructose is just that it's so yummy to humans that its modern ubiquity causes people to overeat.

⬐ pothibo

Obviously his theory is being challenged and there might be some valid reason why it is. I'm not an expert in that field.

The guy saying Lustig is "wrong" was just full of it and I called him on that.

⬐ nmerouze

I could return the compliment.

And I'm not saying he's wrong, I'm saying HFCS is indeed toxic, not sugar and fructose (proven by lots of studies made by PhDs with years of experience). So he's partially right.

Amazed any Australian company is still using imagery of Capper and Fenech - Jesus wept!

This is a good video on HFCS from Robert Lustig and why you should avoid it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Fructose (as in HFCS) goes through the same metabolic pathway as alcohol, so it's important to differentiate between fructose and glucose.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Yes sugar is toxic because of the metabolic by-products of fructose, which is similar to the by-products of alcohol. Both are known to make freshmen put on weight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Man. Sugar is the worst. Take it from me. I moved to the city the moment I turned 18, I didn't know much about cooking. Back in the 'burbs you'd be lucky to live within 10km of a grocery store. Downtown however, totally different story. I went NUTS with sweets and pizza.

I gained over 100 lbs in just under half a year. I was eating around 10k calories a day.

I then stuck to only these foods and have only been eating this the past couple years:

chicken

lean beef

kale + other greens

various fruit

cheese

That's it. No seasoning, nothing. I'm so much happier now. Better sleeps, better mood, better everything. My mood and days fluctuated like crazy when I didn't keep track of my diet.

I'd love to hear some opinions on the following talk from fellow HNers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

⬐ pedalpete

I cut out most sugar years ago, I think by not 'seasoning', you may be doing yourself a dis-service. Sugar isn't the only seasoning. There are lots you can do with herbs, oils and citrus (just stay away from vinegars which are often high in sugar).

For those who want to try restricting their diet to be more healty, a simple trick is to only shop on the outer isles of the grocery store. In more stores, you'll have the produce along one one, meats and fish along another, and then dairy and cheese along another.

Sadly, the bakery is also along a wall, so just be smart enough to avoid that one, and don't be tricked by bread, most of it has a significant amount of sugar.

⬐ beggi

Fatty meat and fat is healthy as well!

⬐ brianbreslin

How has your weight loss progressed since the dietary change?

⬐ rfnslyr

Back to 200 and shredded. Lean as fuck. I eat a lot of fat and protein, not really many carbs, under around 50 a day.

⬐ greenyoda

The link mentioned above is Robert Lustig MD's talk entitled "Sugar: The Bitter Truth". I found it very interesting and quite convincing, but beware that it's long (1.5 hrs) and you have to be willing to sit through a lot of biochemistry, since he goes through a bunch of cellular metabolic pathways in gory detail. If you don't care about the biochemistry, the parts about how everything we "know" about nutrition is based on shaky ground (e.g., the FDA's food pyramid, "fat in the diet is bad", etc.) is well worth watching, as is the history of how the amount of sugar in the U.S. diet has been dramatically increasing (e.g., the steady increase in the serving size of Coca Cola since 1915).

⬐ stevep98

This is a great video. I watch it once in a while when I need to cut down on my ice cream.

I think the point is that getting rid of the subsidies would let the price of HFCS increase and would be less attractive to food producers.

Regarding the idea that sucrose is healthier than HFCS, I remain unconvinced.

See Robert H. Lustig's awesome expostion, Sugar: The Bitter Truth:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

He explains the endocrinology behind why our bodies cannot stay ahead of our sugar intake.

⬐ thret

Sugar: The Bitter Truth is movie length but well worth watching.

⬐ __--__

Saying sugar is healthier than HFCS is sort of like saying morphine is healthier than heroin. It may technically be true, but both will kill you eventually. That said, I agree that if the cost of sugar and HFCS were higher, it would no longer be cost effective to put it in bread. I think everyone can agree that HFCS and sugar probably shouldn't be in bread.

⬐ rwmj

When I make bread at home, I put sugar in it to help the yeast grow.

⬐ sjwright

Point taken, but the wheat in bread is not much better for you than the pure sugar...

⬐ specialist

I'm not a biologist, related from Lustig's video, probably incorrectly:

fructose + glucose = sucrose. Body needs glucose. Fructose goes straight to liver, metabolized like alcohol, a bunch of bad stuff happens. Reason fruits are better than fruit juice is the fiber blocks the fructose from being metabolized, letting the needed glucose through.

Eating straight refined sugar is probably almost as bad as HFCS. But other sources of sugar (in moderation) are proably fine.

FWIW, I add fruit into my morning kale smoothie, and it tastes delicious.

⬐ acchow

> Reason fruits are better than fruit juice is the fiber blocks the fructose from being metabolized, letting the needed glucose through.

Can we get a source on this? I'm very curious, because I eat a ton of fruit with a lot of fructose every day and this Lustig video has gotten me worried.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Also, random internet sites suggest a calorie is not a calorie is not a calorie. For example:

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/06/when-a-calorie...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

You [and everyone else] should watch this if you haven't. Amazing lecture and aligns with what you've said.

⬐ tptacek

The Lustig video is also controversial but is indeed fascinating.

Sure there's enough talk about satiety. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18703413

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leptin

No, the author simply repeated old stuff. If all those 'reasonable' diets worked, the current obesity epidemic would not be in its worst point, as it is.

Some evidence about sugar:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRAwgdvhWHw http://martin.ankerl.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/trouble_...

⬐ lmaz3

I don't think that the videos you posted support your claims, at least not the first one.

In the suggested diet, almost 2/3 of the carbohydrates don't come from sugar. From the foods listed, most of these carbohydrates should come from the oats and the rice. In these foods, the carbohydrates come almost exclusively from starch, which the body splits into glucose. And glucose is the ideal power source for your body, as Lustig shows at 44:52 in the first of the youtube videos you linked.

Now, about the suggars, at 1:13:55 in the same video, he states that we "should eat our carbohydrates with fibers, and thats why fruits are ok". The diet in the article contains plenty of fibres, so that should be ok.

⬐ ska

This is what "no real resolution yet" means: every few years we get a pet theory or two.

The reason this so easily devolves into a `religious` argument scenario is because the basic science is still too weak.

The author did the right thing to stay well shut of all that in this article.

There's some evidence to suggest that eating fructose in combination with fiber (as found naturally in fruits) is far less harmful than just sugar alone, and way less harmful than refined sugar.

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

⬐ ryeguy

You are correct that fructose with fiber is pretty harmless, but that video is bullshit. See here:

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-ab... http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/02/19/a-retrospective-of-...

Overweight doesn't matter. Metabolic disorder matters, and that can be traced to simple, refined carbs. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM&sns=em.

>My skepticism antennae are twitching Firstly it has the tang of religion - we have found the answer, it requires certain rites and adherences and we must now persuade you to believe

I'm not sure how any of this addresses the claim that carbohydrates are a major cause of disease which is the only issue my post addressed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

>Finally and th biggest question to me, is why assume that so many maleases are solely or primarily diet related. Obesity is pretty obvious but asthma? Cancer even?

A transitive relationship is being inferred.

There's evidence that cholesterol plaque build-up is driven by inflammation. There's evidence that many cancers are driven by inflammation. There's evidence that insulin spikes are involved in bio-molecular cascades for driving inflammation which are also involved in diabetes. Therefore carbohydrates are involved in inflammation which predisposes a person to cancer, heart disease, and diabetes. Proving anything beyond doubt in biology is difficult but it's a compelling hypothesis that needs further investigation.

A very related, and VERY WELL PRESENTED and scientific video explanation of why sugar is poison, presented to residents at the University of California: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

If you like TED talks, this will just blow your mind. It gets highly medical at one point of the talk, but HN should be able to follow along. I recommend watching this when you have an hour of absolute free time and want to learn.

Dr. Lustig does indeed claim sugar is toxic in the same since that alcohol is toxic. He goes through the complete cycle of metabolizing 1 molecule of sucrose (1 half glucose linked to 1 half fructose). The fructose metabolism is the problematic part, which was hard to follow for me, and I have an undergrad degree in Biochemistry and graduated with a 4.0. Here is the original talk: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

JPKab below has a good high level overview.

love articles on this subject.

somewhat related there is a great lecture about Sugar (sucrose vs fructose vs ethanol) and some history on HFCS in America http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

A calorie is not a calorie. Fructose could be the problem, and Robert H. Lustig explains what he believes to be true.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Don't let the calorie count fool you. I suggest you watch this presentation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

I can't speak to salt, but the classic explanation for sugar and high fructose corn syrup is Robert Lustig's UCSF presentation[0]. Midway through he discusses the differences between HFCS and sugar in how they metabolized, including the brain aspects. (Hint: consider the long-term effects of alcohol up there.) Definitely worth the 90 minute investment of attention.

[0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

This is a relevant and very informative video about the impact of sugar on humans: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM&feature=yout...

I'd say that if you were to just dramatically reduce sugar you'll get results pretty quickly.

He's talked about fructose in fruits before. It's the presence of fiber which makes the difference. Fiber alters the chemical process some way (he does explain it though). It's also why he's dead against fruit juice, even if they are made from 100% real juice. It's fructose without the fiber.

Also worth mentioning that, in addition fiber, fruits have other nutrients. fructose+fiber+vitamins+anti-oxidants+minerals vs fructose+fat+salt .

edit:

Sorry, just to be clear, he explains it in other papers/talks. I know it's at least briefly mentioned in: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

⬐ tferris

Ok thanks, where did he say this about fruit juices? In the same video?

⬐ mkl

I haven't watched this particular video, but that information is in another of his talks, "Sugar: The Bitter Truth", http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

⬐ Klinky

Where was the part about fiber? I didn't see it in this video.

To you guys calling this alarmist, it's not. It has been known for a while: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Most of the same dangers as alcohol.

⬐ cinquemb

They also compared it to crack on the show. I doubt the average crackhead would agree.

⬐ readme

I think there's definitely a strong reward response when someone gets to have sugar. The thing that they are missing when comparing it to crack is that sugar withdrawal isn't that bad.

Here is Dr. Lustig's UCSF lecture, referenced in the 60 minutes piece: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

NYTimes article, same subject: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.ht...

Here is a video from Dr. Robert Lustig about sugars. It is an hour and a half long but very informative.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

After watching it, I've considerably reduced my sugar intake. I still drink soft drinks during lunch/dinner, but I am slowly weaning myself off them and onto water/tea and other better alternatives.

⬐ jeffdavis

I watched that a while ago and I remember him talking about the amount of salt in a Coke, as though it were a conspiracy of some kind.

But Coke has very little salt -- about 45 mg.

So the rest of the talk seemed to be colored with a conspiratorial tone, from my perspective. Am I wrong to be so dismissive?

⬐ eostyx

The coke I've drank in the past has been loaded with salt. But salt isn't really the most dangerous ingredient in coke... is it

⬐ Hinrik

>But Coke has very little salt -- about 45 mg.

This tells me nothing. 45mg per 100ml? Or per serving (usually 250ml)?

⬐ jeffdavis

It's about 40mg of sodium (which is about 100mg of salt) per 12-oz can, which is 355ml.

It doesn't really make much difference. It's a small amount of salt for any reasonable level of consumption unless you are really watching your salt intake.

⬐ hristov

I do not know whether 45 mg is a small or large amount of salt. But his main point is that that salt is there to make you feel thirsty after drinking a soda.

In my personal experience he is correct there. Soda does not quench my thirst and leaves me feeling thirsty.

⬐ DanBC

1 teaspoon is (very) approximately 5 grams. There are 1000 mg in 1 g; thus 5000 mg in 5 g.

So 50 mg is 100th of a teaspoon of salt. Roughly.

EDIT: This UK health advice suggests that adults should have less than 6 g of salt per day.

(http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Goodfood/Pages/salt.aspx)

But this Scientific American Article suggests that there's no evidence for that.

(http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=its-time-to...)

⬐ jared314

I had the same reaction when he went off on the public restriction on alcohol (52m), but the science sounded reasonable. With that in mind, I cut my sugar and carb intake. I lost fat. So, I chalk it up to his personality or a reaction to being ignored for a long period of time.

His contention is that it's as toxic as alcohol, although alcohol has immediate effect on the brain and therefore is more self-limiting. You can also check out his video where he goes through the biochemical pathways:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

At one point, he asks what you call a substance that primarily gets metabolized in the liver and when presented in excess (not an extreme excess either), gets metabolized into products considered harmful to the body.

I should also note that every objection you make is unsupported and ad hominem ('alarmist', 'hack science'). If you want to counter his claim, point to a study where fructose is shown not to be correlated with the diseases in question. There are certainly a lot of studies as far back as the 50s that support his claims. I personally am on the hunt for well-controlled studies with reasonable duration (years to a decade) that involve sugar/fructose.

⬐ jpxxx

Fine, you're right. Let me de-hominenize. His claims are alarmist and the word toxic is unsupported by the available science and opens him up to claims of media-seeking hackery. He's probably on the right path in untangling the effects of the godawful modern diet but to single out a specific sugar and call for its regulation is still a big stretch.

Anyone with a bit of time and a mild interest in chemistry and/or nutrition should watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

It's a talk by Dr Robert Lustig called Sugar: The bitter truth.

⬐ driverdan

It's good to watch his talk but keep in mind this is hyperbole and propaganda mixed in with science. He uses alarmist words to push his ideas which is pretty unscientific.

⬐ 127001brewer

Please explain how Dr. Lustig's words are "unscientific".

⬐ Florin_Andrei

It runs against the principle that my liberty as an individual is above all other considerations. Ergo, it's "unscientific".

/sarcasm

⬐ 127001brewer

I appreciate your sarcasm, but there is a fine line between "regulations" (in terms of general public safety) and "free will". For example, you could smoke as many cigarettes as you want to, but is that in the interest of the general public?

⬐ gerggerg

I agree that his word choice at points is unscientific, and that he no doubt has an agenda especially being Professor of Pediatrics. But I still feel it's a hugely informative talk in which the science greatly outweighs the sensationalism.

You might want to watch this video of the guy behind this research first. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

His reason for regulation is fructose acting very similarly to alcohol as far as reactions go. Be forewarned that video takes about 20-30 minutes to pick up. But he gets into cell biology of what fructose and sucrose do in cells.

Now does anyone have links to criticism that actually argues his points biologically? I can't help but agree that we eat too much sugar in our modern diets.

I didn't see that article cite the researchers, but it's probably this group: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM.

Pretty interesting talk about the rise of high fructose corn syrup.

⬐ mitchty

The bigger thing I remember from that video was that high fructose corn syrup and sugar weren't far of compositionally. That and how close fructose itself is to alcohol in its side effects.

⬐ jganetsk

The guy in that talk is the principal investigator of the study. But it has nothing to do with HFCS in particular, and everything to do with added sugar in general. Sugar made from cane and beets is just as bad as HFCS.

⬐ joejohnson

>> Sugar made from cane and beets is just as bad as HFCS.

That is false.

Refined sugar (that is, sucrose) is made up of a molecule of the carbohydrate glucose, bonded to a molecule of the carbohydrate fructose — a 50-50 mixture of the two. The fructose, which is almost twice as sweet as glucose, is what distinguishes sugar from other carbohydrate-rich foods like bread or potatoes that break down upon digestion to glucose alone. The more fructose in a substance, the sweeter it will be. High-fructose corn syrup, as it is most commonly consumed, is 55 percent fructose, and the remaining 45 percent is nearly all glucose. It was first marketed in the late 1970s and was created to be indistinguishable from refined sugar when used in soft drinks. Because each of these sugars ends up as glucose and fructose in our guts, our bodies react the same way to both, and the physiological effects are identical. In a 2010 review of the relevant science, Luc Tappy, a researcher at the University of Lausanne in Switzerland who is considered by biochemists who study fructose to be the world’s foremost authority on the subject, said there was “not the single hint” that H.F.C.S. was more deleterious than other sources of sugar.

The fructose component of sugar and H.F.C.S. is metabolized primarily by the liver, while the glucose from sugar and starches is metabolized by every cell in the body. Consuming sugar (fructose and glucose) means more work for the liver than if you consumed the same number of calories of starch (glucose). And if you take that sugar in liquid form — soda or fruit juices — the fructose and glucose will hit the liver more quickly than if you consume them, say, in an apple (or several apples, to get what researchers would call the equivalent dose of sugar). The speed with which the liver has to do its work will also affect how it metabolizes the fructose and glucose.

Full article: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.htm...

⬐ ScottBurson

Because each of these sugars ends up as glucose and fructose in our guts, our bodies react the same way to both, and the physiological effects are identical.

I'm not sure you read this before you copied and pasted it. The sentence I've quoted specifically agrees with jganetsk's claim.

⬐ None

None

⬐ elemeno

I don't see anything in there which refutes the statement that refined sugar from cane and beets isn't significantly different to HFCS in terms of their effect.

⬐ joejohnson

Fructose is metabolized primarily in the liver. Glucose is metabolized through many other (supposedly less deleterious) processes. HFCS is primarily fructose. Refined sugar is a mix of about 50-50 fructose-glucose. Thus, refined sugar is significantly different that HFCS.

⬐ ScottBurson

HFCS is 55% fructose; sucrose is 50% fructose. This doesn't strike me as "significantly different".

⬐ gte910h

Nor do I see anything offered that HFCS IS equivalent to sugar.

Substituting the random manufacturer chemical is what should go through safety tests; you shouldn't have to prove it's dangerous, it should have to prove it is safe.

This is the same thing UCSF Professor, Dr. Robert Lustig, says in his presentation, "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM).

There is also a New York Times article on this entitled "Is Sugar Toxic?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.htm...).

⬐ derleth

> Is Sugar Toxic?

When an article is written in this form, the answer is nearly always "no", as it is in this case.

If sugar were toxic, nothing that eats fruit could survive.

⬐ espeed

As per the presentation, the fiber in whole fruits provides the "antidote" to the fructose.

⬐ ciupicri

According to that presentation sugar is toxic, but remember that the quantity matters, too. Alcohol is toxic as well, but a glass of wine won't kill anyone, whereas a barrel might put you in a coma.

Sugar: The Bitter Truth (which made top story on HN a while ago) is a great 1h30 video to watch about this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

⬐ lena

It is great indeed, and nobody would recommend people eat lots of sugar, but I found this a good article with some nuances about the specifics mentioned in that long video: http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-ab...

I found this talk by Dr Lustig very interesting. It's about the biochemistry of why refined foods and sugars make us so unhealthy and overweight. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

I've never had a weight problem, though in 2002 I started eating more healthfully (inspired by "whole foods", paleo, etc to try to get more energy and be healthier) and I actually dropped 30+ pounds. I was not even trying to lose weight and basically ate whatever I wanted that fit into a "whole foods" diet. I've remained a thundering, intimidating 150 lbs for years. :)

You might find this video interesting as well.

Sugar: The Bitter Truth: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

⬐ dredmorbius

I know it well, good one. Thanks for posting.

The linked pdf makes a number of factual errors. it incorrectly suggests that ketogenic don't encourage eating lots of vegetables and low-sugar fruits. It also trys to twist "not all calories are the same" into "you can eat as much as you want". and of course, trans fats should always be avoided.

but you should really decide for yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6vpFV6Wkl4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

No, we can't really make blanket statements like this anymore. Not all calories are equal: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

⬐ b3b0p

I'm not convinced yet.

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/02/19/a-retrospective-of-...

Switch to using honey as a sweetener

Not such a great idea. Honey is full of fructose -- this indeed gives it a lower glycemic index than sucrose, but causes other problems. Watch this (long but very interesting) video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

My takeaway from this talk is that it's best to avoid all sugars, but if you must eat something sweet, eat it with plenty of fiber to slow the absorption of the sugar. Of course, the easy way to do this is just to eat fruit.

⬐ 23david

I'm definitely not the expert here and the suggestion to use honey as a sweetener was given to me by an Orthomolecular Psychiatrist. The context was that if I want to use a sweetener in my tea or coffee, I should use something like honey over white sugar or cane sugar.

Honey may have other issues, which definitely reinforces my feeling that it's really best to consult an expert when attempting to regulate mental disorders by using a special diet or vitamins. However as a common sense solution it seems that using honey to sweeten tea or coffee is a reasonable alternative to white sugar, and it is a situation where fruit simply won't substitute. For a quick snack, fruit is a great idea and I would definitely prefer it over some kind of honey snack or a candy bar.

googling: "honey bipolar refined sugar" leads to a bunch of links comparing white sugar with honey, but again my experience with internet research for vitamins and mental disorders is that the information is extremely unreliable and all over the place. This is an area (similar to searching for information about cancer online) where I think that the most reliable information comes out of books written by qualified professionals and directly from qualified specialists.

Regarding sugar, I recently came across this video, which I also found very good: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

About half way through he explains, it detail, exactly what happens to sugars in your liver and compares glucose, ethanol and fructose. I found it very interesting, at least.

I'm glad you enjoy it. Because it's not doing your body any good.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Fructose is much more damaging than glucose. So HFCS is much more damaging than regular sugar (glucose-fructose). And more importantly, the widespread use of HFCS is a major concern. It's too cheap, it's too legal, and it's a toxin. There's absolutely no use for it in our bodies.

Yes, obesity is the problem. HFCS can be blamed as a significant contributor to the obesity issue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

⬐ losvedir

Agreed on fructose being the more damaging component. However, sucrose (regular table sugar) is one glucose and one fructose, so 50% fructose. HFCS, however, is typically 55% fructose, and I believe used in about the same quantity. So not that different. The real issue is simply amount consumed, and not what form it was in.

⬐ wycats

HFCS and regular sugar have a very similar proportion of glucose:fructose.

The kind of HFCS used in soft drinks is 55% fructose and 42% glucose, while sucrose (sugar) is 50% fructose and 50% glucose. The kind of HFCS used in baked products is 42% fructose and 53% glucose.

For the two people on here who haven't already seen this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Professor Lustig makes a compelling argument that too much fructose and lack of fiber in our diets is the major contributing factor in the obesity epidemic.

⬐ markbernard

So get your fibre from vegetables and limit fruit intake to at most 1 piece per day or every 2 days.

Being in the midst of a global obesity epidemic brought on by thirty years of following the nutritional advice of scientists really isn't "a wonderful illustration of the self-correcting nature of the scientific method". Especially when the government and most other health authorities are still actively promoting the bad science that caused the problem to begin with.

This was bad science not politics. Dr. Lustig (of Sugar the bitter truth fame: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM) explains the details of it, but to sum up; Ancel Keys authored the Seven Countries Study that linked heart disease with dietary fat that that study formed the foundation of our nutritional knowledge ever since. According to Lustig, Keys preformed the first multivariate regression analysis and messed it up but we have been teaching it and living by it for 30+ years. Its still a challenge to get

Everybody loves to place science on some pedestal and pretend that politics is the source of all our problems. We have found scientific justifications for our racism and other quirks, habits and general prejudices for a very long time:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/the-life-and-de... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence ...a thousand other links...

Don't think that because <1950s commercial narrator voice>This information was brought to you by Science!</1950s commercial narrator voice> that it is necessarily correct. I spoke to James Flynn (The guy the Flynn effect is named after) and it turned out that he only got into studying IQ to disprove the science of the day showing that blacks were inferior. He has gone on to show that women are also equally intelligent (Imagine!). He is still working on debunking racist, sexist science decades later. The science around nutrition is no more reliable and no less subject to being shaped by our cultural prejudices.

Related to your key #1, this[1] talk by Robert Lustig (who's work has seen some exposure on HN in the past) has a pretty good run-down of how some of the carbohydrates are metabolized. Specifically, he points to fructose as the culprit when it comes to obesity.

I recommend watching the whole thing, but skip to about 36:00 to see the biochemistry.

[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

⬐ None

None

⬐ matwood

Sigh. A good criticism of Lustigs demonizing fructose:

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-ab...

Key takeaway that Lustig ignores - USDA numbers by the way:

Total energy intake in 1970 averaged 2172 kcal. By 2007 this hiked up to 2775 kcal, a 603 kcal increase.

⬐ dkarl

Intake is the key point in the entire argument for me. The dose makes the poison, and at this point we're arguing over whether it is healthier to poison ourselves with excessive calories from fat or excessive calories from carbs. If you don't eat too much, you don't have a stake in the argument at all.

⬐ terio

Not really. It depends on each person's metabolism. I know people that get fat just by having regular desserts for a few days, and others (generally very young) that can eat anything until they burst without moving the needle.

⬐ dkarl

In general, you can't trust self-reported data, especially not data reported to social acquaintances. Not only do people underreport how much they eat (it's the norm, even for people who aren't overweight), they don't do a good job of measuring their weight and reporting weight loss or weight gain. People really do say and believe that they've gained five pounds in two days, or lost ten pounds in a week, when it's clear they are just measuring fluctuations that have nothing to do with muscle or body fat.

⬐ sambeau

There is no such thing as 'metabolism': just body mass, muscle mass and activity.

Big people burn more calories even when still. Active people burn more than still people of the same size. Muscular people burn more calories than the non-muscular as they have to feed their bigger muscles.

In sealed room tests fat people use more calories than thin people.

Skinny people who can eat anything they want without putting on weight tend to be very fidgety - they never keep totally still. Just wiggling a leg all day can use a large amount of energy.

⬐ ajslater

In the literature its referred to as N.E.A.T. Non-Exercise Activity Thermogenesis

Many people's body's response to overfeeding is to up NEAT, up fidgetyness. But not always. Your body thinks getting fat is a good thing. Famine used to be common. When dieting almost everyone down-regulates NEAT. On a severe diet you feel like being very still.

⬐ abrown28

Awesome... I will tell my coworker who is always complaining about my fidgeting legs that I'm exercising ;)

⬐ terio

"There is no such thing as 'metabolism': just body mass, muscle mass and activity."

Those factors are not enough. The human body has many more important factors in play there, like hormones, intestinal flora, and so on.

⬐ jpk

"Skinny people who can eat anything they want without putting on weight tend to be very fidgety - they never keep totally still. Just wiggling a leg all day can use a large amount of energy."

Hm, this is interesting. I've never heard that before, but it seems intuitive. Do you have any sources for that idea? (Not that I'm challenging, just curious.)

⬐ Hawramani

The reasoning in that line shows the classic misunderstanding that has led us here. As Taubes says, saying you get fat because you eat too much doesn't explain anything. Of course you need to eat more calories that you expend to gain weight. But why do people do it, and why didn't they do it before?

Taubes says we eat too much because we eat carbs. If people had eaten a carb-free diet since 1970 we wouldn't be seeing that spike in calorie intake. Therefore the fact that calorie intake increased is in complete support of Taubes and Lustig's ideas.

Carbs increase insulin secretion, which encourages fat cells to take in blood sugar and turn it into fat, and discourages the body from burning fat for fuel.

⬐ yummyfajitas

What if we increased carb consumption far above the levels of today (from 43% of our diet to, I dunno, 54%)? Would we be even fatter than we are now?

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnpp.usd...

History tells us the answer. In the early part of the 20'th century, we ate nothing but carbs. We weren't fat.

⬐ gojomo

Were the early-20th-century carbs the same carbs as today? (Corn and potatoes aren't the same as sugar-cane and HFCS.)

⬐ yummyfajitas

You might try reading the report I linked to.

The big difference is that we eat more calories, less carbs, more fat and more sugar.

⬐ anthonyb

Your report just has "Carbs" - nothing to do with what sort they were. That could be flour, sugar, or potatoes, and they stay relatively constant, there's no decline (p18).

There's a big increase in the amount of fat consumed, but I suspect a large part of the difference is going to be lifestyle, too. Around the turn of the century people walked a lot more and did a lot more manual labour.

⬐ yummyfajitas

See table 4 and 5. It doesn't give breakdowns of sugar vs HFCS or corn vs wheat, but it does separate sweeteners from potatoes from grains.

Regardless - total calories went up. Carbs stayed almost constant in absolute terms (a slight decrease) and decreased in relative terms. Fat increased in both absolute and relative terms. I guess carbs must be the culprit!

⬐ anthonyb

Ok, I see that now, and it fits with what I know - if your blood glucose is saturated, then any extra fat and sugar you eat goes straight to your arse.

Interesting that whole milk dropped off so sharply in the 1970s and 80s - about the time that 'fat is bad' started up? From what I've read, low fat milk contributes to heart disease too - something about the level of fat-soluble vitamins?

⬐ rimmjob

that doesn't seem to be a very good criticism at all. he completely misses Lustig's point, skews the argument and tries to obfuscate his own lack of expertise with buzzwords and shallow analysis.

⬐ None

None

⬐ djackson

And Lustig responds to those criticisms here:

http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201104211000

Key takeaway is that Lustig doesn't make any claim that you can't get fat by eating too many calories, regardless of the source. Lustig's research is on the metabolic pathways for fructose and glucose, and they are substantially different.

⬐ matwood

I'll listen when I have some time later. Does he also address the dose dependent problem in his cited studies? Of course if I'm drinking 6-7 sodas a day that's generally going to be a problem, but it doesn't mean sugar is evil. Too much water can kill me also, but I don't see people saying water is evil.

⬐ djackson

Like I said, he talks about metabolic pathways, which are independent of dose, though not your body's current state of glycogen deficiency.

He also speaks to the effect of insulin resistance, and how the very rapid metabolism of fructose in the liver (7x faster than glucose) can lead to insulin resistance. Insulin spikes redirect calories eaten directly to fat, without them ever being metabolized into energy. As a result you gain fat and have less energy available, leaving you both fatter and hungrier.

⬐ watmough

Thanks for giving such a great summation. This was the key point for me from Lustig's presentation.

Essentially, if you treat sucrose and fructose as a condiment, rather than as a key source of kCal, you will be consuming simple sugars, protein and fat, food that actually nourishes and sates you directly, versus sucrose and fructose that in high doses simply transform to fat.

Per Lustig, it's important to differentiate between starches found in bread, potatoes etc., that break down to simple sugars like glucose that are metabolized directly by the body, and added sucrose and fructose that are metabolized in the liver to fat. For people saying that our carb consumption was the same back in early 20th Century, take a look at how much of that was likely breads and the like, versus the highly sweetened cereals of today.

edit: added a para on why looking at 'carbs', misses Lustig's point.

I'm not a nutritionist. My understanding, however, is that sugars are the culprit. When you look at what has changed over the years, that's the big one.

Sugar: The Bitter Truth http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

There are lots of other articles concerning this, but I felt this was the best one for pure information. He's not alone in discussing this, so I don't have to just take his word for it. But like I said, I'm not a professional in this area.

⬐ yummyfajitas

Actually, if you look, you'll discover fats and oils have increased more than sugar. Consumption of fats and oils increased 90% (from 12.6% of diet to 23.9%), while sugar consumption only increased 34% (from 12.9 to 17.3%).

(By "increase", I mean from 1909-2004. See table 4 of my link.)

⬐ jasonlotito

Sorry, I wasn't clear. It's the increase in the fructose in our diet via juices and sugars. Be wary as well, as those charts lump different things together.

⬐ eel

If between fats and sugars, one is "bad" and the other is not, then any increase in the one that is bad will have negative effects regardless of how much the non-bad one is increased. Nutrition and human biology is obviously more complicated than just this, but I'm just pointing out that data like this provides as much evidence for Jason's argument as it does for your argument.

Also, FWIW, I have seen the video, and to me the main message was that fructose is bad when fiber consumption is too low.

I just watched the mentioned video[1] the other day and made some notes, so thought I'd share them since this hit the front page.

- Fructose is metabolized similarly to ethanol. Both can only mostly be metabolized in the liver, whereas glucose can be metabolized throughout the body. Both result in a storage as fat of a significant portion of the calories, possibly in the liver, where the fat causes long-term harm. Most of glucose on the other hand is stored in the liver as glycogen, which is not harmful long-term, and is the main source when you're eating a bunch of white pasta (glucose) storing up for a big race.

- If we just ate fructose from fruits we'd eat 10-20% as much as we do today. Plus fiber is protective against many of the negative effects associated with fructose. So fruit is probably on the balance still good for you or neutral in terms of the negative effects from fructose mentioned here.

- Fructose seems to suppress the post-eating dip in ghrelin levels, where ghrelin is thought to be important in encouraging us to eat--the "hunger hormone".

- Fructose doesn't cause a spike in insulin and reduces leptin, which he views as a negative, as it goes along with not discouraging further eating.

- He gave no evidence that glucose is good or beneficial, or reasons why glucose isn't a threat to increased risk of diabetes, etc. He's just chosen his battle as against fructose, as it's more winnable than against all sugar.

That last bullet is my conclusion/wrapup of his perspective. I think his points are valid, and his recommendations are good for an overweight person (ie, your average American), but he oversimplifies things to make his case simpler and stronger. If you're really trying to stay healthy, eating a ton of glucose is not a good thing--an issue he mainly skirts to keep the focus on fructose.

[1]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

⬐ Egregore

>fiber is protective against many of the negative effects associated with fructose.

Sorry for my ignorance in the subject, but isn't fiber the non digestible part of food? I've read that it absorbs some toxins, but how it can have such a big impact?

⬐ 127001brewer

I have read that fiber helps control your blood sugar levels (by carrying the sugar away before your body can process it), but I cannot find any good references.

⬐ cmurphycode

It's probably not as simple as just the fiber in fruits protecting against fructose/glucose, but it does help. (EDIT: what I mean is, don't replace fruits with a glass of metamucil and sugar :))

Soluble fiber is just that: soluble in water. In your stomach, it absorbs water and turns into a sort of carb-trapping gel. While the carbs are still eventually digested, the gel slows down the absorption. This is good, because it helps to regulate your blood sugar (not as much of a big spike and drop).

Since blood sugar spikes == insulin response == hungry signals, this is quite useful.

Insoluble fiber is also useful, but mostly just for waste processing.

⬐ merloen

Listen to the presentation - he mentions glucose specifically, and explains why he thinks it's a toxin, as opposed to glucose, which he calls the fuel of life.

He also mentions that while eating a ton of glucose may make you obese, eating fructose will push you toward metabolic syndrome, which is where most of the health problems lie.

Here's a 1.5 hour lecture by him on the exact biochemical pathways that make fructose a poison.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Go to 57:00 and you should get to the bit where he explains why Fructose is a poison. Loses a bit in translation without the hour leading up to it, (which is absolutely fascinating).

However, that should cover your TL;DR.

Even shorter version: Fructose can only be processed by the liver. That means, by definition it is a poison.

⬐ dpatru

> Fructose can only be processed by the liver. That means, by definition it is a poison.

Thanks for this summary. I didn't realize that if a substance can only be processed by the liver, it's a poison.

⬐ AlexC04

More TL:DR for you.

At 1:08:00 (ish)

The effects of long term Fuctose use is virtually identical to long term alcoholism (8 out of 12 effects)

(at 1:09:00 ish) Intervention:

1) Remove all sugared drinks from your diet. Water & Milk only

2) Eat carbohydrates with fibre.

3) Wait 20 minutes before a second portion.

4) "Buy" your screen time, minute for minute with physical activity. (holy crap! I've got an eight hour work day to buy back!)

That he really knows his stuff and you should watch his presentation here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

For those who haven't watched the video lecture referenced early in the article, I highly recommend checking it out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Lustig does a fantastic job explaining the cellular processes at work, which appealed to my engineering side. I'm not usually passionate about biochemistry and this lecture is definitely long, but if you make it through the first 15 minutes you will be hooked.

⬐ 100k

This is one of those "life changing" videos.

I'm not sure about the whole paleo diet thing, but I'm pretty sure humans didn't evolve to eat large quantities of sugar.

⬐ nikcub

I am one of those people who is hard to convince to watch something, so if there is anybody else out there reading this comment thread and wondering if you should watch that video - please do.

It is informative in parts, and his style is excellent, but watch if with an open mind and a pinch of skepticism

⬐ g_lined

Thanks. I watched the video only after reading your comment. I found something new about fructose so it was worth it. I personally am turned off by his presentation style. He tries to hard to convince me of his conclusion, too rhetorically and indeed before he had presented his reasons. Nevertheless I feel that the theory of what he presented is pretty much right and the only question appears to be to what degree you agree with his conclusions.

⬐ AlexC04

I came to say the same thing. I'm at Minute #50 of 90 - but my mind has been blown about six ways from Sunday right now. He's an excellent speaker and this stuff is phenomenally interesting.

It's not just any carbohydrate, it's fructose, if you believe Dr. Robert M. Lustig: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

That explains why mediterranean and asian diets, which are high on carbs but low on sugar (or artificial fructose), don't cause nearly as much obesity.

I've never said that Taubes has all the answers and neither has he. Indeed, on his blog Taubes himself has identified areas where he has a hunch about mechanisms but admits we simply won't know until better research is done.

Throughout this discussion you've made vague assertions about how scientists disagree with Taubes, but never cited specific points where got he facts wrong, only that some scientists don't like his using their data and words to support a conclusion they don't share. You made the bizarre claim that Americans have been eating more fat and that the Atkins diet is a disaster, both without any supporting evidence. I find this unpersuasive.

If the Atkins diet is such a disaster, for example, why is that when some of your "real scientists" conducted the relatively famous ATOZ diet study[1], it showed that the Atkins diet provided roughly twice the weight loss of the Zone, LEARN, and Ornish diets while providing as good or better secondary benefits (e.g. heart disease indicators). I mean, does that sound like "a disaster" to you?

Taubes is hardly alone in crying "foul" over the low-fat, high-carb diet fiasco. Watch Robert Lustig's UCSF talk entitled "Sugar: The Bitter Truth"[2] He'll go into plenty of detail on the biochemistry involved. He starts out, however, by saying his goal is to debunk the last 30 years of nutrition information in America, and I think he makes a damn good case.

The money slide for our discussion appears at 0:09:40 in the talk. It shows, as I alluded to earlier, that the percentage of calories from fat in US adult diets has been steadily declining since the mid-1960s. From the mid-1960s to the mid-1980s, the percentage of prevalence of obesity is pretty stable, maybe ticking up a percent or so. But in 1982 the AHA, AMA, and USDA tell us we should cut our fat intake. Faced with low-fat processed foods that taste like cardboard, the manufacturers try to improve the taste with things like high-fructose corn syrup and guess what happens? In the mid-1980s the incidence of obesity shows a sudden, dramatic increase, doubling from 15% to 30% over the next two decades. Yes, there was a disaster all right, but it had nothing to do with increased fat intake or the Atkins diet.

[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17341711

[2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

⬐ SwellJoe

"Faced with low-fat processed foods that taste like cardboard, the manufacturers try to improve the taste with things like high-fructose corn syrup and guess what happens? In the mid-1980s the incidence of obesity shows a sudden, dramatic increase, doubling from 15% to 30% over the next two decades."

Here's where we can all agree. But, I don't think the "low-fat" foods are the sole culprit. I think all of our processed foods are the culprit. The choices of what to eat are not just "low fat" processed foods or high animal protein fatty foods. We have other options; there's a whole produce section in the grocery and damned near everything in it is healthier for you than a microwaved "low fat" dinner. The processed foods, I believe, are contributing mightily to the weight problem in our society. If you go to the store and buy a bunch of "low carb" processed foods, you'll still get fat, and feel bad.

If people lose weight on Atkins, that is a net positive for their health. Heart disease or complications from diabetes is probably what's going to kill a really fat person. So, if they remove weight as a contributing factor in those problems, they might live past the average lifespan of someone who dies of those diseases. However, there is quite a bit of evidence that diets very high in animal proteins and fats contribute to higher incidence of many kinds of cancer, as well as heart disease.

The thing is, I suspect you and I agree about what people should eat a lot more than we disagree. My problem is with picking one specific macronutrient and calling it the cause of all of our troubles. Because Taubes recommends eating wholes foods most of the time, I think following his recommendations are better for you than Weight Watchers or similar processed food-based diets. But, the science still seems to indicate that there are long-term health consequences to eating large amounts of animal protein and animal fats. I know Taubes has done a lot of hand-waving about the China Study, and the book itself probably does deserve some of the thrashing he gave it; but the actual study is one of the largest and most impressive studies of human diet ever undertaken. I don't think you can simply ignore all that data, and the healthiest populations did generally have quite low intake of animal proteins.

All I'm saying is that the human body is among the most complex systems we study (there are billions of moving parts in the bacterial flora in our digestive system, we have barely a clue how any of that works), and Taubes sometimes has hunches based on correlation that are probably wrong.

"Watch Robert Lustig's UCSF talk entitled "Sugar: The Bitter Truth"[2] He'll go into plenty of detail on the biochemistry involved."

We can both agree on the danger of sugar, as well. Humans have just gotten really good at making foods that have almost no nutrition and loads of energy, and sugar helps. Lustig's treatise is that too much sugar and not enough fiber are key to some of our problems, which doesn't have much overlap with recommending a high protein/high fat diet (his first slide is "What do the Atkins diet and Japanese diet have in common?").

But, if you're including this link as evidence that we understand insulin, I would mention dairy. Dairy causes a tremendous insulinemic response, several times what it's glycemic index indicates it should. And yet, numerous studies have shown that eating dairy can help with weight loss. There are many other areas where insulin doesn't behave in a simplistic way; we don't actually know what insulin does in many circumstances.

One more point about Lustig's video. In the graph of fat intake vs. obesity, he leaves out one very important line: Total caloric intake. I think that's an important omission.

"You made the bizarre claim that Americans have been eating more fat and that the Atkins diet is a disaster, both without any supporting evidence."

Caloric intake is up, as is total fat intake. Only percentage of fat is down, and only by some measures. (http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/FoodReview/DEC2002/frvo...)

I appreciate the positive outlook expressed in these letters, and it's helpful to reflect on progress our society has made in so many areas.

Coca-Cola's performance is striking. In 2011 you can still make a fortune, as Steve Jobs put it, 'selling sugar water to children.'[1] Does Mr Buffett care about, or even consider, the public health and social costs of the success of Coke and its products?[2]

Philip Morris has traditionally had strong financial performance as well. It's safe to say drug dealers can be financially successful. Should we be celebrating that fact?

I admire Mr Buffet's modest, down-to-earth style. He seems proud that his investment in BNSF will promote the greater good. I wish he had that goal for all his investments.

[1] Jobs was referring to Sculley's work at Pepsi, of course. http://www.pbs.org/nerds/part3.html [2] Lustig, Sugar, The Bitter Truth http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

⬐ firebones

Your comment got me thinking. Buffett has pledged 99% of his net worth to charity when he's gone, and has enlisted other wealthy entrepreneurs to follow suit by donating at least 50%. Will that allocation of capital produce greater good than would a lesser amount garnered through investments based not on seeking the best ROI but instead based on furthering the greater good?

Honest questions, and ones that I don't have the answers to: has his contribution to Coca-Cola and Philip Morris as an investor harmed the greater good more than the $44 billion or so of his net worth that will flow to charities? Could entrepreneurs and capitalists create more good with that $44 billion than the Gates Foundation?

⬐ robryan

I don't think the tech companies get off free here though, Apple have reportedly turned a blind eye in the past to conditions in factories producing their products.

Coca-Cola does sell a lot more than their flagship drink though, when it comes to ethics of what you can legally invest in they could do a lot worse.

⬐ xiaoma

Coca Cola's performance is about the brand and the distribution, not the product. They also own and successfully operate much healthier product lines. At this time, they aren't what the market wants for the most part. Most place a higher value on the extremely low cost and good taste of sugary fizzy water. When that changes, whether for cultural, regulatory or other reasons, the Coca-Cola company will still be in an excellent position and possibly make even more money from its healthier products.

Also, as a private consumer, I don't really appreciate attempts to protect me from myself.

It's true that obesity is a growing problem, and it is likely also true that nearly all cases of type II diabetes can be prevented with dietary changes. But, the article repeats the 'reduce saturated fat' meme, which lately has been called into question.

Gary Taubes http://higher-thought.net/complete-notes-to-good-calories-ba...

Robert Lustig http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Cynthia Kenyon http://donmatesz.blogspot.com/2009/12/how-insulin-controls-a...

Nutrition and Vision Research at Tufts (Allen Taylor) http://hnrc.tufts.edu/1192109687036/HNRCA-Page-hnrca2ws_1192...

Kurt Harris http://www.paleonu.com/get-started

Mike Eades http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/

Uffe Ravnskov, "fat and cholesterol are good for you" http://www.ravnskov.nu/cholesterol.htm

LivinLaVidaLowCarb http://www.thelivinlowcarbshow.com/shownotes/

Weston A Price http://www.westonaprice.org/dentistry/289-invisible-toothbru...

William Davis http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/

etc.

⬐ elptacek

Also, Marion Nestle: http://www.foodpolitics.com/

Fructose is actually poison (not in the sense of "you die now", but in the long term alcohol sense) with almost no energy benefit. The high fructose corn syrup and sucrose (50% fructose, 50% glucose) used in most candy are remarkably inefficient sources of energy. The fructose provides practically zero and although the glucose in sucrose is good, there are better sources for it.

For source, watch "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM) and/or look up the research it references.

⬐ maxawaytoolong

What Lustig doesn't mention is that sugar is what your brain runs on. Eating too much sugar is not good for actual marathons but it works great for coding marathons.

⬐ merijnv

Do you have a source for this? As far as I am aware your brain mostly burns glucose like the rest of your body. Admittedly glucose is also a sugar, but in the context of this talk sugar refers to sucrose (i.e. the white stuff you put in tea) which is 50% fructose, 50% glucose. Which would imply that sugar is still inefficient "brain fuel" compared to other carbohydrates like pure glucose. If you have any sources/references showing me wrong about the brain metabolizing fructose I'd be very interested and grateful if you could point me to it.

So what's your excuse for this guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM ? PhD in the relevant field, plus actual field experience. Or the not insignificant number of other people with actual PhDs coming to very similar conclusions? (They may seem superficially different but if you take the time to understand them both Dr. Lustig and Taubes basically have the same points.)

+1 for fructose video. Awesome watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

The reason is that carbs aren't the problem. Fructose is (largely) the problem. Refined grains (and refined sugars made from grains) shock the insulin system by causing a blood sugar spike (which can be especially bad for diabetics), but they don't cause long term effects. Fructose, on the other hand, which is found in ENORMOUS amounts in both HFCS, table sugar, and "fruit sweetened" things (and in small amounts in fresh fruit) causes kidney issues, must largely be metabolized into fat before being burned, puts a load on the liver, increases appetite and more. I've lost and kept off weight with no effort simply by learning some very basic biochem and switching in glucose, dextrose and maltose for fructose and sucrose.

For more informations (and scientific peer reviewed papers that back me up), I'd recommend googling for "fructose metabolism". There is also a great lecture about fructose on youtube called "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

⬐ damncabbage

The more I read about this, the more grateful I am that I live in a country that doesn't use HFCS in so many things.

(Australia, land of locally-grown cane sugar.)

⬐ nova

Cane sugar is 50% fructose too. It's not much better than HFCS.

Probably, the worst thing about HFCS is its cheapness, so they put it on everything.

There are considerations other than insulin response (other parts of liver metabolism):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

I've thought the argument in "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" is very insightful. Viewable at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM. Pointing out that the Atkins diet (no carbs, fat okay) and the Japanese diet (mostly carbs, low fat intake) have in common that they eliminate sugar, the major cause of obesity.

Just watch the sugar and everything else should pretty much be fine.

Very long and very interesting video about the effects of fructose on the human body by a pediatric endocrinologist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

I'm normally not inclined to believe such wacky tales but this seems to have a high science to bullshit ratio.

⬐ danielayele

agreed. fat tends to get a bad rap because processed high sugar foods tend to also be high in fat (or be eaten with high fat foods...see: Mcdonald's french fries and Coca-Cola).

⬐ lurkinggrue

Two weeks ago I gave up all forms of sugary drinks and cut down my calorie intake to under 2000 a day.

It's amazing how much better I feel.

⬐ bincat

Note the latest PR attempt by HFCS manufacturers to re-brand it as Corn Sugar. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100914/ap_on_bi_ge/us_corn_syru... Clever, since if it reads 'sugar' on the label it's easier to be overlooked.

Robert Lustig from University of California San Franciso has a great explanation, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM, that shows all the metabolic pathways that fructose takes and why it is bad for you.

In the anti-sugar video by Donald Lustig, pediatric endocrinologist, that's been posted here a million times, he says HFCS is no worse than sugar - they're both terrible for you in the quantities people consume these days. This makes sense because they're chemically essentially the same thing (sucrose is a disaccharide of glucose and fructose, whereas HFCS is mix of glucose and fructose monosaccharides in proportions that may slightly skew towards fructose or glucose depending on the formulation. The disaccharides of sucrose are broken up in the body anyway, so in the end there's no clinically significant difference. Lustig didn't think the difference was important).

If there's anything misleading going on here, it's that people think that "real" sugar is OK. I guess it'll give you natural diabetes.

Obligatory link to the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

⬐ faboo

There are indeed people who will argue (with varying degrees of vehemence and research/evidence) that high fructose corn syrup is worse for you than sugar. However, some folks, myself included, simply think that high fructose corn syrup tastes (and feels) disgusting.

⬐ jurjenh

I read a book a few years ago called "Pure, white and deadly" by John Yudkin (first published in 1972) that still has an incredible amount of relevant information in it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yudkin

The main issue tends to come down to the mass production of food for consumption, and the market effects / economies of scale that it creates - the input to the digestive system changes rapidly, but the machinery is limited by the rate of human evolution.

⬐ ajslater

An article with accompanying paper link that makes a similar point. With a little epidemiology thrown in to boot: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/straight-ta...

⬐ tzs

The problem with HFCS isn't that it is necessarily worse than other forms of sugar. Rather, the problem is that it is usually an indicator of other problems. It's like Van Halen's famous brown M&Ms.

The band Van Halen had a term in their contracts, buried in the section of technical requirements that specified things like power requirements and structural requirements for the stage and such, that required the venue to provide a bowl of M&Ms for the band, with all the brown M&Ms removed.

This was there not because they had anything against brown M&Ms. Its purpose was to provide a way to see if someone had actually read the technical requirements. When they arrived to set up for a show, they could walk backstage, glance at the bowl of M&Ms, and if they saw brown ones, they invariably found on closer inspection that other requirements had also been ignored--including safety requirements.

Same with HFCS. If you find HFCS in the ingredient list, it is usually a sign you are dealing with a food that has had a lot of processing applied to it to try to "improve" it, or make it cheaper at the expense of nutrition, and so on. A food that has not been processed like that almost never will have HFCS.

⬐ izendejas

Your comment is spot on. The rule of thumb is that if you can't make sense of the ingredients list on back labels (especially if they're extremely long), it's more than likely highly processed junk.

The way I learned it from the nice professor in the video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM) was simply:

fructose = bad, poison

glucose = good

sucrose = fructose + glucose, unsafe because the composition preserves the fructose portion

HFCS = 25% fructose, not as bad as sucrose (IIRC)

Mitigate fructose intake with fiber. apple juice = bad, but apple = good because of the fiber countering the effect of the poison at a higher point in our internal food processing chain.

I noticed you were getting downvotes, and I suspect it is because of the general "Sugar is bad for you" statement, which is -- as far as the studies go -- half correct. The rest of your text makes the distinction, so I hope it is not wholly ignored. HFCS is a scapegoat, as you point out, and it would help if we focused on the one part that is important: fructose is poison. And it can be mitigated with fiber.

But that's just what I learned from some video. One thing that always bugged me: glucose is known commonly as "grape sugar". Do grapes have fructose? Without any fructose added, is grape juice a healthy fruit juice?

⬐ Xurinos

For my learning, aside from my 25% figure being misleading, can anyone explain their disagreement with my comment? Is the video a bad source?

⬐ gte910h

Sucrose in generally shown to be less harmful than HFCS in many tests, which in the alternative show at best it's only as harmful.

Here is one study: We're talking pre-bloodstream, and the mechanism is understood science (everything does this process, it's a widely taught part of biology) It's how everything (bacteria to humans) digests all non single molecule sugars and starch (i.e. sucrose on up).

Here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycoside_hydrolase

It is a non-instantaneous process which is limited by the reaction catalyzed by the enzyme. Some diabetic drugs work off this enzyme by inhibiting it's function (as do some antimicrobial drugs/substances).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acarbose http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miglitol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voglibose

So I'm going to point at the existence of drugs working off this mechanism instead of finding the research that established them.

As GH works off complex carbohydrates and HFCS is a mixtures of simple carbohydrates, it is not slowed by any inhibition of the GH reaction in the stomach.

As my comment said: While this may be difference between drinking a pint of 100 proof alcohol vs a cup of 200 proof (i.e. not much), it may prove significant.

It appears to effect rats differently at least for instance: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi...

⬐ tptacek

Can you cite one human test that shows HFCS to be more harmful than sucrose? Because I'm not going to suggest that the AMA is at all the end-all of medical research (it's clearly not even close), but the AMA says "Because the composition of HFCS and sucrose are so similar, particularly on absorption by the body, it appears unlikely that HFCS contributes more to obesity or other conditions than sucrose.".

⬐ gte910h

Read the full statement. They're just saying "Don't pass laws yet, but keep studying it, preferably in an independent manner":

REPORT 3 OF THE COUNCIL ON SCIENCE AND PUBLIC HEALTH (A-08) The Health Effects of High Fructose Syrup EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Objective: To review the chemical properties and health effects of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) in comparison to other added caloric sweeteners and to evaluate the potential impact of restricting use of fructose-containing sweeteners, including the use of warning labels on foods containing high fructose syrups. Methods: Literature searches for articles published though December 2007 were conducted in the PubMed database and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews using the search terms “high fructose corn syrup” and “high fructose syrup.” Web sites managed by federal and world health agencies, and applicable professional and advocacy organizations, were also reviewed for relevant information. Additional articles were identified by reviewing the reference lists of pertinent publications. Results: HFCS has been increasingly added to foods since its development in the late 1960s. The most commonly used types of HFCS (HFCS-42 and HFCS-55) are similar in composition to sucrose, consisting of roughly equal amounts of fructose and glucose. The primary difference is that these monosaccharides exist free in solution in HFCS, but in disaccharide form in sucrose. The disaccharide sucrose is easily cleaved in the small intestine, so free fructose and glucose are absorbed from both sucrose and HFCS. The advantage to food manufacturers is that the free monosaccharides in HFCS provide better flavor enhancement, stability, freshness, texture, color, pourability, and consistency in foods in comparison to sucrose. Concern about HFCS developed after ecological studies, using per capita estimates of HFCS consumption, found direct correlations between HFCS and obesity. In addition, human and animal studies have found direct associations between fructose and adverse health outcomes. However, the adverse health effects of HFCS, beyond those of other caloric sweeteners, most of which contain fructose, are not well established. Consumption of added caloric sweeteners in general has increased over the last 30 years, as has total calories. Likewise, rates of obesity have risen even in countries where little HFCS is consumed. Only a few small, short-term experimental studies have compared the effects of HFCS to sucrose, and most involved some form of industry support. Epidemiological studies on HFCS and health outcomes are unavailable, beyond ecological studies, because nutrient databases do not contain information on the HFCS content of foods and have only limited data on added sugars in general. Conclusions: Because the composition of HFCS and sucrose are so similar, particularly on absorption by the body, it appears unlikely that HFCS contributes more to obesity or other conditions than sucrose. Nevertheless, few studies have evaluated the potentially differential effect of various sweeteners, particularly as they relate to health conditions such as obesity, which develop over relatively long periods of time. Improved nutrient databases are needed to analyze food consumption in epidemiological studies, as are more strongly designed experimental studies. At the present time, there is insufficient evidence to restrict use of HFCS or other fructose- containing sweeteners in the food supply or to require the use of warning labels on products containing HFCS. RECOMMENDATIONS The following statements, recommended by the Council on Science and Public Health, were adopted by the AMA House of Delegates as AMA directives at the 2008 Annual Meeting: 1. That our American Medical Association (AMA) recognize that at the present time, insufficient evidence exists to specifically restrict use of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) or other fructose- containing sweeteners in the food supply or to require the use of warning labels on products containing HFCS. (Directive) 2. That our AMA encourage independent research (including epidemiological studies) on the health effects of HFCS and other sweeteners, and evaluation of the mechanism of action and relationship between fructose dose and response. (Directive) 3. That our AMA, in concert with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, recommend that consumers limit the amount of added caloric sweeteners in their diet. (Directive)

⬐ gte910h

HFCS comes in varying F/G ratios. HFCS-55 is the most common, which is 55% fructose. The other two common varieties are HFCS-90 and HFCS-42. All HFCS starts at 90 then pure glucose corn syrup is added to dilute it down. HFCS-55 is about as sweet as sugar (unless heated, in which case it it significantly less so).

For a sobering look at the impact of dietary sugar in the American diet (particularly fructose), check out this informative lecture by UCSF Professor Dr. Robert H. Lustig: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

(argues that current U.S. obesity epidemic is largely the result of low-fat, high sugar diet)

⬐ Evgeny

Add to that "Good Calories, Bad Calories" by Gary Taubes and that's a start!

http://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-Bad-Controversial-Scienc...

⬐ sandGorgon

Add to that Jamie Oliver's TED Award acceptance talk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIwrV5e6fMY

⬐ dgallagher

Wow, thanks for all the links! :) I'll put some time aside later this week to watch up on them.

--------------------

When I lost around 100 pounds years ago, I did it on a mountain dew and rice cake diet (not recommended). That introduced calorie restriction, and it worked. After losing weight, it eventually motivated me to find and eventually adopt a diet that was long-term sustainable.

Hopefully the path my father takes is similar. Step #1 isn't always perfect, but it's much easier to take a single step than it is to try and run up a flight of stairs.

A former roommate of mine did the same. He went on an all fruit and vegetable diet, going from around 280 pounds down to about 170. That "beginning" diet wasn't sustainable, but it helped him lose weight through calorie restriction. Now he's a extremely athletic cyclist, and eats a very healthy well-balanced diet. Step #1 wasn't necessarily perfect, but it eventually got him on the right track.

--------------------

A lot of the hard research on refined sugar appears to just be coming into light. It'll likely take several more years/decades before its effects are truly understood. Human nutrition in general is AMAZINGLY complex, as there are so many variables interacting with one another.

I find it's best to question anything anyone says on the internet regarding nutrition. Ensure they cite sources, state their educational background, etc... Even someone who's a Doctor doesn't always know a lot about nutrition. Typically your best sources are people with PHD's in nutrition, active in the field.

Almost everyone on the internet doesn't fall into that category. So when you end up with is a lot of "snake oil" advice mixed in with the good. It's a tough problem that needs a solution: "Verification of the accuracy of online information." It extends well beyond nutrition and fitness. The solver of that problem has the potential to be larger than even Google. :)

⬐ jazzdev

Wow, he claims the American Heart Association's PR campaign for low-fat diets is based on the classic "denying the antecedent" fallacy.

  1. Dietary fat raises LDL (A -> B)
  2. LDL correlated with heart disease (B -> C)
  Faulty conclusion: no A -> no C

I guess you don't have to study Symbolic Logic to get into med school. ;-)

This covers some of that very well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

⬐ tommizzle

Cliff notes?

⬐ count

Due to the way the body processes fructose and glucose, fructose leads more directly to being 'fat', as it's stored as adipose tissue more readily/rapidly than glucose. Fructose, in HFCS and other solutions, is becoming extremely common in food where it did not used to be - this is leading to the huge increase in metabolic syndrome/etc. tl;dr: sugar makes you fat, but different sugars do it at different rates.

This is a good video on the subject on YouTube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

This is an interesting video on Youtube about the subject:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

>bullshit old wifes tales like caffeine leading to dehydration.

[citation please] - I am genuinely curious about the current scientific consensus on that one, as IIRC I have heard the reverse claim in this talk: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM regarding Cola being stuffed with caffeine for both its normal effects and the diuretic side-effect (my memory could be failing me, of course).

Cheers,

⬐ rue

Coffee etc. is still mostly water. One unit of coffee/cola/tea, compared to the same unit of water will A) give you slightly less water up front and B) cause some loss of fluid due to diuretic effect but overall you still gain fluids.

It is by far not the best source of hydration, of course. You are much better off drinking water or (preferrably unsweetened) fruit/vegetable juices - or even just eating said fruit or vegetables. Hypotonic sports drinks have their place too, but not when your exercise consists of walking up to the fridge.

⬐ jodrellblank

Unsweetened fruit juice is still high in sugar comparable to soda levels, and high in fructose which is particularly bad sugar to be high in.

Sugar levels in juice compared to Coca-Cola: http://www.hookedonjuice.com/

Dr Davis' Goodbye Fructose: http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/goodbye-fructose.h...

Dr Robert Lustig's what happens when we eat fructose and why it's bad video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Aside from the hydration, you're probably better off with even sweetened coffee than unsweetened fruit juice.

There is a lot of evidence that sugar is bad for you. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Nassim Taleb says carbs are one of the 3 most dangerous addictions, besides a paycheck and heroin. Obviously some carbohydrate is necessary and good for you but the less the better.

Trader Joe's has these kickass "a complete salad" kits in their refrigerated produce section that I highly recommend. They have great nutritive value, taste great, aren't too expensive, and I feel aMaZiNg hours after eating them.

⬐ lemming

As for carbs, basically they are just complex sugar and don't add a lot nutrition value. Once they break down they will cause insulin spikes... Obviously some carbohydrate is necessary and good for you but the less the better.

Any reference for this? Pretty much everything I read about nutrition says this is total bull.

⬐ zackattack

Before I edited, I originally wrote that my understanding about carbs is a vague intuition developed from listening to body building friends, etc. However, I realize that's not a good source so I deleted that paragraph. My apologies for the confusion.

⬐ starkfist

Nassim Taleb had one obvious idea that he milked for two books. I'm not sure why he's qualified to comment about anything outside of derivatives trading. (or derivatives trading, either, since his funds melted down when he was actively involved with them)

⬐ zackattack

Um, I think Taleb made a fortune in the stock market meltdown, and he's also incredibly well read and intelligent, so I think you don't really know what you're talking about. My guess is that you're reacting based on my comment about sugar and carbs. I am sorry that it is challenging some of your closely held beliefs and sense of reality. To discuss food is a taboo and if this were in person I would have just changed the subject, but you asked for the truth. Watch the UCSF doctor's lecture.

⬐ starkfist

I wonder why you think I haven't seen that video as it's been posted here multiple times and I've commented on it. I was commenting on why I should care about what Nassim Taleb thinks about carbs. He's not a particularly svelte or athletic looking person. It seems like he's getting plenty of carbs.

⬐ zackattack

Hahaha.

⬐ zackattack

-or-

I WAS WRONG

"eat 'good' sugar, i.e. fruit;" -- even that may be contentious. This video on the dangers of fructose was posted not that long ago: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

⬐ zargon

Lustig says fruits are good. It is the artificially added fructose (ie HFCS) that he says is dangerous.

saw the video a few months ago by recommendation from a friend. it is really really good. it has a slow start, but if you can finish the 90 min video, you will learn a lot about eating right and imho it's worth your time.

direct link to video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM&feature=playe...!

Weight lose is super simple, I am down 25kg since Jan 2010 following the primal blueprint guidelines: http://www.marksdailyapple.com

No gimmicks, no hours of pounding the pavement, no stupid exercise machines, no processed crap food, just eat the right healthy and natural foods and your body will naturally drop down to the right body fat percentage. Plus I can eat heaps of bacon and steak and not feel guilty about it anymore.

This video is fantastic, well worth the 90 minutes to watch it, explains in detail what happens to carbs in your body: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM&feature=playe...

This is a fantastic movie also, highly recommend you get a copy: http://www.fathead-movie.com

A few months ago, I thought that sugar was glucose, and therefore good for the brain. On that basis I would drink two liters of Coke a day for the brainpower. Then, while on this forum, someone posted a link to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM (Sugar, the Bitter Truth), which let me know that sugar is not pure glucose.

I resolved to find glucose, and I eventually did. I had to go to one of the more industrial neighborhoods in Santiago (I live in Chile) to find it, and after a few trips there I had myself a 55 lb sack of dextrose mono-hydrate, which dissolves in water to form pure glucose.

Now I mix it with water for 250 calories of food for thought per glass or put it in half-liter plastic bottles to drink at school. It's amazing stuff, it's 100% healthy, and it's great for working at hard problems.

⬐ csmeder

Really? Does any one have some scientific references to back up this claim? Is this something people are doing a lot of? I'm not being negative, I just have never heard of this.

⬐ ahk

Sorry, but that's just extreme foolishness. Glucose makes sense if you're at the Olympics starting a 100m sprint (to win enough money so that you don't need to be that foolish again). Any other time, it's like you're sadistically kicking your pancreas everyday or defibrillating your heart everyday. You are on route to early disability (including blindness/fractures/loss of limbs) and an early grave due to multiple organ failures.

You'd better be hoping science comes through with cheap organ replacement/re-growth therapies soon and that you are rich enough to afford them. In the meantime, you could try common-sense or even some education.

⬐ dmm

Your liver will happily produce all of the glucose your nervous system needs.

⬐ OrangeGuutan

Until it runs out of glycogen and turns to beta-oxidation...

On the plus side, you'll be really sensitive to insulin when you do get some carbs into your system again :) And hey, I just read an article that said lowering insulin levels is the key to the longevity gains resulting from caloric restriction.

⬐ fbru02

As I'm a beginner in this I can't really detect sarcasm in this topic. So basically does the liver produce enough amount of glucose? and depriving the body of glucose is that good or dangerous??

⬐ SapphireSun

The liver stores long chains of biologically intert glucose in glycogen macromolecules located within hepatocytes. When the body requires more energy, the chains are cleaved and the glucose released into the blood stream. Glucose is essential for life, providing energy for all cellular activities through its conversion to ATP in the citric acid/Krebs/TCA cycle.

Reducing your caloric intake won't kill you and it has been shown in rats that it might even be good for you. Your liver only stores glucose, it doesn't create it (That would violate conservation of energy!).

This thread is talking about artifically spiking your blood suger which will rape your pancreas and eventually lead to diabetes. I wouldn't do it if I were you, but I might consider eating more vegetables and low calorie foods :-)

⬐ dmm

Fats are an excellent energy source that do not increase blood sugar levels.

⬐ MWinther

Isn't this healthy by the same rationale that fat is unhealthy? Assuming that glucose intake is good because it's what the body transports around as energy (I assume that's the basis on which one would call glucose 100% healthy) sounds a lot like saying eating fat makes you fat. Which, incidentally, the article we're commenting on seems to be refuting.

⬐ jseifer

Just drink some organic orange juice. It's way better for you.

⬐ ramchip

It's certainly better than inorganic orange juice ;)

⬐ None

None

⬐ petercooper

And get a sensual massage.

⬐ euccastro

Better yet, eat the oranges.

⬐ rjurney

I really, really dig how you think :)

⬐ gojomo

Though glucose is better than fructose, there's still enough credible concern out there about spiking glucose levels and insulin issues that your self-treatment may not be the boon you think it is.

In any case, a lot of formed and powedered candies are almost pure 'dextrose' -- so you don't need to go to industrial suppliers. Just grab some Sweetarts/Lik-M-Aid/PixieStix. (No corn syrup is listed on the ingredients of these, but sometimes 'maltose' is. It's two joined glucose molecules, but I don't know if it splits cleanly to that and only that in the body.)

⬐ rjurney

I really, really dig how you think :)

⬐ carbocation

Step 2 in glycolysis is to convert glucose to fructose. Indeed, you can pretty easily interconvert between all of the monosaccharides.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that your pure glucose is "100% healthy." If anything, glucose is less sweet than fructose, so fructose may compel higher food intake. But if you can religiously dole out 250 kcal of glucose, doing the same with 250kcal of fructose would be nearly biochemically equivalent.

⬐ jodrellblank

If you watch the video linked in the parent post, it claims/explains that doing the same with fructose would not be equivalent.

⬐ carbocation

If you carefully read my post, where I emphasize that you restrict yourself to 250kcal of either, I think you'll find that we're all in agreement.

The video explains why fructose drives you to eat more (namely, it doesn't fulfill the hormonal role that glucose does). It also states that fructose is more likely to form advanced glycation endproducts, but this is far less important than the hormonal differences.

So from all practical viewpoints, I agree with you. Fructose is way worse! From the most limited perspective (basically, lock someone up and feed them 250kcal of glucose vs 250kcal fructose and don't let them have additional food), they will be very similar.

⬐ daniel-cussen

Step 2 in glycolysis turns glucose 6-phosphate into fructose 6-phosphate. And I'm not convinced that every glucose molecule undergoes glycolysis. According to the MD in the video (minute 45 or so), 80% of glucose gets turned to CO2 and water by the organs in the body before the rest of the glucose even makes it to the liver, where eventually, ~.4% of it turns into VLDL (which is bad for you). You only need a bit of pyruvate (the end product of glycolysis) to get the Krebs cycle going, and then that takes care of the glucose, turning it into CO2 and water, without turning it into fructose in the process. And at no point is there any native fructose involved. And besides, in the video, it says fructose can't be metabolized by the brain.

I'd also like to point out I'm not drinking a shitload of this stuff all at once. The reason I avoid this is to avoid an insulin spike, which would, without question, defeat the purpose of using dextrose.

⬐ carbocation

While correct in some details, yours is an incorrect description of the bigger picture of glucose catabolism. Pyruvate is consumed the TCA (Krebs) cycle, so to say that you only need a "little" is like saying you only need a "little" gas to run your car. Your car runs on gas, consuming it. The Krebs cycle runs on pyruvate, consuming it.

Glucose gets broken down into pyruvate via glycolysis, which is by far the primary way in which you generate pyruvate. This process generates a bit of energy, but the vast majority of ATP is generated during the Krebs cycle, which is where glucose metabolites (namely, pyruvate) get oxidized into CO2 and H20.

To respond more directly to your point: if 80% of glucose is immediately metabolized to CO2 and H20 (I don't recall but I'll take your word), that means that 80% of glucose enters the body, undergoes glycolysis, and then enters the TCA cycle. This means that 80% of the glucose in your body is quickly converted into fructose (yes, F6P). You could easily make this into a pure fructose molecule with a phosphatase (though this doesn't happen in vivo). The upside is that phosphorylated sugars cannot be transported by facilitated diffusion, so F6P will remain intracellular.

Once again linking to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Lustig argues that fructose/HFC/everything-not-glucose messes with our internal sensors to determine whether we've got enough or if we still need a tad more power. As a result we eat too much.

Edit: Aw, hit reply instead of making my own post.

⬐ RiderOfGiraffes

There's still time - you can copy your comment, delete, and re-insert as a new comment. If you know how to edit, you should know how to do that.

⬐ matwood

Here is a good back and forth with Lustig and why his science could be suspect.

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-ab...

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/02/19/a-retrospective-of-...

There is no secret why people are fat. People are doing less exercise wise and eating more crap food wise. Trying to blame it on one trigger such as HFCS is clearly ignoring the big picture.

Is it Sugar - The Bitter Truth: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM ?

⬐ abstractbill

That's it, thanks.

Good news! During the 90 minute video you will burn 100 calories, which is right at one serving of Captain Crunch, if you eat it without milk.

The video is also on youtube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM if you have a better youtube player than their little flash thinger.

⬐ sailormoon

Yeah well, I like linking to original sources.

Sugar, Glucose, and High Fructose Corn Syrup is pumped into everything that Americans eat, nearly all drinks, nearly all Breads and Snacks, chips, and fast-food is chock full of it. Go check your fridge and pantry if you don't believe me. America has the highest percentage of obese people on Earth because of these sweet sweet chemicals. It's killing us.

But don't believe it because I said it, take it from an MD: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Double up on your fruits and vegetables, apples, pears, carrots, oranges, spinach, bell peppers, bananas, potatoes, unsalted nuts, things with high fiber, and everything else that comes from a plant or tree.

Cut in half any food that contains a significant percentage of Sugars, Sucrose, Glucose, Fructose, or Corn Syrups. That paunch under your belly button will thank you.

⬐ invisible

If your message were merely about sugars, you probably wouldn't be advocating bananas, apples, and pears. They have a decent chunk of sugar in them.

For example, my Trix has 13g of sugar [1] and an apple (small) has 13g [2]. The calories do sway in the apple's favor, but there are fewer vitamins in an apple. Does this mean Trix are healthier? No (see the sodium and carbs), but it also doesn't mean they will be the death of me if I exercise and don't eat 5000 calories worth.

1) http://caloriecount.about.com/calories-trix-i116032

2) http://caloriecount.about.com/calories-apples-i9003

UCSF's Dr. Lustig disagrees with that assessment. According to him, the fiber in fruit counteracts the negative effects of the fructose: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

⬐ paulbaumgart

A more scientific assessment of a a few different types of fruits is here: http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-ab...

This is further confirmation of a well-known phenomenon.

If you want to watch a long presentation on what's going on, check this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Short version: Fructose is metabolized by your liver, results in a lot of nasty byproducts, your liver stores the excess energy as fat, etc.

⬐ nas

That doesn't explain why HFCS should be worse that sucrose. It contains about the same about of fructose and according to Dr. Lustig the bound is very easy for the body to break.

Regarding "The Bitter Truth", it's amazing to me that the fact that fructose is processed by the liver is not widely known. How could the medical community not know this for so long?

⬐ gte910h

Table sugar is sucrose.

First off to turn sucrose into its component molecules, it must first undergo a reaction with a sucrase enzyme. So there is at least one metabolic step left out there. Studies are being done to test if Sucrase is actively regulated by the body or not. In either case, this metabolic step must occur, and can only occur so fast (limited by the amount of sucrase in your body), no matter how much sucrose you ingest. This means slower absorption of sucrose over HFCS as you get this with the whole load of glucose in HFCS instantly, but only see the sucrose's glucose released over time.

Secondly, fructose has many forms. In sucrose, the fructose is often of the fructose-5 variety. In HFCS, it completely depends on the application, as any heat applied to a fructose-5 molecule upon separation from the glucose turns it into fructose-6.

Fructose-6 is notably less sweet than Sucrose This means when used in heat processed goods, you use quite a bit more HFCS (including all baked goods, etc) then the equivalent amount of sucrose. This means more calories.

Secondly, there are all different kids of HFCS. Notably, there is one with 38% less fructose than sucrose (HFCS 42), one with 22% more fructose than sucrose (HFCS 55) and one with 800% more fructose than table sugar (HFCS 90, often seen in diet foods I might add). They are all used for differing applications, but HFCS is not a single product, and most of the forms are likely metabolically worse in any amount of a single dose than the equivalent sweetness worth of sucrose. It is important you calculate your fractions correctly when realizing the differing amounts of fructose, as they're larger then they appear at first.

One could say a steak and the meal in your small intestines are "about the same thing" but I doubt you'd want to eat it then, and you'd be as accurate as saying table sugar is basically HFCS 55

(all percentages are in terms of "per molecule of glucose", which is what appears to be important as per the evolving science of satiation)

From the article:

"First, sucrose is composed of equal amounts of the two simple sugars -- it is 50 percent fructose and 50 percent glucose -- but the typical high-fructose corn syrup used in this study features a slightly imbalanced ratio, containing 55 percent fructose and 42 percent glucose. Larger sugar molecules called higher saccharides make up the remaining 3 percent of the sweetener. Second, as a result of the manufacturing process for high-fructose corn syrup, the fructose molecules in the sweetener are free and unbound, ready for absorption and utilization. In contrast, every fructose molecule in sucrose that comes from cane sugar or beet sugar is bound to a corresponding glucose molecule and must go through an extra metabolic step before it can be utilized."

I highly recommend watching "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" for information on the biochemistry of the metabolism of fructose and glucose.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

There is an additional subtlety that may interest hackers. It is actually if calories metabolized by the body == calories burned. Calories are mostly fungible, but they are processed differently (by the liver or by the cells themselves, for instance) and this has drastic effects on metabolic health. For instance, fructose is processed by the liver and does not trigger the satiety hormones as easily as glucose. So, while the total amount of energy available is the same for calorically similar amounts of fructose and glucose, the impact on fat storage and hunger is different.

For more about the biochemistry of metabolism see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Yes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Fructose in general (sugar and HFCS) is poison - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

⬐ pyre

According to Wikipedia, most HFCS in use is 55/45 fructose-glucose, so it's slightly worse than sucrose (sugar) which is 50/50 fructose-glucose.

{update} I guess it's worth mentioning also that that YouTube video was already posted to HN in December sometime.

Not total rubbish and calories aren't calories.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Fructose, sucrose, ethanol, metabolised differently to glucose and via pathways which cause increased energy storage as fat, decreased ability to sense fullness and stop eating, decreased ability to release energy from fat and use it, and more unpleasant byproducts.

You eat the wrong things, hence you don't feel full as you should, hence you eat too much, hence a belly. (Maybe).

According to "Sugar: The Bitter Truth", a YouTube video previously featured on HN (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM), low-fat diets were mainly a result of a key and influential study that failed to eliminate confounding: the diet it looked at did increase cholesterol and was high-fat, but it was also high in grains/sugar.

There was a good lecture titled Sugar: The Bitter Truth by Robert Lustig, a professor at UCSF, where he argues that HFCS is poisonous. What I found most interesting was that although HFCS is a sugar, it supposedly is primarily metabolized to fat. It seems pretty easy to then link low-income, food insecure (hungry) people with obesity.

The video is worth watching: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

⬐ Raphael

He said fructose is poison. Sucrose is just as hazardous; it's just that HFCS happens to be pumped into everything.

You're not doing your body, and by extension your mind, any favors by drinking 5 cokes every day.

Here's a video titled Sugar: The Bitter Truth that explains why: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

⬐ daniel-cussen

Thanks for that. I'll try to find a glucose-based drink now (if possible).

Sugar is just as bad as HFCS, according to this video lecture that came across HN:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

It also asserts that pretty much any juice is not a good idea because you're losing the fiber that helps your body deal with the fructose. I need to learn more about it though.

⬐ pedalpete

Well, lots of things are bad for you, but taken in moderation. I don't have 1.5 hours to sit through the video.

I just checked out the juice/smoothies I have, and was VERY surprised to see that you are correct, they have 0 fiber. Just goes to show that their really is no substitute for the real thing.

They aren't very different. Fructose is fruit sugar. Pediatric endocrinologist Robert Lustig says that juice is no better than sodas.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

⬐ tptacek

That same video says fructose is very different from other sugars; like alcohol without the buzz.

"Robert H. Lustig, MD, UCSF Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology, explores the damage caused by sugary foods. He argues that fructose (too much) and fiber (not enough) appear to be cornerstones of the obesity epidemic through their effects on insulin. Series: UCSF Mini Medical School for the Public": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

⬐ natrius

If you've watched the video then you know this already, but for those who haven't: For most intents and purposes, HFCS is biologically identical to table sugar, except it tastes a little sweeter. Sucrose (table sugar) is a glucose molecule bonded to a fructose molecule. HFCS is roughly half fructose as well. The problem is overconsumption of sugar and consumption of sugar unaccompanied by fiber. Watch the video.

⬐ jerf

Yup, I figured I'd just let the video speak for itself. It doesn't support the idea that HFCS is especially evil in the way that, say, transfats are, but it's still bad enough for you that the presenter is willing to call it a "poison", and he backs that up reasonably well even if you aren't quite willing to go that far.

⬐ lena

But it is important to note the presenter calls normal sugar a poison as well because they're both high in fructose and devoid of nutrients.

The Atkin's theory, which I believe has been largely substantiated, is that carbohydrates (sugar, HFCS) do not satisfy hunger, they tend to trigger hunger.

John cut out the sugar and his hunger dropped. FWIIW, my experience was the same and there are many others who echo this.

See "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" (UCSF lecture) which goes into detail on the metabolism of carbohydrates, especially HFCS http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM and discussed on HN: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1006980

One of many references: http://heartdisease.about.com/cs/riskfactors/a/lofatlocarb_2...

⬐ TrevorJ

Amazing lecture on sugar, I highly highly recommend it.

⬐ kingkongreveng_

You have to say specifically "carbohydrate" and not single out sugar. People try to make this false distinction between "complex" and simple carbohydrates and sugar. ANY starch is broken down rapidly in the small intestine and absorbed as sugar.

⬐ gruseom

ANY starch is broken down rapidly in the small intestine and absorbed as sugar.

That may be an oversimplification. Lustig, in the lecture mentioned by the GP, shows that there are big differences between how the body metabolizes glucose and fructose. If these differences are significant enough (Lustig's thesis is that they are), then it isn't a "false distinction" to single out sugar/HFCS from other carbohydrates.

⬐ kingkongreveng_

He's talking about the uniquely hepatoxic properties of fructose vis-a-vis other sugars. I'm talking about the metabolism damaging insulin responses triggered by all carbohydrates, regardless of whether it's a piece of whole grain bread or a spoonful of honey (fructose).

⬐ rms

Yes, I understand a lot of the science behind hunger. For most failed dieters, it is not enough. Even reduced hunger is too much to overcome for most people that want to lose weight.

People still need some psychological willpower to overcome the urge the eat food, and how to increase that willpower is mostly never explained.

If you want some peer-reviewed background on why it's smart to cut out sugar and the foods to which it's added by manufacturers, do take a look at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM This is one of the best nutritional videos I've ever seen. There's a chunk of biochemistry in the middle but it's worth watching to the end! Don't miss it and add years to your life.

⬐ cwan

I'd also add this one by Gary Taubes doing a lecture at the Stevens Institute of Technology "Big Fat Lies": http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4362041487661765149#

The title is horrible. This should be called "How a diet rich in fructose makes us fat, poisons us slowly, and wastes billions of dollars on health care for self-inflicted chronic diseases, and what you can do about it NOW.

Here's a brief summary of the salient points:

1) Consumption of fructose, sucrose (which is a glucose-fructose disaccharide), or alcohol (ethanol is metabolized by the same pathway as fructose) should be extremely limited. That includes HFCS and most fruit juices.

Why? Because the way your body metabolizes fructose, eating a lot of it results in insulin resistance (type II diabetes), hypertension (high blood pressure), high triglycerides, high LDL cholesterol (the bad kind), and weight gain due to inability to self-regulate hunger. The combination of these effects is known as Metabolic Syndrome.

There are two notable exception to this fructose prohibition: 1) it's ok to eat as long as it's in fruit because there's not much of it and it comes with lots of fiber, which makes it even more OK, and 2) if you're in the middle of (or have just completed) some seriously epic exercise and your are glycogen-depleted, fructose actually helps you restore glycogen much faster than regular carbs. See: Gatorade.

2) Do eat "food" as Michael Pollan would say. The closer to it coming out of the ground, the better. Google "paleolithic diet".

3) His research shows that you can begin reversing Type-2 Diabetes in a short number of weeks by eating an appropriate diet.

4) His research shows that the #1 factor causing most diets to fail is cheating on fructose consumption (even worse than cheating on exercise!).

4) Exercise is good for you, but not primarily due to calorie burning. It barely burns any calories relative to food intake. It's good for you because it reduces stress and helps your body maintain a "fast metabolism" on an ongoing basis.

5) Fructose is a major part of our food supply due to politics. It will take a while before the corruption that propagates the problem is broker. Thus, don't trust the government on this one.

The full video is an amazing presentation by a talented presenter. It is worth watching the full thing especially if you struggle with obesity or don't understand how the body metabolizes food.

The lecture is by a MD and/or PHD talking to a bunch of MDs and PHDs, so it's pretty high level. He covers a lot of biochemistry, but in a way that is pretty accessible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Here it is, all in one long (90 minute) video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

⬐ pg

I highly recommend watching this.

⬐ rarrrrrr

The natural health community has been screaming this for decades. Few take heed.

My family has spent many years studying human health. The well-researched conclusions are so far from mainstream American beliefs that the ignorant dismiss them as absurd.

I'll get down voted, but in the interest of countering groupthink, here are some examples anyway:

- Food basics: Avoid hydrogenated oils, sodium nitrite, MSG/yeast extract, artificial colors, high fructose corn syrup, all artificial sweeteners, all grains that aren't whole. Replace sugar with agave nectar or stevia. Know the smoke points for the cooking oils you use an don't exceed them.

- Any multivitamin which packages B12 solely as "cyanocobalamin" is cheaply manufactured. Quality vitamins package hydroxocobalamin. You'll probably have to look online or at health food stores to find good quality vitamins. Many of the options sold at pharmacies are little better than candy.

- As much as 60% of Americans are deficient in vitamin D. The body makes it in response to skin exposure to direct sunlight (not through glass.) Sufficient vitamin D reduces risk of nearly all cancers by around 70%. Why isn't the American Cancer Society screaming this message?

- A cup of blueberries a day is more effective at reducing cholesterol than current pharmaceuticals. Tastes better, too.

- Eating refined carbohydrates depletes the supply of B vitamins. For women, this contributes to the discomfort of menstruation.

- A number of plants have strong cancer prevention or anticancer properties. Examples: turmeric with black pepper, maca root, garlic.

...a few thousand more little details.

⬐ hachiya

Mostly good points. I think some comments are necessary on a few though:

Agave nectar and stevia as sugar substitutes are also not without controversy. I find it easiest to get my sugar from whole, ripe, and fresh fruit. Once sufficient fruits are eaten on a regular basis, the desire for refined sugary products disappears.

Stevia: Potential problems, including cancer, reproductive issues, and interference with energy metabolishm: This article is a good start: http://www.cspinet.org/nah/4_00/stevia.html

Remmeber, stevia is an herb. Treating an herb as a food, i.e. the amount used in order to function as a replacement for sugar, is not necessarily a wise idea. Would you use ginkgo balboa or St. John's Wort as a food? Also, most people don't use actual stevia leaves, so it is still a refined product. Moving from refined sugar cane to refined herbs is not necessarily a good move. Developing a taste preference for whole fresh fruits over refined sugar products would serve our interests far better in the long run.

Agave nectar/syrup: this one certainly has a lot of hype behind it, but mostly it appears to be marketing tactics. Just think about the fact that excess fructose can raise general risk markers (triglycerides and VLDL) and has been linked to increased risk for insulin resistance, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease.

High fructose corn syrup is 55% fructose.

Agave syrup is 70-90% fructose.

So if you think too much fructose is bad, you must think HFCS is better than agave syrup.

Lastly, the recommendation for cyanocobalamin to be shunned in favor of hydroxy seems a bit off. The known highest active form of B12 for humans is methylcobalamin. Hydroxy is more efficiently converted than cyano, but methyl has the general current consensus, in the medical research world, of being best. Fortunately, B12 supplements of the methyl form are easily obtainable (e.g. Jarrow is a brand with 1000 and 5000 mcg sublinguals cheaply available, and there are a number of other brands). I've never even heard of a hydroxycobalamin tablet - only that it is the standard form used for shots in some countries. It is important to realize that most US and European doctors are still behind the times and administer cyanocobalamin (in some European countries, hydroxy is used, but this is still not as preferable as methylcobalamin) for B12 shots when a patient is found to have a problem with B12 levels. However, shots are almost never needed anyway, as the diffusion process of sublingual tablets is so great that they are just as effective as shots.

⬐ JulianMorrison

You do realize that agave nectar is basically pure fructose, right?

Also, MSG has been unfairly accused. Wikipedia says "a statistical association has not been demonstrated under controlled conditions, even in studies with people who were convinced that they were sensitive to it".

⬐ rarrrrrr

Please see my reply below.

⬐ hachiya

A natural form of MSG is found in one popular variety of edible seaweed: kombu.

Interestingly, some canned beans, e.g. Eden Organic (unsalted), come with kombu in the can.

All the debate over things like artificial/alternatives sweeteners and MSG seem like a severe case of not seeing the forest for the trees. The issue of which sweetener to use is not so big as how much of any of the sweeteners. And for those who eat a diet of only whole foods, the answer is even easier: none.

The controversy over issues like these has the general public all worried about things they don't need to worry about so much, instead of being concerned about things they really should be, e.g. what foods make up the diet and their nutrient density. Worrying about MSG in my junk food, organic vs. conventional pizza, or HFCS vs. cane sugar soda, is not likely to have much benefit if these items make a regular appearance in my diet.

⬐ JulianMorrison

Glutamates are in Kombu, soy sauce, Parmesan, Marmite, peas...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glutamic_acid_(flavor)#Sources

⬐ voidpointer

Why on earth would you recommend Agave syrup as a sweetener when it has an even higher fructose/glucose ratio than the dreaded HFCS? There are sweeteners that are 100% glucose including plain old corn syrup but also other nice alternatives (maple syrup etc...) or even refined dextrose...

⬐ m_eiman

As much as 60% of Americans are deficient in vitamin D

Unlike many other vitamins, it's also very hard to overdose on D. Taking too much of some of the others is worse than not taking any at all, but with D that's not a problem.

⬐ None

None

⬐ pyre

IIRC, it's the same with Vitamin C since it's water soluble (i.e. excess escapes through your urine). Just note that -- like everything -- it is possible to overdose, so don't down a whole bottle of Vitamin C/D pills in a single go. It's just in these cases your body can readily deal with excess (as long as it's not too much excess).

⬐ camccann

It'd take more than just a bottle of vitamin C pills, I think--it's one of the least toxic substances known. The LD50 on vitamin C is probably about two pounds of pure vitamin for an average adult.

It's probably easier (and certainly more common) to overdose on water.

⬐ hachiya

Vitamin D is a fat soluble vitamin, like Vitamins A, E, and K. It does accumulate in the fat tissue. An excess of Vitamin D is not simply disposed of in the urine, like Vitamin C or the B-complex.

Interestingly, although it is now evident that Vitamin D insufficiency and deficiency is higher in the general population than previously realized, it is often worse in those with higher levels of fat in the body.

  "CONCLUSIONS: Obesity-associated vitamin D insufficiency is likely due to the decreased bioavailability of vitamin D(3) from cutaneous and dietary sources because of its deposition in body fat compartments."

above from Am J Clin Nutr. 2000 Sep;72(3):690-3. Decreased bioavailability of vitamin D in obesity.

Vitamin D toxemia can occur. One of the more common symptoms is nausea, and if the toxemia persists, calcification of soft tissue and formation of kidney stones can result. Vitamin D is needed for proper intestinal absorption of calcium, so excess Vitamin D can throw off proper mineral balances in the body.

Likelihood of toxemia is rare for Vitamin D, however.

Consider that a healthy individual can obtain 10,000 IU or more of Vitamin D produced by their own skin from being exposed to the sun for 20 to 30 minutes. The amount of Vitamin D in a standard multivitamin supplement is rarely more than the current US RDA, which is only 400 IU. So even people taking higher dose Vitamin D supplements of, say 5000 IU, are not really mega-dosing/"going Linus Pauling" with their Vit. D.

Also, that current RDA of 400 IU is now considered by many scientists and health professionals to be too low. It may simply be the minimum amount needed to prevent rickets (known in adults as osteomalacia). Now it is known that it is needed for more than just bone development and maintenance, as Vitamin D receptors have been found throughout the body; some reports say virtually everywhere.

Reading through the information at http://vitamindcouncil.org , it appears that to achieve what is now considered an optimal Vitamin D level in the body, people generally need more sun and/or supplementation.

In the news within the last year or so, a study reported that even 50% of Hawaiians were low in Vitamin D. In modern society, I guess that walking from the car to the office daily just doesn't cut it for sun exposure ;)

⬐ khafra

> ...a healthy individual can obtain 10,000 IU or more of Vitamin D produced by their own skin from being exposed to the sun for 20 to 30 minutes.

It seems like that 10,000IU/.5hr dose would be surface-area dependent. Are the face, hands, and maybe forearms sufficient? Or does that number depend on, erm... _all_ of the skin being exposed?

⬐ fauigerzigerk

I read somewhere that 15 minutes direct sun exposure per day in a t-shirt between 11 AM and 3 PM is sufficient. Obviously that has to depend on the latitude of your location so I'm not sure how accurate or meaningful it is. And it does depend on the color of your skin. The darker your skin the more sun you need to get the same amount of vitamin D.

⬐ rarrrrrr

Some quick answers to several of the questions posed in responses (I will try to spend more time in this thread later today):

The expense of good quality food -- agreed wholeheartedly. It's one of the many reasons for solving (as PG says) "the money problem." There are also policy changes we could make -- subsidizing fresh produce instead of corn and sugar would help.

Organic food is prohibitively expensive to many, and contributes to class divide. There's also some ethical argument regarding whether a class division across food should exist at all. Is it appropriate for the wealthy to create a separate variety of more healthful food which only they can afford? Having done so, what incentive do they have to improve the food supply generally? In the US, the demand for organic food has always exceeded supply.

Regarding the healthfulness of MSG, please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excitotoxicity

Regarding the suitableness of agave nectar as a sweetener: Yes, it's fructose, but not all fructose containing substances are the same. Agave has the useful quality of being very low glycemic -- lower than a peanut. This means it's absorbed slowly over hours instead of minutes like refined sugar. As a result, it avoids causing insulin spikes and blood glucose instability.

However, ideally health conscious people will become accustomed to less sweet foods over time. I think eventually tastes recalibrate. Personally, I now find broccoli and cashews to be very sweet, but I didn't years ago when I used to frequently eat sugar.

Regarding nitrites -- their safety is mostly argued by the meat packing industry (no surprise.) For (one of many) authoritative references, see the World Cancer Research Fund's report: "Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity and the Prevention of Cancer: a Global Perspective" (2007). http://www.dietandcancerreport.org/

Artificial colors -- Take note of the history of colors approved by the FDA. We've spent decades approving substances and then later finding significant problems with them. I'm not ready to trust the current batch, and evidence against them is accumulating. Ironically, some of the safest color adding substances right now are made from ground insects! http://www.snopes.com/food/ingredient/bugjuice.asp

⬐ pg

Actually none of those suggestions seem crazy, as far as I can tell.

⬐ fauigerzigerk

"Sufficient vitamin D reduces risk of nearly all cancers by around 70%"

That sounds too good to be true.

⬐ GrandMasterBirt

A simple but effective message.

If only this information was easy to come by. Most people don't have time to look into the nitty gritty details of the foods they eat.

In reality like comp programs before we optimize on details, let's solve the biggest problems we have then when those are solved we can focus on little details here and there.

Don't drink soda/juice, Eat blueberries and fruits instread of candy/cookies. Would that not significantly improve most people's health by itself?

⬐ pyre

> Don't drink soda/juice

Juice in what form though? Whenever I buy fruit juices I avoid the ones that add sugar/HFCS in addition to the fruit juice. Does drinking orange juice with lots of pulp give you the added fiber to counter-act the fructose?

I always wonder when people mention 'juice' because the vast majority of the juices that you find in a supermarket are loaded with sugar on top of the juice itself (which may be 'from concentrate'). I always avoid these like the plague.

⬐ rheimbuch

In the presentation (45:00) he walks through the metabolism of 120 calories of glucose (from white bread), alcohol (a shot), and fructose (orange juice). Not pretty.

Doing a quick lookup in the dietary app on my phone says that 8oz of orange juice (from concentrate, with pulp) has 28g of sugar and 0g of fiber. Meanwhile a cup of raw orange (peeled) has 17g of sugar and 4g of fiber.

Based on the presenter's description of the ratio of fiber to fructose in raw fruit, I'm starting to wonder if ANY commercial juice could provide enough fiber to counter-act the fructose. I guess you could add a fiber mix or something to the juice to match the fiber/sugar ratio of the raw fruit. I personally hate the taste/flavor/texture of mixin fiber and would rather just eat the fruit.

PS. Just saw kingkongreveng_'s comment about modern fruit being bred to contain more fructose than in the past (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1008261). In that case the juice is even worse than my comparison makes it look because the sugar content of modern fruit would skew the baseline upwards.

⬐ pyre

So would the occasional glass of orange juice actually be worse than the occasional can of soda? If the orange juice is mostly fructose, wouldn't the soda with 50/50 glucose-fructose be better (seeing as it at least has glucose in it)?

Also, I would think that the pulp contributes fiber, no? That's why I added 'with pulp' (in addition to the fact that I like my orange juice heavy on the pulp).

⬐ whimsy

>So would the occasional glass of orange juice actually be worse than the occasional can of soda?

I don't think so - didn't he say orange juice is filled with sucrose? Sucrose is 50-50 glucose-fructose, unless I misinterpreted that part of the video. HFCS, as I recall, is 55-45.

⬐ azanar

Awesome. Thanks for posting this.

But I do have a question regarding a couple of the items on your list:

===

1. Sodium Nitrite.

Through carelessness, it can result in the production of carcinogens; in large quantities this can cause cancer, but the AMA states that there have been no cases of food consumption induced cases of methemoglobinemia -- most of the cases have been due to contaminated water or accidental overusage in food. It has has been linked to migraines with those already showing a tendency. There is also a possible link between COPD and this substance, but the question is still largely unresolved. So there are risks, but only under particular circumstances. And, evidently, there are some things it treats effectively. It's worth being cautious about, perhaps, but not necessarily phobic of. Is there some other risk I am missing here? What is the additional cost involved of eliminating sodium nitrite? Is it worth it, considering that it prevents the growth of some really toxic bacteria?

2. Artificial colors (and some flavors, maybe?).

There is some suspicion that some of these colors might result in an increased instance of ADHD. Is the data reliable? What about the studies that suggest no correlation? Ask I asked in question 1, what are the additional costs of eliminating these? Since we may not color otherwise -- it is just aesthetic, after all -- what are the potential cost savings? Are they worth it? Any other risks I am missing? Same questions.

3. MSG.

Same concern as NaNO2 about migranes, and a possible link to obesity. Both of these appear inconclusive. Same questions as NaNO2.

===

There are a few other things I need to research more before I can asked good questions about them. And some of your advice I have no questions about; I'm already aware it is good advice. :-)

I'm not asking these just to be deliberately provocative; I think they are important questions to ask. A rambling train of thought on why I decided to ask them:

The people I know who really obsess about what is in their diet are, on average, the most unhappy, neurotic people I could imagine meeting. They spend much of their time avoiding disease and increasing longevity at the expense of enjoying life and not worrying so much.

Sure, they could just punt, and buy everything at the most natural store they can find, but that is really expensive.

To account for that added expense, they now have to find work that pays better, which for many people means compromising on a number of other intangible factors. These can play havoc on a person's frame of mind, and cause a variety of other health consequences.

I may not be speaking for many of the people here; I suspect the expense is something a lot of us -- including me -- could bare without a lot of trouble and without sacrificing much in quality-of-life.

But I don't think the average HNer is representative of the larger population.

Example: one friend of mine, neurotic about his diet, quoted me a grocery bill of over $600/month on average. You can probably imagine what sorts of items he buys regularly

This a remarkable sum of most peoples' take-home pay. If they bought food this way, the money they spend might increase their longevity; we've had threads on here in the past arguing that this budget is worth every penny. However, it might also severely hamper their quality-of-life; it might even start to hamper their ability to pay for what we consider necessities.

In the case of the friend, it was a significant chunk of his take-home pay. He constantly found himself strapped for cash and falling into deeper levels of depression as a result. I'm not sure if he was making the net positive trade-off. It sucks that he had to make that trade-off at all, but that is several political squabbles from getting solved.

I don't mean to discount any of your advice. In good circumstances, it is well thought out and well researched advice. I follow at least some if it myself, and probably should follow more. I'm making a note to add blueberries to the next shopping trip, even though my cholesterol was ok last time I had it checked -- they're tasty, that is reason enough anyway. :-)

But I think it's worth mentioning that this problem goes deeper than just individual people passively ignoring advice. As even Dr. Lustig pointed out, there is manipulation going on behind the scenes, and some people may not have the means to effectively fight against the manipulation and still feed themselves.

And it's also worth asking for clarification, even if one can make a change without an undue burden. Asking questions is always a good idea. :-)

⬐ chipsy

I was struck by the allusion Lustig makes to sugar being as poisonous as alcohol. It makes ours look like a world of drug fiends.

⬐ gaius

If you have ever tried going low- or no- carb, it is exactly like withdrawal. You feel awful and then just a taste, just a little, won't affect the diet, and you feel OK again...

⬐ gregwebs

This is an interesting anecdote from someone who claims to have cured his alcohol abuse problems by going low carb. http://fathead-movie.com/index.php/2009/04/30/primal-body-pr...

⬐ shiny

The paleo diet is awesome. I've lost a considerable amount of weight on it, and feel and look much better.

Also, a diet with staples like grass-fed beef, pastured butter (or any other healthy animal fat), avocado, and fish is my kind of diet. No more forcing down bitter grain or soy products in fruitless attempts to go "healthy". Plus, my meals are so substantial and high in fat that I only need to eat once or twice a day.

For anyone interested, there's a lot of good paleo sites out there, but I'd start with http://paleonu.com and http://freetheanimal.com

And if you can, pick up Nourishing Traditions by Sally Fallon.

⬐ rdouble

Jack LaLanne tried to warn us about this 50 years ago:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJVEPB_l8FU

⬐ nearestneighbor

Someone will have to answer for sapping and impurifying our precious bodily fluids!

⬐ scotty79

Eat food. No too much. Mostly plants.

⬐ kingkongreveng_

The whole video is about how fructose is toxic. Many, many plants are rich in fructose. It's not as simple as "eat plants." A modern variety apple or orange is a blast of fructose.

It's also perfectly healthy to eat predominantly meat, organs, and dairy if the animals are properly pastured. So the "mostly plants" claim makes little sense without a lot of qualification.

⬐ ericd

He says that fiber mitigates the fructose in fruit. It's when it's separated from the fiber as juice that it becomes a problem.

⬐ kingkongreveng_

The fiber does not compensate for the high levels of fructose in modern fruits. Modern varieties are much sweeter than they were even thirty years ago. Modern seedless grapes are basically candy.

⬐ blueben

"The fiber does not compensate for the high levels of fructose in modern fruits."

Why not?

⬐ scotty79

'Mostly plants' refers to the only piece of diet world that has been proven by science. If you eat more plants you have lower risk of many severe diseases. That's all we know about diet for sure. The rest is guesswork and wishful thinking.

⬐ kingkongreveng_

I assure you "mostly plants" has no scientific backing. There are plenty of randomized intervention studies introducing more fruit and vegetables into diet and they all show a null result. Well controlled studies within populations also do not show any longevity advantage to eating more vegetables.

⬐ scotty79

To my knowledge there were numerous studies confirming that eating plants often lowers risk of diseases such as cancer.

Maybe you can achieve similar effect with some other precise diet but eating mostly plants is the easiest way to improving your health and lower you calories intake.

⬐ kingkongreveng_

Go try and find a randomized intervention where more vegetables improved health. Many have tried, all have failed.

⬐ scotty79

I'm sorry. I don't really care enough about eating to do a research on it. I just cited advice I've seen lately because It was just as verbose as in my opinion it should be and was in line with the things I've read earlier.

⬐ dingle

These studies aren't randomized interventions, but I think it's a bit of a simplification to say that all have failed.

"Dietary and lifestyle determinants of mortality among German vegetarians" found that "A longer duration of vegetarianism (> or = 20 years) was associated with a lower risk, pointing to a real protective effect of this lifestyle"

"Vegetables, fruit, and cancer prevention: a review" states that "the evidence for a protective effect of greater vegetable and fruit consumption is consistent for cancers of the stomach, esophagus, lung, oral cavity and pharynx, endometrium, pancreas, and colon. The types of vegetables or fruit that most often appear to be protective against cancer are raw vegetables, followed by allium vegetables, carrots, green vegetables, cruciferous vegetables, and tomatoes"

"Nutrients and food groups and large bowel cancer in Europe" found that "most vegetables, including pulses, were inversely associated with cancer of the colon and rectum."

⬐ nunb

As the professor points out in that lecture, plants have their own problems (fiber).

Human digestive tracts are made for high-quality (bio-available energy/mass) nutrition-dense foods, unlike ruminants, or large apes like the gorilla.

And most people get plants confused with seeds. No other animal eats seeds in the quantities we do, especially as Omega-6 rich seed-oils.

Pollan has become a touchstone for many, but imho he's fairly wrong.

⬐ ivan_ah

if i understood correctly, fiber the good part of fruits (fructose being the bad part) ref: ... packaged the poison with the antidote...

very good video, learned a lot

⬐ pkrumins

I watched it a while ago but I did not understand what was the key idea that he wanted to say.

Okay, the corn syrup is just fructose, and as I understood from the lecture it's equivalent to poison so we should avoid it.

But then sugar from plants and fruit also contains fructose! For every gram of natural sugar there is half a gram of fructose. If we eat natural sugar it seems equivalently bad? I don't get it.

So what does the lecture tell? Does it say we shouldn't be consuming sugar at all? Or should we only be consuming glucose part of sugar? Or what?

Can anyone explain?

Thanks!

⬐ fauigerzigerk

I think what he means is that the amount of fructose you get from eating fruit is much less as a proportion of beneficial nutrients than if you were drinking fruit juice or stuff with high fructose corn syrup added.

I think the main message is to avoid fructose in all forms. The rest is basically ABC analysis. Identify where most of your fructose intake originates from and cut down on that source.

⬐ gaius

IIRC T-nation had an article on this. Fructose in an apple is OK because the fibre etc means it is absorbed more slowly. The body isn't designed to have a huge amount of fast-digesting carbs dumped into it in one go - even if the total calories are the same.

⬐ voidpointer

This was really very interesting. I for one was mostly ignorant to the big difference there was between glucose and fructose. Also the bit on ethanol was quite interesting in itself.

The fact that HFCS is made from normal corn syrup (almost 100% glucose), which is processed into fructose seems almost ironic.

⬐ dustineichler

If you want the jist of this lecture, around 1:15:00 is a good place to start, he rants about Gatorade and McD's. Otherwise, it's O-Chem(?) up to that point. Very interesting stuff. Less Fructose, more Fiber. Less Frankenburgers, more Fruits.

⬐ dcurtis

I suggest you do not skip the chemistry. It's fascinating and provides solid evidence to back the stuff he talks about later.

⬐ nearestneighbor

Exactly how does fiber work as an antidote to fructose? I didn't catch that. Did he even explain that?

⬐ dcurtis

Leptin and ghrelin are the hormones produced in the pancreas and stomach that signal to your brain that you should start or stop eating. Some of the byproducts of fructose metabolism in the liver first cause the production of ghrelin, which stimulates hunger, and then inhibits the production leptin, which prevents the signals that you should stop eating from reaching your brain. The result is that you feel artificially hungrier and then you don't stop eating after you're full.

Eating lots of fiber with fructose should theoretically counteract this cycle to some extent, by regulating the hormones and preventing overeating.

Almost everywhere fructose is found naturally, it is coupled with huge amounts of fiber. Because of this, humans haven't really been harmed by the negative effects of fructose until very recently. The speaker in the video suggests that you can kind of mitigate the negative effects of fructose by eating lots and lots of fiber, but I don't think this has been scientifically studied yet. It makes sense theoretically, though.

Fiber also does a whole lot of other great things for you, too, and he discusses some of them in the video.

⬐ dustineichler

He also mentions the paleolithic diet as a cure of type 2 diabetes. Link here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_diet

⬐ CamperBob

Ah, yes. To live longer, eat like people who were lucky to see the far side of 30.

⬐ Freebytes

Wow. I just read a lot about sugar last night. I wanted to know if glucose was truly the only sugar the brain needed. I found that processed sugars are used almost immediately by the body; whereas, the sugars from natural sources are released at a later time in smaller quantities. I read an article that stated that these large doses of sugar cause a sudden, large increase in insulin which can actually starve the brain from getting all of the sugar it needs as the body tries to dispose of excess sugar. It was a very interesting series of articles that I might hunt down again and post on HN at some point.

⬐ jeremyw

So this is another odd failure case for science, where researchers from many areas selectively ignored (since the 1970s, let's say) a roughly-worked-out biochemistry. Add political chilling effects and mix.

Given that there aren't particularly impervious ties in either political party to sugar/carbs (activists being health advocates on the left and anti-subsidy advocates on the right) I hope this set of research pathologies gets a kick in the pants when sugar support detonates.

⬐ camccann

The sugar lobby is the corn lobby, because that's where most refined sugar comes from. In other words, Midwest farmers, particularly in Iowa. See the problem now?

⬐ jeremyw

Understood -- I'm saying there are growing factions in both parties that will make these old allegiances obsolete.

⬐ johnl

If you are going to see grandparents this holiday, a good discussion might be to ask them about their sugar consumption, prevalent health problems now and then, and compare those to your own. Bet there is a big difference.

⬐ CamperBob

If they're honest, what they'll report is that their own grandparents died about 20 years younger than they are now.

⬐ nearestneighbor

I watched the whole video. I thought he was going to explain why they put salt in coke, but it seems he never did. Was he just implying that they are trying to get people to drink more?

⬐ onoj

salt is hygroscopic - it sucks water from your body making you thirsty / sets off a mechanism which makes you feel thirsty. This is why beer and coke etc have salt in them (also explains free peanuts and pretzels in bars)

⬐ m_eiman

Salt also tastes good, which is why people want to eat/drink it (and there's probably an evolutionary reason for this - the body needs it). Try peanuts without salt, it's not quite the same.

⬐ nearestneighbor

Besides those who lived by the sea, where could our ape-man ancestors find salt?

⬐ m_eiman

In the blood of other animals, apparently. http://www.salt.org.il/main.htm

The fact that we like it so much, as with sweets, suggests that it was hard to find - a significant mental reward was required to make us make the effort to find it.

⬐ hachiya

Why would the fact that we like things that taste sweet indicate that they were hard to find?

Our bodies run on sugar; sources of sugar, such as fruits and starches were not hard to find.

Availability and use of fruit in our diet long ago is hardly anything new. It certainly was not hard to find.

http://www.health101.org/art_diet2.htm

  Research Yields Surprises about Early Human Diets

  Teeth Show Fruit Was the Staple

  By Boyce Rensberger
  May 15, 1979 issue of the New York Times

⬐ m_eiman

Why would the fact that we like things that taste sweet indicate that they were hard to find?

Assuming that nothing in how the body works happens for no good reason:

The fact that we enjoy it means that our body rewards us for eating it, something that most likely means that it's something the body wants us to do. If it was abundant, though, that'd make us eat too much of it (which is what's happening today) unless there was something to stop us. With salt it's possible to eat too much: that makes us feel bad. That suggests that salt was abundant, otherwise we wouldn't need the counter system. The lack of a counter system for sweets suggests that it wasn't abundant, at least not to the degree that we could eat enough of it to prevent us from reproducing.

Our bodies run on sugar; sources of sugar, such as fruits and starches were not hard to find.

Eveything we digest is converted to sugar, be it fruits, bread or meat.

Regarding the link:

That some of our ancestors two million years ago might have, or might not have, eaten mostly fruits doesn't say much of anything about how Homo Sapiens work. In the article they say that even the Homo Erectus were omnivores, and that was 1.5M years ago. Things have happened since then...

⬐ hachiya

  > The lack of a counter system for sweets suggests that it
  > wasn't abundant, at least not to the degree that we could 
  > eat enough of it to prevent us from reproducing.

There is a counter system to eating foods that are sweet, provided foods are eaten in their whole, fresh, and ripe state.

Try to overeat on fruit - it's imposssible. You'll feel full and be tired of "sweet" long before you could ever overeat on it. Fiber and sufficient blood sugar have a way of telling one when they have been satiated.

⬐ hachiya

First you speculate that salt was not easy to find:

  > The fact that we like it so much, as with sweets, 
  > suggests that it was hard to find.

Then you claim salt was abundant:

  > With salt it's possible to eat too much: that makes us
  > feel bad. That suggests that salt was abundant, 
  > otherwise we wouldn't need the counter system.

Which is it - according to your speculative theories, was salt abundant or not?

Your speculation on sweet being difficult to find is also nothing more than (poor) speculation. The link I provided above is just one example showing that fruit WAS abundant, as regardless of what those creatures were, fruit was easily accessible.

It amazes me how much people use "evolutionary theories" to speculate about just about anything to reach just about any conclusion.

⬐ m_eiman

Which is it - according to your speculative theories, was salt abundant or not?

I revised it to abundant, but not as abundant as say air or water.

Your speculation on sweet being difficult to find is also nothing more than (poor) speculation.

Of course it is. However, you also need to take into account that (most) natural fruit is far from the sweetness of the cultivated fruits we can buy in the stores today. Compare wild apples to shop apples, for example.

The link I provided above is just one example showing that fruit WAS abundant

It might have been abundant 2M years ago, where those ancestors lived. That says nothing about what happened the next 2M years, which is a significant period of time in evolutionary terms (at least 100k generations). If something changed, e.g. there was less fruit, the ancestors might have started eating other things - maybe become omnivores (like the next step in the chain towards Sapiens, the Erectus). Sounds like something that fits pretty well with what's known about our ancestry.

Going back to an arbitrary point in our history and saying that that's when Things Were Right(tm) and ignoring what's happened since then is no better than my speculations. At least choose at time nearer to now if you're going to do that, maybe 10k years ago when the latest major change in our diet occurred? Even that is 500 or so generations ago, so we should have had at least some chance to adapt to a farmer's diet. And by the way, the farmer's diet is what's allowed us to get where we are today in terms of civilization.

It amazes me how much people use "evolutionary theories" to speculate about just about anything to reach just about any conclusion.

It's fun! Doesn't actually say a whole lot without actual research though.

⬐ middus

Minerals in stones?

⬐ hachiya

2000+ calories of fruits and vegetables alone will supply more than enough of one's daily sodium needs.

We need sodium. We don't need rock salt.

CRON-O-Meter (Linux/Win/Mac) and similar software/sites (e.g. fitday.com) will demonstrate this for anyone who wants to see how the numbers fall into place for any of the nutrients.

⬐ gregwebs

This guy is a great presenter. The hypothesis behind the damages of fructose actually gets worse than what is presented here, as fructose is implicated in the creation of toxic AGE. For a more in depth overview of the science behind fructose that is accessible, I would recommend Good Calorie, Bad Calorie by Gary Taubes. Aside from fructose, I would actually recommend that book to anyone concerned about their health.

I think it is important to differentiate between normal (hunter-gatherer) levels of fructose consumption (< 5% of total calories, normally closer to 1%, except perhaps in the summer when fruit is more abundant) and the amount we are eating today. That is, if fructose is harmful, the dangers only seem to manifest at the high levels of intake seen today.

Pragmatically, we may not need to be concerned about fructose at all, as eating refined sugar is obviously bad for health, so it should be eliminated anyways. (You need vitamins and minerals, and refined sugar doesn't have any!). Unrefined sources of sugar are not very good nutritional resources either.

Tragically, the damages of fructose may have been multiplied by the government recommendations to replace saturated fat intake with polyunsaturated fat. http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/2009/12/cirrhosis-and...

⬐ MikeCapone

Thanks for the recommendation, I've requested it from the public library.

⬐ gregwebs

Actually, I shouldn't call it accessible since it is extremely detailed (and long). But now without purpose, as this is what is required to make a solid scientific case. It is easy to follow as long as you can maintain an interest in the subject at hand.

⬐ Tichy

I must admit eventually I became of suspicious of "Good Calories, Bad Calories", too - who says he didn't handpick the studies to quote, like everybody else? The format of the book was very weird, just this stream of quotes. Not very pleasant to read at all.

⬐ gregwebs

Accurately summarizing other sources is how you develop a well-referenced argument. If a quotation can work as a summary then all the better. It is not a format we are used to, but it is how you build a case based on evidence.

For GCBC, I think it is important to differentiate between demolishing the bad fat/cholesterol/salt, good fiber hypothesis, and proposing the new carbohydrate hypothesis. GCBC debunks these weak hypothesis. However, all it can do is propose a new hypothesis given (as admitted by the author) the small amount of research available that directly supports that hypothesis.

It is pretty apparent that he is not cherry-picking. First of all, the book wouldn't need to be as long! Seriously, this represents an absolutely enormous investment in time that as you point out just ends up turning off readers.

Normally a cherry-picker will stoop to low quality sources of information. When demolishing conventional wisdom, Taubes sticks to all (yes all, there aren't that many) of the high quality large-scale studies that actually matter (but goes through the history of lower quality information that lead to the available hypothesis). Again, he admits that the evidence is weaker for his carbohydrate hypothesis.

⬐ Tichy

I think he admitted himself to cherry picking somewhere - everybody would be cherry picking... In principle I have nothing against "more" references, however, in that book it is so much that it becomes once more impossible to check up on it. You can only give in to the sheer number and size of references. Personally I find that a bit unsatisfying and unnecessary. I would have preferred concentration on a few core points.

⬐ gregwebs

Good point. Maybe he should have had a couple concentrated chapters at the beginning of the book, and then used the rest as a historical reference. If you want to check up on his arguments against the current dogma just check on his analyses of the the few high quality large scale studies that have been done.

⬐ earl

I have to second this recommendation. Everybody concerned about nutrition should read

* Good Calorie, Bad Calorie;

* The Omnivore's Dilemma

* The End of Overeating.

In order: the science of fat and weight, as best as can be explained today; what's in your food, and what you should be eating; and how companies influence your eating decisions and how to take control of them.

In particular, the last book summarizes research showing that, for certain people, there is a reward conditioning feedback mechanism in the brain triggered by the intake of fat, sugar, and salt. see http://www.boingboing.net/2009/05/07/end-of-overeating-th.ht... for a longer review. In particular, if you have lots of willpower elsewhere in your life but struggle controlling your food intake, I can't recommend this book strongly enough.

In any case, I think everybody should read the above 3 books; you'll be a long way closer to being a well informed consumer of food and of it's effects on your body.

⬐ gregwebs

I don't think these books are in harmony with each other at all, what was your take on combining the knowledge?

The Omnivore's Dilemma, or at least the statements of its author, Michael Pollan to to eat low in the food chain are predicated on the idea that eating animal is bad for you, which thoroughly debunked (at least with respect to fat or saturated fat) by Taubes.

Taubes is also a fierce advocate that weight issues normally have little to do with willpower over overeating and everything to do with eating too many refined carbohydrates.

⬐ stephen

Good Calorie, Bad Calorie was great, except that 90% of it was a history lesson where he explains, in a very detailed manner, how other nutrition theories of the last 100+ years were wrong.

Anybody know of another source that describes the book's views on fat metabolism, blood sugar, etc. but is shorter and more to the point?

Not only for my own benefit to review, but I have a hard time recommending Good Calorie, Bad Calorie to friends who are only marginally interested in nutrition, but would still benefit from reading the book's core ideas in a distilled form.

⬐ gregwebs

I have wondered the same thing, but most people's first response is they can't believe that the government and scientists have it so wrong, and the only way to truly explain that is to talk about the history. Perhaps there is a middle ground, though, or there could be a smaller version that referenced the larger version. Taubes is working on a much shorter version of GCBC.

⬐ stephen

Awesome that he's working on a shorter version. I poked around his site after finishing the book to suggest just such a thing. Thanks for the heads up.

⬐ imd

"Unrefined sources of sugar are not very good nutritional resources either."

What about blackstrap molasses? https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Blackstrap_mo...

⬐ gregwebs

Thanks for the link, that is pretty cool, and seems potentially like one of the best sweeteners. I guess I have never really looked at molasses because nobody eats it anymore. If my understanding is correct it is more concentrated in minerals because it has the minerals that have been removed from the table sugar. So it is also a type of refined sugar, but nutrients have actually been added instead of taken away.

I tend to stay away from these kinds of factory produced foods. You have to put trust in the manufacturer not to be adding chemicals, etc.

But maybe this could be a healthy part of the diet. The fructose is bad or sugar/refined carbohydrates is bad theories have not shown that the health problems could instead be caused by a lack of nutrients in the sugars we consume.

⬐ imd

"So it is also a type of refined sugar, but nutrients have actually been added instead of taken away."

From my understanding (not a nutritionist), sugar has been taken away; nutrients have not been added, just concentrated by the extraction of sugar.

"I tend to stay away from these kinds of factory produced foods. You have to put trust in the manufacturer not to be adding chemicals, etc."

Because it's fairly nutritious as sweeteners go, it's available in organic form at many health food stores.

⬐ gregwebs

organic only specifies how it was grown, not processed.