America’s Diet, Too Sweet by the Spoonful

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/health/nutrition/10brod.html?ref=science

by robg • 17 years ago

20 9 17 years ago

High sugar is bad. But one of it's effects this article didn't mention is inflammation. That's something we've studied for a while but have only relatively recently linked to diet:

https://www.health.harvard.edu/fhg/updates/What-you-eat-can-...

High inflammation is also linked to heart disease, stroke, diabetes, alzheimer, some cancers, parkinson's and more.

Note: I don't agree with a few recommendations in the article.

robg• 17 years ago

Which ones don't you agree with?

jackchristopher3• 17 years ago

I'm contradicting Harvard Med. Knowing that, I didn't want to go on a paper hunt this afternoon. I hate to make hifalutin' claims and not back them up.

But here's the quick version: While fruits are a better source of sugar, in excess they're bad too. Too much sugar, how ever is comes, is linked to higher GL and inflammation. When eating fruits and vegetables, I choose the low sugar/high water weight variety. You want to maximize the high vitamin/antioxidant/phytochemicals ones, as with any food.

That's the minor disagreement. But the majors ones are with carbs and fats.

Carbohydrates are complex sugars. They're broken down into the simpler forms, but they're same forms that the original article describes as bad when excessive. What I dislike the most about them is effect on insulin resistance, inflammation and leptin levels.

Where I differ here is what the macronutrient balance should be. I think high carbs, brown or white, isn't good for you. Don't get wrong you need them but the amount depends of lifestyle factors. I get most of my carbs from oats and in trace amounts in the rest of what I eat.

The other disagreement is with fat. We're finding out that fats aren't entirely bad in all cases, even saturated fat. It depends on the form they come in. High heat just kills in particular. It's the main reason trans fats are bad actually.

But this is true for all foods. How they're cooked, or if they're cooked at all, determines how healthy they are for you. It's well known that heat and light for instance can kill nutrients in many foods.

Macronutrients balance shouldn't be separate from lifestyle. A high fat, middle protein, lower carb may make sense depending on who it is.

jballanc• 17 years ago

"Although much fuss has been raised about high-fructose corn syrup, when it comes to calories and weight gain, it makes no difference if the sweetener was derived from corn, sugar cane, beets or fruit juice concentrate."

This is subtly wrong, but I think it's important that people understand why. Yes, the calories from HFCS are the same calories from sucrose or fruit sugars. However, you body's reaction is different. See this paper for an idea of the kinds of differences that can be observed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19064538?ordinalpos=2&...

yummyfajitas• 17 years ago

I think the point is that the benefits you get by replacing HFCS with sugar are minor, while the benefits you get by replacing soda with water are huge.

tsbardella• 17 years ago

It seemed to be well researched and well written. This is not omg-all-the-acorns-are-missing article.

jackchristopher3• 17 years ago

Fair point. I didn't intend to mean it was mostly wrong. But based on some papers I've reading, it seemed behind the latest stuff in a few parts.

Incidentally, I live next to Harvard Med so I suppose I could go ask.

wallflower• 17 years ago

Pre-late 1800s per-capita Sugar consumption: 1 lb/person Today: 150+ lb/person

The paradigm-busting, pivotal event in the late 1800s - the invention and introduction of Coca-Cola

herval• 17 years ago

I'm sorry (and please don't kill me!), but... how is this Hacker News?

America’s Diet, Too Sweet by the Spoonful

Related Stories