Is Sugar Really Toxic?

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/brainwaves/2013/07/15/is-sugar-really-toxic-sifting-through-the-evidence/

by to_jon • 13 years ago

81 110 13 years ago

blogs.scientificamerican.com

Sola dosis facit venenum.

I didn't pay attention to my weight for a couple years, ate a lot of sweets and drank a lot of beer. Before I knew it I'd gained 30 pounds, and had a minor freakout. I decided to do three things--weigh myself every morning, stop eating sugar except for from fruit, and stop drinking. I ended up shedding 30 pounds in 90 days, and have kept it off for a full year. I didn't exercise or count calories in any way, in fact I probably upped my overall calorie consumption but I replaced the sugars with more complex energy sources like nuts. I'm not sure if it was cutting the alcohol, cutting the sugar, or both that did the trick. However, I've been letting myself have some alcohol for the past few months (wine, not beer) and haven't gained a pound since doing so, so my gut tells me it was the sugar. I definitely feel a whole lot healthier.

astrange2• 13 years ago

Most of your changes could be explained just by calories. Beer is quite high calorie since it has so many carbs, and eating nuts satiates you faster so you end up eating less.

Alcohol itself doesn't affect weight much, though IIRC fat isn't metabolized well together with it. But it can improve your lifespan: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9481115

brianbreslin3• 13 years ago

Not really. Assume he cut out 300 calories a day of beer. So a pound of fat is 3600 calories roughly. By just cutting out beer he would need 12 days to lose 1 lb. not the rate he was losing which was 1/3lb per day. Many studies have shown pure caloric deficits do not lead to rapid weight loss.

zurn• 13 years ago

Blaming carbs is not a "just calories" explanation, rather the opposite.

saryant2• 13 years ago

I did something similar during my semester in France. Stopped eating all bread and processed carbs. Vegetables, fruit and meat plus Greek yogurt. I didn't cut out alcohol though, nor was my weight loss as drastic as yours.

Lost about thirty pounds over four months (which was terrific, my girlfriend of four years dumped me the night I flew home so at least I was ready for singles' life).

I won't go so far as to call sugar "toxic" but I know that cutting it out has made me much, much healthier.

Also, I had a blood test a few weeks ago. My doctor actually wrote "outstanding" on my cholesterol report.

philwelch4• 13 years ago

You stopped eating bread while in France?

coldtea• 13 years ago

Sola dosis facit venenum

Pedantically we might say that, but it's not really true.

Sure, what makes something poisonous/dangerous is the dosage, but the dosage itself depends on more basic characteristics.

It's not like we arbitrarily try high dosages of stuff. We don't go out eating small amounts of cyanide for a reason.

Nice taste facits venenum -- by making us increase the dosage. Think sugar, salt, red meat, etc.

Uplifting side effects facit venenum. Think heroin, alcohol, etc.

Adverse withdrawal effects also facit venenum. Else we could easily quite alcohol, drugs, cigarettes with a little self restraint.

hippich4• 13 years ago

I doubt excluding sugars from your diet made a difference, or excluding alcohol alone did it. Beer in general do not have that many calories, it is usually junk food accompanied beer is what adding a lot of calories and fat.

^^^ IMHO, since there is a chance you were consuming pound of sugar and six-pack of beer daily :)

jmduke• 13 years ago

Beer usually hovers around the 150-200 calorie mark per bottle. If you're putting away a six-pack every weekend, that adds up very quickly.

(Which is not to say that you'll magically lose weight if you stop drinking, or that it's impossible to lose weight if you're drinking every week.)

pvnick6• 13 years ago

I ended up shedding 30 pounds in 90 days, and have kept it off for a full year
I probably upped my overall calorie consumption but I replaced the sugars with more complex energy sources like nuts

Unless you started exercising, these two statements are incompatible with one another (violates the first law of thermodynamics). What's more likely is you felt "fuller" from eating healthy foods and therefore consumed less calories.

philwelch4• 13 years ago

The laws of thermodynamics do not preclude your body from ingesting something that has calories and shitting it out without actually doing anything with the calories. Your shit would just have more calories left in it, kind of like how a poorly made car might leak gasoline everywhere.

nitrogen3• 13 years ago

It's possible that they are eating more calories, but digesting or storing fewer (thus passing more as waste).

donaldc7• 13 years ago

Another possibility is that the food eaten affects the metabolic rate. I've known multiple people who stopped having cold extremities when they cut back on their sugar intake.

amerika_blog• 13 years ago

I really hope not. I love sugar. It's also the only stimulant I can mete out in small doses that will keep me going without obliterating my concentration, as caffeine tends to do (disclaimer: I haven't tried cocaine).

aethertap2• 13 years ago

I read about some research* regarding ego depletion and its relationship to blood glucose levels that was pretty interesting. Basically, they did a study with two groups of people. Both were asked to do some challenging problems requiring concentration, then both were given lemonade. One group's lemonade was sweetened with glucose, and the other with some artificial sweetener. The two groups were then asked to do more challenging problems. I can't recall the actual numbers, but the group that had glucose in their lemonade did significantly better on the second round than the other group, and the two groups were about the same on the first round.

The implication was that the brain uses glucose in its operation, and requires a certain level of glucose to function at full capacity. At least one cause of the brain fog we get after a full day's focused work is that we're low on fuel, which happens to be easy to fix. Unfortunately, it has other effects too that we might not want so much. I've been meaning to experiment on myself a bit with some glucose tabs after a long day of code, but haven't gotten around to it yet.

(*) I think that was in "Thinking, Fast and Slow" but I'm not certain now, too many similar books in between.

sparkie• 13 years ago

This test is flawed, as it doesn't have a "neutral group" - a group that had neither sugar nor artificial sweetener. How can they conclude that the sugar made people do better, rather than the artificial sweetener making people do worse?

hristov5• 13 years ago

Glucose is not really an issue. Fructose is the problem. Unfortunately almost all sugar used as a food and drink additive today includes significant amounts of fructose. Glucose is not that sweet by itself so it is rarely used as sweetener in real life.

alwaysinshade• 13 years ago

I've been meaning to experiment on myself a bit with some glucose tabs after a long day of code

Anecdotal feedback - they work great for short bursts of activity. I use them when playing multiplayer games at night. Given my opponents are usually young and fuelled on caffeinated sodas I need some kind of edge after getting home from work. When I stomp a lobby on team deathmatch it's usually after popping a couple of glucose tabs. A good low-GI meal does much the same, but of course isn’t as convenient.

hristov5• 13 years ago

You can take your sugar in the form of whole (not juiced) fresh fruit. Your body will be able to handle it then.

contingencies• 13 years ago

stimulant I can mete out in small doses that will keep me going

Consider the ''eugeroic'' ("Wakefulness Enhancer") class, described as "unproven primary mechanisms but proven efficacy". Bit scary, not something to have a habit around, but widely available through the internets.

wmil• 13 years ago

This line...

Considering that our cells depend on sugar for energy,

Is dishonest. In general parlance "sugar" refers to sucrose. Sucrose is a glucose bonded to a fructose.

Our bodies need glucose to live.

However they do not need fructose.

nicholas732• 13 years ago

I've even heard a university nutritionist make the claim that sugar is just glucose. Some days I feel stupid; others, I feel other people are more stupid.

donaldc7• 13 years ago

That line alone cost the article much of its credibility in my book. A scientific article should not lump all sugars together as metabolically equivalent.

rfnslyr2• 13 years ago

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

beggi• 13 years ago

Fatty meat and fat is healthy as well!

greenyoda• 13 years ago

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).

stevep983• 13 years ago

This is a great video. I watch it once in a while when I need to cut down on my ice cream.

brianbreslin3• 13 years ago

How has your weight loss progressed since the dietary change?

rfnslyr2• 13 years ago

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.

pedalpete• 13 years ago

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.

jdkuepper• 13 years ago

A great read on this same topic: http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/is-sugar-toxic

"What I find frustrating about this debate is that most people yelling and screaming don’t fully define the terms, perhaps because they don’t appreciate them (forgivable) or because they are trying to mislead others (unforgiveable). The wrong question is being asked. “Is sugar toxic?” is a silly question. Why? Because it lacks context. Is water toxic? Is oxygen toxic? These are equally silly questions, I hope you’ll appreciate. Both oxygen and water are essential for life (sugar, by the way, is not). But both oxygen and water are toxic – yes, lethal – at high enough doses."

nicholas732• 13 years ago

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

FrankenPC• 13 years ago

"—a nutrition scientist at Archer Daniels Midland, a major food processing corporation—"

Facepalm

derleth2• 13 years ago

And you have nothing to say about the content, then?

donaldc7• 13 years ago

His comment says more about the content of the article than most of the other comments. An article about sugar funded by ADM is not an objective source of information, due to the very large conflict of interest.

darkarmani2• 13 years ago

And you'll note the link to John White is broken too. It should be this: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=63290138&authType=NA...

He's a consulting research guy for the same people that benefit from HFCS. He has a bunch of propaganda about HFCS, so he is seriously bending the conclusions as much as possible in favor of it.

Here's the part where the article actually agrees that sugar is bad for you:

Even if Lustig is wrong to call fructose poisonous and saddle it with all the blame for obesity and diabetes, his most fundamental directive is sound: eat less sugar.

WTF? It spent the whole article trying to show that sugar is ok, and then it concludes that?

jacques_chester6• 13 years ago

Net caloric balance is still the best long term predictor of average body mass, regardless of dietary macronutrient composition.

http://examine.com/faq/what-should-i-eat-for-weight-loss.htm...

In turn, obesity is a strong predictor of many diseases, regardless of other factors.

In individual cases unobservable "noise" can affect the rate of gain or loss vs the estimated rate given by subtracting an estimate (calories gleaned from an activities database) from another estimate (calories written on the side of the food packet).

But when you look at population BMI vs population calorie intake, it looks suspiciously like a perfect correlation:

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/calories-st...

Which is what we would expect from a basic acceptance of freshman physics. Energy and matter are conserved. No exceptions.

Singling out fructose as some kind of super-baddy doesn't work, for the simple reason that the population BMI-calories correlation appears in countries outside the USA. Only the USA has corn politics and only the USA has HFCS in the food supply in any abundance. Yet the rest of the developed world is getting fat on the same trajectory as the USA has.

hristov5• 13 years ago

The problem with refined fructose is that it contributes to you eating more because the liver cannot process it properly and does not send the "i am full" signals to the brain. Thus, it is in fact the reason why people have higher net caloric intake.

US style food is being exported all over the world. Sodas are sold all over the world. Obesity around the world is generally correlated to the level at which US style food culture is adopted.

Fargren• 13 years ago

Fortunately, in most of the world sodas use sugar instead of syrup. So it's not as bad as it could be.

jacques_chester6• 13 years ago

Only the USA has an unusually high supply of fructose.

Everyone else uses cane sugar because it's cheaper.

People are getting fat because they like the taste of dense foods and those foods are cheaper and more available than ever before in history.

spikels• 13 years ago

It seems to always be acceptable to blame the US for any problem but as pointed out in the article neither sugar cane, refined sugar nor high-fructose corn syrup originated in the US. And almost every "US style food" originated somewhere else. So should we blame Italy, France, China and Mexico too?

I would say the US may be primarily responsible for the technology (agricultural, supply chain, financing, etc) that made food potentially affordable to everyone. An unfortunate consequence of having enough food to eat is being able to eat too much.

autarch• 13 years ago

Did you read the article? It argues directly against your claim that fructose is the primary culprit for obesity.

nitrogen3• 13 years ago

The correlation you want isn't BMI<->calories, it's food type<->calories. The question to be answered is whether some types of food make it easier or harder to maintain a caloric balance.

jacques_chester6• 13 years ago

Which is a question of satiety. The tl;dr is: eat protein and stop drinking sugary liquids.

acchow• 13 years ago

Unless the paper has proper multivariate analysis, it should rightly by ignored.

grannyg00se2• 13 years ago

"Enzymes in the intestine split sucrose into fructose and glucose within seconds, so as far as the human body is concerned sucrose and high-fructose corn syrup are equivalent."

I'm not an expert by any means, but from what I recall that point is still widely contested.

greghinch3• 13 years ago

The article takes the long winded approach to point out the rational argument about how to combat obesity that's been obvious all along: moderation. Laying the blame on sugar in general is a panacea; the problem more has to do with how efficiently sugar delivery has been engineered. Processed foods have made it so that you can eat a relatively small quantity of matter and get a huge amount of sugar (and fat).

Want to get healthy and lose weight? Cut the processed foods. If it comes in a box, don't buy it. If there are ingredients you have trouble pronouncing, don't buy it. Your body has evolved to know when you've had enough food (slowing down your eating will help too). But those foods that are designed in a lab have sugar and other "bad" stuff in disproportionately high amounts, so by the time you've eaten enough to feel full, you've eaten way too much.

TL;DR: stop eating so much, fatty

hippich4• 13 years ago

Or instead of not eating boxed food, just do a research how much "bad stuff" in it and divide accordingly to meet your calories and nutrients target for a day.

grannyg00se2• 13 years ago

How the hell do you do that? I find this problem with a lot of diet methods. It's complicated as well as difficult.

Plus, when you're consuming the "bad stuff" it's even more difficult because of their interactions within the body.

If you can manage to research and control "bad stuff" in your diet and that works, go ahead. But why have them in there at all messing everything up?

greghinch3• 13 years ago

It's as much about habit-forming as anything. If you just stop buying food that comes pre-packaged, you force yourself to make new food-buying habits that will trend towards healthier meals.

sillysaurus3• 13 years ago

Cut the processed foods. If it comes in a box, don't buy it. If there are ingredients you have trouble pronouncing, don't buy it.

I've reduced my diet to the following: apples, canned pineapple, pork steaks, canned corn, and tap water.

The advantage is that none of those contain anything artificial (except the tap water). The disadvantage is that probably no one else would be content eating only those things. But I've been forcing myself, because the alternative is empirically worse.

It's likely I'm just fooling myself. But even still, it's a huge stress relief to not feel bad about we eat.

gohrt• 13 years ago

Where do you get your pork steaks? There's plenty to feel bad about in there.

greghinch3• 13 years ago

Personally I would be cautious of anything in a can as well. By it's nature, the act of food preservation usually requires a massive increase in either sugar or salt.

You're right you shouldn't stress about what you eat too much; what's the point of eating healthy if it makes you miserable. But it's worth thinking about why taking the time to eat healthy stresses you out. If it's a matter of not having time, consider what you could do to make time. Your entire existence subsists on the stuff you ingest. I find that fact reason enough to make time to find healthier meals.

This is all just my 2 cents based on personal experience. Certainly don't mean to be telling you exactly what to do. Just want to encourage thoughtful consideration. It's not a switch you flip, it's a journey

lukifer2• 13 years ago

Corn is very starchy and low-nutrient. I'd suggest swapping them with something green, like canned peas.

Still, I applaud your approach. I've been on paleo for about a year, lost a bunch of weight, and for a while I was basically eating the same 12 foods on a loop (eggs, bacon, coffee, lamb, shrimp, fish, broccoli, spinach, carrots, raspberries, dark chocolate, almonds).

lukifer2• 13 years ago

Willpower requires an expenditure of glucose in the brain [1]. When one is used to a high-sugar diet, the blood sugar burns off quickly, despite being slowed by insulin response, and the body craves more, with the brain being glucose-depleted to resist the impulse. This is not to absolve anyone of personal responsibility, but like gambling, it is a losing proposition over time.

The fact is, we're all wired a little differently. Some who drink too much can simple moderate; some find the need to temporarily or permanently quit drinking altogether. Anyone trapped in the "metabolic syndrome" of a sugary diet will probably be more successful doing the latter.

[1] http://www.amazon.com/Willpower-Rediscovering-Greatest-Human...

sliverstorm• 13 years ago

If it comes in a box, don't buy it.

Personally I think this is pretty extreme/bad advice. Plenty of over-processed foods don't come in boxes, and plenty of perfectly acceptable foods do come in boxes.

wnevets• 13 years ago

is sugar toxic? Maybe, maybe not. I dont know.

What I do know is a diet low in sugar reduces cravings by a lot. Its a lot easier to lose weight when you don't feel hungry all the time.

13lur• 13 years ago

The ironic part about the hour and a half talk "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" is that all the people who it could help the most all have sugar-induced ADD and won't be able to sit through it to understand it...

Anyways I hope this recent bump from HN allows Dr. Lustig to make the talk-show rounds again.

pvnick6• 13 years ago

Everytime a nutrition-related article gets posted, people always submit stories regarding their own personal unscientific weight-loss successes. Most of the time I don't even think they've read the article.

That being said, I found the article interesting, but, as a biochem major, fairly unsurprising. Fructose and glucose are fundamental elements of our body's metabolism, and metabolism is a fundamental element to life. It's what gives your cells energy to do every single thing they do. That sucrose, a compound made up of a single fructose molecule bonded to a glucose molecule, is not detrimental to your health given reasonable consumption reaches "duh" levels of obviousness. Same is true of high fructose corn syrup, which actually just contains 55% fructose and 42% glucose, a negligible difference. So it seems the only detriment to your health posed by HFCS over sucrose is the anxiety you'll get by worrying about it.

Like someone else said "TL;DR: stop eating so much, fatty." In more practical terms, eat reasonably and lift weights and you'll be fine.

Edit:

Here's some science for you:

Energy in = Energy out + Change in Body Stores (fat or muscle)

Where "energy" is measured in calories. Laws of thermodynamics ain't nothin' to f with! [1]

[1] http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-energy-balance...

patrickg_zill• 13 years ago

I have found that reduced-carb and reduced-sugar diets are the best way to lose weight. I have been on "6 small servings with lots of lean protein and yogurt" and on keto-style diets (lots of animal fats, butter, and, almost 0 carbs). Both have resulted in significant loss of weight. I find that the keto-style diet gives me a very even energy throughout the day (probably because the body is slowly burning fat and there are no insulin spikes).

gilgoomesh• 13 years ago

Betteridge's Law of Headlines at work.

any headline which ends in a question mark can be answered by the word "no."

The article directly answers the headline in the negative.

our cells depend on sugar for energy

The rest of the article is more intelligent but it's undermined by the link-baiting headline.

wissler• 13 years ago

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

hristov5• 13 years ago

This article shows how the fructose industry is defending itself. Mostly by confusing the issue.

The thing about fructose is that it is not by itself poisonous. The problem only comes about for refined fructose, such as that found in cane sugar and HFCS. In those cases, fructose overwhelms the liver and gets processed by wrong pathways which result in all kinds of problems. But if you eat fructose in the form of fruits and vegetables, your body has to take a while to break the fructose out of the fruit and vegetable cells. Thus, your liver only gets a steady trickle of fructose instead of a flood of it. As a result, the liver can process the fructose correctly. Furthermore, if you eat fructose with fiber, molecules from the fiber help the liver process more fructose correctly.

Knowing this, it is not difficult to construct an experiment that shows that fructose is not harmful. All you have to do is feed your subjects the correct form of fructose (i.e., fruits and vegetables). The experiment where subjects ate large numbers of apples and were perfectly ok was quite telling.

The other defense of the sugar industry is that it is not the sugar, it is the overeating. However, refined sugar causes the overeating. One of the results of processing fructose the wrong way is that the liver does not produce the hormones that are supposed to inform the brain that you are full. Thus, refined fructose causes overeating of sugar and anything else you happen to be eating with your sugar. Personally I know I eat much more fries if I eat them with ketchup and I will eat much more steak if I eat it with steak sauce.

The fat people and diabetics are being blamed for eating too much and lacking willpower. They may be partially to blame, but it is very hard to make the correct decision when your brain's own sensory mechanisms are being hijacked and tricked. It is very hard to stop eating when you are constantly hungry. But if you cut down on the sugar you will not be constantly hungry, and then you may find that you do not even need that much will power to cut down on your calories.

pvnick6• 13 years ago

I think you pretty much restated the point of the article in slightly more condensed terms. Eat sugar in moderation and you'll be fine. Eat too much and you'll run into problems. The point you added is that sugar -> less full -> overeat, which is possible, but not the point being debated.

dredmorbius2• 13 years ago

It's not merely the quantity, but the rate of assimilation, including gastric emptying, which matters.

So, yes, qualitatively there is a difference not only between eating an apple and a glass of apple juice representing 8 apples, but even when you're juicing a single apple, because that fructose hits your bloodstream immediately.

Useful if you're a bonking cyclist or a runner who's hit the wall. Not so much if you're leading a sedentary lifestyle.

stevep983• 13 years ago

In one of Lustig's videos he talks about fructose from fruit juice. He says if you want fruit juice, eat fruit. The problem comes when you drink a glass of apple juice. That's the juice from about 8 apples. Now, instead of the juice, try eating 8 apples. It's just not really something someone's going to do, it's so much work to grind through all that food. But a glass of apple juice is easy.

temp453463343• 13 years ago

"Personally I know I eat much more fries if I eat them with ketchup and I will eat much more steak if I eat it with steak sauce."

Not to detract from your other excellent points but:

1 - it makes it easier to eat more because it's less dry. If you eat a bunch of fries with nothing it will turn into a huge lump in your stomach and you won't want more.

2 - insoluble fiber in apples slows fructose absorption, but a hunk of fatty meat does not? Fat slows absorption through the intestine.

3 - Vinegar is supposed to suppress appetite. Eating a pickle when your hungry will 4/6 times make you feel a lot less hungry.

iopq3• 13 years ago

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

jacques_chester6• 13 years ago

No, you don't understand. It's a conspiracy. Big Sugar. Cooked up in a lab, they probably cut it with cocaine and old vinyl records played backwards.

It can't possibly be something simple and emergent like "HFCS is cheap" and "people like sweet things".

nmerouze• 13 years ago

I am amazed by the number of people here claiming sugar is bad. I've been eating fruits, fruit juices, milk and sodas as the main part of my diet for a few months now. I've lost weight and I feel really really good (I was in a low carb diet before and always craving carbs and feeling awful).

I've been like you in the past. But instead believing in Lustig and others, I've kept reading scientific studies and the work of Ray Peat is much more consistent.

Is Sugar Really Toxic?

Related Stories