Is sugar toxic?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57407128/is-sugar-toxic/

by stfu • 14 years ago

45 74 14 years ago

swang• 14 years ago

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.

jeffdavis2• 14 years ago

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?

jared314• 14 years ago

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.

hristov3• 14 years ago

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.

eostyx• 14 years ago

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• 14 years ago

>But Coke has very little salt -- about 45 mg.

This tells me nothing. 45mg per 100ml? Or per serving (usually 250ml)?

guard-of-terra• 14 years ago

Life is toxic. You'll eventually die of it.

Really, if you remove everything harmful to health from you life (including everything related to a computer), you'd probably die of boredom, depression and frustration real fast.

1010011010• 14 years ago

Yes.

nazgulnarsil3• 14 years ago

I do a ton of review of nutrition studies and here's the conclusion I've come to:

The primary concerns are the biggest killers: cancer and CVD. The main causal pathway by which carbohydrates (of which simple sugars have the largest effect) affect CVD incidence is via the simultaneous lowering of HDL and raising of blood serum triglycerides. This is much more important for predicting CVD episodes than the 'low LDL' you hear touted a lot. The connection between sugar and cancer is less well established.

ams61102• 14 years ago

Refined sugar has only been a big part of our diet for the past couple of hundred years (not even a blink of an eye on an evolutionary time scale). Breads and grain-based foods have been part of our diet for somewhat longer, but highly refined white flour is also comparatively novel in our diet.

I cut all added sugar and all flour (bread, pasta, pizza, etc) and most other grains and processed food from my diet about 18 months ago. I basically went on the paleolithic diet, though I'm not really fanatical about it except for the sugar and flour. I mainly eat unprocessed meat, eggs, leafy vegetables, nuts, some fruit (try to stick to berries) and minimal dairy. I went from 215 lbs to 165 without any real effort (exercise, etc). I'm convinced that the obesity "epidemic" and the need for so many people go on Lipitor and similar drugs as they get older is directly attributable to our sugar- and flour-laden diets.

I do miss freshly baked bread but on balance I think it's worth it. Will I live longer? Who knows, but I feel better eating what my body is evolved to consume.

baddox• 14 years ago

I don't think that something being "comparatively novel in our diet" is a sufficient or even useful argument.

nazgulnarsil3• 14 years ago

have you tried prunes? cheap, keep forever (powdered prunes are added to other foods to make them last longer) and loaded with antioxidants and fiber. I found it much easier to keep a bag of prunes around than trying to find decent quality berries.

latch5• 14 years ago

I found Dr Lustig's talk enlightening because I always thought of it simply as input -> output (sucrose -> glucose). In retrospect, it's obvious that the bio-checmial process your body uses to convert that is pretty darn important.

However, as cool as it is to get re-introduced to things like ATP and Krebs Cycle, the driving message we get from experts has been a constant for a long time: avoid processed foods.

It's incredibly simple advice to understand and to follow. It's also an excessively easy lifestyle to adopt. There is no lack of unprocessed foods and it isn't more expensive. I just don't understand why people don't eat better. I'd be pretty depressed if I was a health-care professional...decades of messaging and things are only getting worse.

jrockway2• 14 years ago

I just don't understand why people don't eat better.

I understand it perfectly. The brain rewards bad diet; sugar tastes better than fiber. Couple this with food companies that need to grow 10% a year to keep their investors happy, and you have the perfect recipe for making people eat more, cheaper calories. Processed food may be the same price as unprocessed food, but it's more calorie-rich, it's more advertised, and it gets more shelf space at the store. (It is really a lot cheaper, but sold at a higher markup. So that profit buys ads and shelf space.) Hence, the path of least resistance is to buy processed food.

lhnn• 14 years ago

What is considered "unprocessed" foods at the grocer? Raw beans, rice, whole grain wheat? Is the ground beef/deli meat "unprocessed" by your definition?

Serious question. My impression is that anything not cut from an animal myself is processed by some harmful additive, so I've given up.

latch5• 14 years ago

I understand that you could take this to an extreme: if it doesn't grow in my garden or die by my hand...

But let's just focus on low hanging stuff for now. There are food products that are more chemical than anything. Oreos, Poptarts, CheezWhiz, pops, frozen meals, Juices "now with 10% real juice"...The list is extensive. Then you have overly refined products (white bread, white pastas).

Fruits and vegetables (fresh, canned or frozen), lentiles and legumes, grains/careals (including breads and pastas), raw meat (fish/chicken/beef/pork/...) are all ok. I'm sure there's more.

I don't think there's much room for confusion between eating Captin' Crunch vs oatmeal, cheetos vs a bowl of plain yogurt with strawberries.

pbreit3• 14 years ago

For starters, everything that doesn't come in a box or a bag is likely unprocessed (which includes the meat you mention). The massive categories you are missing are fruits and vegetables (although excess fruit can also pose a sugar problem). Wheat is tricky because it is typically processed. Whole grains are better.

aaronblohowiak2• 14 years ago

>My impression is that anything not cut from an animal myself is processed by some harmful additive, so I've given up.

There is plenty of simple advice on what to eat, and it isn't the end of the world if you don't follow the guidelines 100%. "Giving up" makes it sound like you're prone to an extremist view, which life has shown me is rarely the most pragmatic view.

Fruit that looks like it is something that would come off a plant > "Fruit roll-ups" Whole-wheat bread > wonder bread strawberries > twinkies

> As Mr. Pollan puts it, “If it came from a plant, eat it; if it was made in a plant, don’t.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/02/health/02brod.html?_r=1

wisty2• 14 years ago

Nah, just try to use whole ingredients were possible, and read the label if you aren't sure.

Most pre-made foods have terrible ingredients. Manufactured foods are made of filler (water, flour, emulsifiers), a bit of "flavor" (preferably salt, cheap oil, sugar, and weird chemicals), and preservatives (some of which can be quite harmful).

The priorities of food manufacturers are shelf life, cost, marketing, and tastiness. Tastiness is usually their lowest priority. Unless they want to look healthy, health isn't even a priority.

Pan-frying some in-season vegetables with a bit of chilli and garlic is usually a lot healthier. A big ol' steak is less healthy, but tastier.

Try eating a tomato which was picked green (so it keeps better, and is easier to handle without bruising it), then had its skin artificially ripened. Then try a ripe tomato (you can generally tell just by how soft it is). There's a big difference.

dgallagher• 14 years ago

If it grows on a plant, or eats plants, or eats things which eat plants, it's not processed food.

If it didn't exist 150 years ago, or you cannot find it in nature, it's processed food.

anthonyb4• 14 years ago

Bear in mind that a lot of grains and beans are fairly toxic in themselves - plants don't want you to eat their seeds. So whole grain might actually be just as bad for you as the refined stuff, just in different ways.

Gluten is one aspect of this, but there are apparently a whole range of other things which can impact your digestion, prevent nutrient uptake, etc.

jaylevitt2• 14 years ago

For some of us who never got into the cooking habit, and can't do anything on a regular schedule (like food shopping), and can't plan in advance in general, and don't even have running water at work (old building), it's incredibly HARD advice to follow.

I live one block from a giant supermarket; I moved here FOR that supermarket. They have pretty good produce; if I walk 5 minutes there's a local food co-op and 10 minutes gives me Whole Foods.

But you know what's easier than going to the supermarket, picking out produce, planning or googling a meal, and [feeling like] + [remembering to actually] cook that meal before the produce goes bad?

Buying ten boxes of Amy's, congratulating myself on the fact that there are actual identifiable pieces of broccoli instead of green flecks, calling it "healthy", grabbing some ice cream and cookies to reward myself for that, and being all set for ten days, plus a buffer of whatever I actually had in the back of the freezer before.

latch5• 14 years ago

Never heard of Amy's before...looked it up, doesn't look horrible to me. A little high in sodium and low in fiber, but that's typical of this kind of food.

Fruits and vegetables often don't require cooking, can keep for long enough to not need planning or require water @ work. Add nuts to this, and some water or tea, and you've taken care of snacks.

As for cooking, ya you need to learn. Its an investment, but the rewards are so significant, it really should be a top priority.

revolvingiris2• 14 years ago

Good message: "don't over consume and stick to unprocessed sources".

It bothers me though that the word sugar is in the title since they really mean sucrose. Both fructose and glucose occur naturally (fruit, veggies, starches) and are not harmful.

jrockway2• 14 years ago

Sucrose occurs naturally too. So does cyanide. Natural != good to eat.

hristov3• 14 years ago

Fructose is harmful, unfortunately. Sucrose gets split by the body into one fructose and one glucose molecule. And it is the fructose that is harmful because it cannot be properly processed by the liver in large quantities. Sucrose is only harmful in as much as it produces fructose.

It is true that fructose appears naturally all over the place. And that is the tricky part. The liver can actually process fructose fine if it gets a little at a time and simultaneously receives fiber. Almost everywhere fructose occurs naturally it occurs with fiber. Thus, the human body is perfectly capable of processing fructose in its natural state, but once you start concentrating it and removing the fiber the problems come about.

This is why fruits and veggies are perfectly healthy but refined sugars are bad for you.

DanBC2• 14 years ago

> The liver can actually process fructose fine if it gets a little at a time and simultaneously receives fiber.

Dietary fibre gets to the liver?

ams61102• 14 years ago

A lot of modern fruit has been cultivated to increase its sugar content. An apple 200 years ago was a lot less sweet than one today.

ars4• 14 years ago

An apple 200 years ago was picked at the peak of ripeness - i.e. very sweet.

Today they pick them early, so they try to get the sugars in there sooner.

frou_dh• 14 years ago

Speaking of words, it's weird to often see 'veggies' in writing because to me that is squarely baby-talk. No offence - I'm sure it's a regional thing.

revolvingiris2• 14 years ago

Glucose + Fructose = Sucrose; which is why I don't like the title. Cyanide is not in context...

A healthy liver can process roughly 50g fructose before fat storage begins to occur. This would be a tough number to hit since for every 100g of fruit you eat only 7g is fructose (on average).

Please link baby saying "veggies", ty.

nazgulnarsil3• 14 years ago

do you have a source on that claim? not that I don't believe you, I just haven't heard it before and it sounds pretty interesting.

espeed• 14 years ago

Fructose is the main problem, according to Lustig. Whole fruits aren't bad because they also contain fiber, which counteracts the fructose, but fruit juice is a problem because the fiber has been removed.

jhaglund• 14 years ago

I think his point is that sucrose is quickly transformed into fructose + glucose. And our bodies aren't equipped to process that much fructose. glucose is processed by cells all over. fructose in the liver, depleting phosphorus and making fat, when we chronically consume too much. We've eaten refined glucose for a larger chunk of human history. Until refined sugars were added to everything, we consumed a lot of fiber with our fructose sources, reducing the amount that was even absorbed. He goes into how much extra sugar we unwittingly consume from processed sources.

Too bad he sounds so smug. But I'm pretty sure he will be proven correct.

Alex39172• 14 years ago

Is there seriously anyone left at this point who doesn't think sugar is toxic?

pbreit3• 14 years ago

I think "toxic" is a strong word. Sugar occurs naturally in fruit which is relatively healthy and sugar in moderation (ie, not added) is completely fine.

pbreit3• 14 years ago

Not sure why the downvotes.

I looked around a bit further and it's even clearer that sugar, sucrose, fructose, etc, by themselves are not poisons.

meric• 14 years ago

Title can be improved.

What is toxicity? "A central concept of toxicology is that effects are dose-dependent; even water can lead to water intoxication when taken in too many doses, whereas for even a very toxic substance such as snake venom there is a dose below which there is no detectable toxic effect. Toxicity is species-specific, lending cross-species analysis problematic. Newer paradigms and metrics are evolving to bypass animal-testing, while maintaining the concept of toxicity endpoints."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxicity

aaronblohowiak2• 14 years ago

The dose makes the poison - Paracelsus

latch5• 14 years ago

Dr Lustig's argument is that the amount of sucrose the average person takes is toxic. The title could be "Average person eats sucrose in doses of toxicity"...or "Sucrose is toxic"

You are being pedantic.

driverdan• 14 years ago

Dr Lustig has been promoting this idea for many years. The problem is that he's doing it very unscientifically. He vastly overstates his evidence and makes claims of certainty that the science doesn't support.

I'm interested to see what replies his recent Nature publication receives.

droithomme• 14 years ago

Yes, here's an article promoting this from last year:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.htm...

And from earlier this year:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2094812/Sugar-cont...

ars4• 14 years ago

He starts by saying sugar and high fructose syrup are the same, then concludes by testing high fructose syrup and finding it's bad - but not testing sugar.

His test does not support his conclusion.

derleth6• 14 years ago

OK, let's try this: Is honey toxic?

anthonyb4• 14 years ago

Honey has a lot more nutrients in it than sugar, so generally it's better for you, and doesn't spike your insulin so hard. Here's a round up which has some links to further research: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/is-honey-a-safer-sweetener/

cottonseed• 14 years ago

> Americans are now consuming nearly 130 pounds of added sugars per person, per year.

I have always found this statistic utterly astounding, esp. considering that sugar is a new world product. In 1500 England, say, the average person consumed 0 pounds of added sugar per year.

Is sugar toxic?

Related Stories