Is sugar really bad for you? (2018)(bbc.com)
bbc.com
Is sugar really bad for you? (2018)
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20180918-is-sugar-really-bad-for-you
73 comments
> you get a feeling that it was commissioned by the sugar lobby
But as it is a BBC site, you also know that isn't the case.
But as it is a BBC site, you also know that isn't the case.
You have a rather credulous view of how the sausage gets made.
The author of this piece is a freelance journalist[1] who has written numerous obvious submarines[2]. Do you know how much a freelance journalist costs? Basically: nuthin! I could have put someone like that on my credit card when I was in grad school.
[1]http://www.jessicaebrown.com/writing
[2] http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html
The author of this piece is a freelance journalist[1] who has written numerous obvious submarines[2]. Do you know how much a freelance journalist costs? Basically: nuthin! I could have put someone like that on my credit card when I was in grad school.
[1]http://www.jessicaebrown.com/writing
[2] http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html
Always interesting to re-read that article. Written in 2005, before Facebook got big, the last paragraphs says
> PR people fear bloggers for the same reason readers like them. And that means there may be a struggle ahead. As this new kind of writing draws readers away from traditional media, we should be prepared for whatever PR mutates into to compensate. When I think how hard PR firms work to score press hits in the traditional media, I can't imagine they'll work any less hard to feed stories to bloggers, if they can figure out how.
And today we have "influencers", native content marketing and Medium (etc) blogs that are way less authentic than what PG wrote about in this post.
> PR people fear bloggers for the same reason readers like them. And that means there may be a struggle ahead. As this new kind of writing draws readers away from traditional media, we should be prepared for whatever PR mutates into to compensate. When I think how hard PR firms work to score press hits in the traditional media, I can't imagine they'll work any less hard to feed stories to bloggers, if they can figure out how.
And today we have "influencers", native content marketing and Medium (etc) blogs that are way less authentic than what PG wrote about in this post.
Thank you for the PG article. Excellent read. I didn't know this term.
I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not, but the impartiality of BBC content is currently under scrutiny.
For those unaware, the BBC is primarily funded by UK public funds (not quite a tax, but a "TV Licence") and as such is prohibited from - amongst other things - 1) selling advertisements and 2) supporting any one political party more than any other. There are of course exceptions (especially wrt to international + online content + commercial arms of the BBC) but an article sponsored by the sugar lobby displayed by a non-commerical arm of the BBC as a UK public service would clearly be prohibited by the BBC charter.
The current atmosphere of Brexit has pushed the BBC under more scrutiny due to accusations of pushing articles that disporportionaly support the government line, rather than opposition.
For those unaware, the BBC is primarily funded by UK public funds (not quite a tax, but a "TV Licence") and as such is prohibited from - amongst other things - 1) selling advertisements and 2) supporting any one political party more than any other. There are of course exceptions (especially wrt to international + online content + commercial arms of the BBC) but an article sponsored by the sugar lobby displayed by a non-commerical arm of the BBC as a UK public service would clearly be prohibited by the BBC charter.
The current atmosphere of Brexit has pushed the BBC under more scrutiny due to accusations of pushing articles that disporportionaly support the government line, rather than opposition.
It's funny, it's always the same thing: super reputable source turns out to be as disreputable as any other.
Never trust journalists, never trust the media.
Never trust journalists, never trust the media.
You can buy ad slots in BBC news like anywhere else.
But not content, and also not in the UK.
If you can't buy the publisher, then you buy the author. Or you feed a neutral author the experts you purchased.
[deleted]
The BBC has gone all free market, it's very much a mouthpiece for the Tories nowadays.
Please supply some evidence for this assertion. When the BBC is annoying people on both side of the argument, it must be sitting on the fence.
I recommend watching a few USA new programs or even reading a few UK daily papers to see what "mouthpeice for the Tories" really are.
Just because the BBC may not agree with everyone all the time, it does not mean it is biased.
I recommend watching a few USA new programs or even reading a few UK daily papers to see what "mouthpeice for the Tories" really are.
Just because the BBC may not agree with everyone all the time, it does not mean it is biased.
The BBC had been run by the BBC trust, which was headed by ext-Tory ministers* and is now run by OFCOM, which is the government media regulator.
It's clearly visible in the political coverage of BBC News, which is ran by @bbclaurak. She's a conservative firebrand, the Sarah Sanders of the UK. Only she's running what is supported to be a neutral news organization.
Further, I don't know - you just have to watch the way they cover subjects that you understand and see how they totally bend the facts to favor which ever corporate interest they've been told to support. This is particularly the cases with coverage of climate change (their position seems to be that the solution is plastic straws and letting consumers decided to buy 'green electricity') and the hostility to Jeremy Corbyn.
The problem with the BBC is that it has been under attack by Sky TV (the premium commercial TV provider then owned by Murdoch) for two decades. A weak or compromised BBC is good business for them and a BBC under the control of the government is great a win-win for those in power..?
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rona_Fairhead,_Baroness_Fairhe..., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Patten
It's clearly visible in the political coverage of BBC News, which is ran by @bbclaurak. She's a conservative firebrand, the Sarah Sanders of the UK. Only she's running what is supported to be a neutral news organization.
Further, I don't know - you just have to watch the way they cover subjects that you understand and see how they totally bend the facts to favor which ever corporate interest they've been told to support. This is particularly the cases with coverage of climate change (their position seems to be that the solution is plastic straws and letting consumers decided to buy 'green electricity') and the hostility to Jeremy Corbyn.
The problem with the BBC is that it has been under attack by Sky TV (the premium commercial TV provider then owned by Murdoch) for two decades. A weak or compromised BBC is good business for them and a BBC under the control of the government is great a win-win for those in power..?
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rona_Fairhead,_Baroness_Fairhe..., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Patten
The BBC comes under fire from both the left and the right for being biased, and a quick Google search shows that if anything, there appears to be more concern about it being bias towards the left [1, 2]. Here's a really detailed Wikipedia page on BBC bias if you're interested (or want to contribute) [3].
Surely the BBC has a tough line to walk; differing perspectives on the left and the right mean that both sides likely will view its content differently (and sometimes conclude it was biased). Despite this, it has to broadcast some content, since that's (literally) its mandate.
Perhaps the best solution is to have continued scrutiny from both sides of the political spectrum, and independent regulator to manage complaints... which is what we already have (and what you're helping achieve!)?
[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=left+wing+BBC [2] https://www.google.com/search?q=right+wing+BBC [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC
Surely the BBC has a tough line to walk; differing perspectives on the left and the right mean that both sides likely will view its content differently (and sometimes conclude it was biased). Despite this, it has to broadcast some content, since that's (literally) its mandate.
Perhaps the best solution is to have continued scrutiny from both sides of the political spectrum, and independent regulator to manage complaints... which is what we already have (and what you're helping achieve!)?
[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=left+wing+BBC [2] https://www.google.com/search?q=right+wing+BBC [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC
I've read a lot about the "left" bias of the BBC. The thing is, "leftwing bias" has been a meme of the far right for since ever. It's the same strategy of projection that Trump does so fantastically well - project whatever they're doing (or trying to do) onto the opposition and pummel them with it. Sure they won't get exactly what they want, but every time they do it moves the needle a little towards their direction.
They should just me made to report the facts with the correct weight. The problem is that they include things like flat earthers, homeopaths etc into the conversation in a way which legitimizes them.
What they should be doing is requiring their news content to be fact based. So fact check politicians. Don't give the basket cases a platform (and fact check them if they slip in).
They should just me made to report the facts with the correct weight. The problem is that they include things like flat earthers, homeopaths etc into the conversation in a way which legitimizes them.
What they should be doing is requiring their news content to be fact based. So fact check politicians. Don't give the basket cases a platform (and fact check them if they slip in).
You can and in the UK.
An estimated 33.9% of U.S. adults aged 18 years or older (84.1 million people) had prediabetes in 2015, based on their fasting glucose or A1C level. Nearly half (48.3%) of adults aged 65 years or older had prediabetes.
You may be one of these people and not even know it.
It’s an epidemic.
You may be one of these people and not even know it.
It’s an epidemic.
Sugar is one of my few vices. I can get addicted to it fairly easy, and it’s really hard for me to kick the habit even when I try. When I cut it out of my diet I get to go through a few days of withdrawals where I have no energy, lots of craving, much higher appetite and a general level of annoyedness. After this I get periods of higher quality life with less sick days. Once I fall back in, I don’t even like the taste of sugary things for the first few days.
This is completely anecdotal, but my sugar habits are similar to drug-addicts, and while sugar certainly isn’t drugs it’s not healthy for me either. It’s also the only substance in my regular diet that affects me this way.
This is completely anecdotal, but my sugar habits are similar to drug-addicts, and while sugar certainly isn’t drugs it’s not healthy for me either. It’s also the only substance in my regular diet that affects me this way.
> sugar certainly isn’t drugs
I guess it depends on the definition of a 'drug'?
I guess it depends on the definition of a 'drug'?
> and while sugar certainly isn’t drugs
It is. Like coffee is.
It is. Like coffee is.
Coffee is a psychoactive. Sugar isn't.
Sugar makes me restless and annoyed pretty consistently.
What's a drug? If sugar causes addiction, withdrawal, and it's unhealthy, then it definitely is a drug.
It is a drug much like... say, broccoli is a drug. Milk before bedtime is a drug. Running is a drug. It is a drug in the same sense that anything can cause addiction and withdrawal or be unhealthy.
Caffeine is, by itself, a drug in a different sense. It causes a slight addiction and can cause slight withdrawal. It isn't all that unhealthy in itself, however, especially not in the amounts we find naturally in foods. It becomes more of an issue if one is taking caffeine pills and other such things. Eating unhealthily might be more unhealthy, honestly - even though overall, having an unhealthy diet isn't a drug.
Caffeine is, by itself, a drug in a different sense. It causes a slight addiction and can cause slight withdrawal. It isn't all that unhealthy in itself, however, especially not in the amounts we find naturally in foods. It becomes more of an issue if one is taking caffeine pills and other such things. Eating unhealthily might be more unhealthy, honestly - even though overall, having an unhealthy diet isn't a drug.
"It is a drug in the same sense that anything can cause addiction and withdrawal or be unhealthy.
Caffeine is, by itself, a drug in a different sense. It causes a slight addiction and can cause slight withdrawal."
This seems like a drug in the same sense, can you clarify?
Rather than making stuff up, here's dictionary definition of drug: a medicine or other substance which has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body.
As a user of both sugar and broccoli I can anecdotally attest that they do not have the same physiological effect on my body.
Caffeine is, by itself, a drug in a different sense. It causes a slight addiction and can cause slight withdrawal."
This seems like a drug in the same sense, can you clarify?
Rather than making stuff up, here's dictionary definition of drug: a medicine or other substance which has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body.
As a user of both sugar and broccoli I can anecdotally attest that they do not have the same physiological effect on my body.
Nah, that can't be true. Suppose you eat either broccoli or a sugary snack every day at 4 PM. Then I bet that habit is definitely harder to stop if it's a sugary snack.
So much of sugar's attraction is contextual.
Pure granulated sugar, straight from a packet, doesn't appeal -- not to me. Yet I suspect that cocaine does not have this property.
A bowl of frozen raspberries, with cream and an additional 2 or 3 teaspoons of sugar sprinkled on top, is very sweet, like delicious rocket fuel. Whereas a bowl of ice cream, containing double the amount of sugar, doesn't taste any sweeter.
Pure granulated sugar, straight from a packet, doesn't appeal -- not to me. Yet I suspect that cocaine does not have this property.
A bowl of frozen raspberries, with cream and an additional 2 or 3 teaspoons of sugar sprinkled on top, is very sweet, like delicious rocket fuel. Whereas a bowl of ice cream, containing double the amount of sugar, doesn't taste any sweeter.
Regarding ice cream: my experience is that temperature has a large impact on how sweet something tastes. Specifically, the same food will taste sweeter when it is warmer. Milk is actually incredibly sweet, but you don’t realize that unless you’re drinking it warm. If you’ve ever had a warm soda pop or melted ice cream, you’ll probably remember them as sickly sweet—much sweeter than when either is cold.
Your experience is consistent with most (all?) people. The way taste and smell work are significantly impacted by temperature due to how the sensory channels work, and how the sensed particles behave while warm or cold.
This is very noticeable with fatty foods in my own experience.
This is very noticeable with fatty foods in my own experience.
In general our bodies evolved for a certain environment. Simple sugars were present in that environment (fruit, honey) but not at high levels. Our bodies are highly adaptable but when you start consuming orders of magnitude more sugar than we evolved for, you are exceeding the design limits.
The problem is refined sugar does not contain fiber and most important does not contain ANY mictonutrients; so basically you starve yourself in the long run if you only consumed refined sugar.
Fruit is a whole other story as it contains a bunch of micronutrients.
Fruit is a whole other story as it contains a bunch of micronutrients.
Doesn't that just mean we'll evolve into a new environment?
A process that involves one premature death (or, at least, failure to reproduce) per copy in the population of the gene that needs to be replaced.
Evolution, the grand vivisectionist.
Evolution, the grand vivisectionist.
only if the evolutionary pressure kills you before you can have children.
Likely yes. In 100 thousand years.
More like 1000 years, but still: much longer than is useful to anybody alive now.
Can I use this excuse with climate change?
What do you mean? Climate change is about to submerge thousands of square kilometers under the sea in 30 years. Millions of people displaced. Your children and their children will not be able to visit some of the places we see in our tourist guides today:
https://i2.wp.com/vietnaminsider.vn/wp-content/uploads/2019/...
https://i2.wp.com/vietnaminsider.vn/wp-content/uploads/2019/...
Dates have loads of sugar though
I recently started tracking my diet more and realised I've been having 200+ grams of sugar a day !
Refined (white) sugar is really bad. No good stuff in it. Better to use Raw or unrefined sugar instead that has lot of useful minerals/vitamins in it. I think, the manufacturers extract whatever is possible and make money out of it and what is left is not worth much.
I stopped using white sugar for an year and my shirt size has reduced by two inches. No other specific diet restrictions. I also do not consume ready to eat (manufactured foods) that is available in stores.
> Better to use Raw or unrefined sugar instead that has lot of useful minerals/vitamins in it.
> I stopped using white sugar for an year and my shirt size has reduced by two inches.
How did the presence of additional minerals and vitamins in unrefined sugar help you lose weight?
> I stopped using white sugar for an year and my shirt size has reduced by two inches.
How did the presence of additional minerals and vitamins in unrefined sugar help you lose weight?
Refined sugar is just converted to fat. Reduced intake helps. Unrefined sugar is just more healthy alternative
It's surprising how the general public seems to rely on research instead of first hand experience. Simply change your sugar behavior for a while, see how it affects you, and those are the results you need. The body is (in general) perfectly able to tell you how beneficial a certain behavior is in the long run, as long as you are able to objectively observe the results (as far as possible).
For me, sugar in more then minimal quantities give huge ups and downs, cravings, nauseousness etc.
For me, sugar in more then minimal quantities give huge ups and downs, cravings, nauseousness etc.
Its difficult to quit sugar initially. But once you have quit for sometime, the idea of consuming sugar begins to feel disgusting.
> It's surprising how the general public seems to rely on research instead of first hand experience.
But medical research assumes that first hand experience can be deceiving, because of placebo effect. It also considers the impact self-deception on researchers, and tries to remove that effect with double-blind studies.
I find it difficult to believe that dietary changes that require a consistent level of engagement, both to be mindful of what you eat and to resist temptations, can be free of placebo effects. And since you're also evaluating subjectively the effects, you are also prone to the researcher's self-deception.
But medical research assumes that first hand experience can be deceiving, because of placebo effect. It also considers the impact self-deception on researchers, and tries to remove that effect with double-blind studies.
I find it difficult to believe that dietary changes that require a consistent level of engagement, both to be mindful of what you eat and to resist temptations, can be free of placebo effects. And since you're also evaluating subjectively the effects, you are also prone to the researcher's self-deception.
> But medical research assumes that first hand experience can be deceiving, because of placebo effect.
Well pointed out, it is. And for "general public" kind of advice, scientific processes absolutely help and are necessary to get to the right conclusions. The thing is, when someone else benefits from you eating sugar, journalistic pieces that put try to put people on the wrong foot (like these) will come out. Probably papers sponsored by sugar industry as well.
So why not go for your own experience? Like blunte mentions, many people experience the same kind of positive effects - isn't that science after all? And even if it's all just one big placebo and there ultimately is no negative effect of eating loads of sugar, whats the problem? People feel better :)
Well pointed out, it is. And for "general public" kind of advice, scientific processes absolutely help and are necessary to get to the right conclusions. The thing is, when someone else benefits from you eating sugar, journalistic pieces that put try to put people on the wrong foot (like these) will come out. Probably papers sponsored by sugar industry as well.
So why not go for your own experience? Like blunte mentions, many people experience the same kind of positive effects - isn't that science after all? And even if it's all just one big placebo and there ultimately is no negative effect of eating loads of sugar, whats the problem? People feel better :)
> The thing is, when someone else benefits from you eating sugar, journalistic pieces that put try to put people on the wrong foot (like these) will come out.
This is conspiratorial thinking. It's not healthy to shut off every opinion different from yours as an attempt to deception.
> So why not go for your own experience?
As I said, individual experiences are difficult to trust. Anyway, for what it's worth, I did cut drastically my sugar intake, for months. I found no benefits.
This is conspiratorial thinking. It's not healthy to shut off every opinion different from yours as an attempt to deception.
> So why not go for your own experience?
As I said, individual experiences are difficult to trust. Anyway, for what it's worth, I did cut drastically my sugar intake, for months. I found no benefits.
Just because one can experience a placebo effect does not suggest that any change in behavior may be ineffective (but appear effective a la placebo).
When I finally start exercising (for a month solid) after being sedentary for 6+ months, I feel greatly energized - physically and mentally. I feel stronger too. Based on my performance in many aspects of life, I'm pretty sure that the benefits aren't imagined.
The same applies to alcohol. After about three weeks of no alcohol, a kind of mental clarity, sharpness, and aggressiveness (as in _wanting_ to be mentally challenged instead of avoiding mental effort) becomes very present. This I do not believe is a placebo - although if it is, I'm still much happier with the real or perceived benefit.
So with sugar, why not the same? Plenty of people have written their stories about cutting sugar and how they felt for weeks or months, so I'm likely to believe that they really experienced the benefits.
Finally, placebo or not, there's little question that "empty calories" are at minimal non-beneficial, and at worst harmful.
When I finally start exercising (for a month solid) after being sedentary for 6+ months, I feel greatly energized - physically and mentally. I feel stronger too. Based on my performance in many aspects of life, I'm pretty sure that the benefits aren't imagined.
The same applies to alcohol. After about three weeks of no alcohol, a kind of mental clarity, sharpness, and aggressiveness (as in _wanting_ to be mentally challenged instead of avoiding mental effort) becomes very present. This I do not believe is a placebo - although if it is, I'm still much happier with the real or perceived benefit.
So with sugar, why not the same? Plenty of people have written their stories about cutting sugar and how they felt for weeks or months, so I'm likely to believe that they really experienced the benefits.
Finally, placebo or not, there's little question that "empty calories" are at minimal non-beneficial, and at worst harmful.
[deleted]
Tldr: yes, sugar will make you suffer an illness.
On the bright side:
1) one person developed eating disorder out of fear of sugars
2) eating sugar make older people more motivated on short term
More specifically excess glucose yes, which are usually ingested through high carb foods such as pasta, rice, bread, sugar and sweets, corn and wheat based products.
In contrast rather go for good fat foods such as bacon, avocado, eggs, mineral rich meats such as pasture raised beef/chicken or fish. Half your plate should be leafy greens/veg. These provide good minerals, and molecularly different fuel called ketones instead of glucose, these are closer to stored fats aswell so the body is used to running on the same fuel. So when you're not eating and the body has consumed the energy in the food you ate, it can easily switch to using body fat reserves.
The transition from glucose to ketone in the body causes molecular rearrangement in a process called keto-flu, which can last up to 3 days. You can think of it like going cold-turkey from sugar and returning to the real normal.
It is important to only eat when hungry. And try to extend the periods between eating, even if it starts at 16, then 20 hours, some do periodic fastings of 48 or 72 hours. This kickstarts body self repair and optimization of your entire structure. It seems to even reverse cancer. Research this.. it is amazing.
See this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMZfyEy_jpI
In contrast rather go for good fat foods such as bacon, avocado, eggs, mineral rich meats such as pasture raised beef/chicken or fish. Half your plate should be leafy greens/veg. These provide good minerals, and molecularly different fuel called ketones instead of glucose, these are closer to stored fats aswell so the body is used to running on the same fuel. So when you're not eating and the body has consumed the energy in the food you ate, it can easily switch to using body fat reserves.
The transition from glucose to ketone in the body causes molecular rearrangement in a process called keto-flu, which can last up to 3 days. You can think of it like going cold-turkey from sugar and returning to the real normal.
It is important to only eat when hungry. And try to extend the periods between eating, even if it starts at 16, then 20 hours, some do periodic fastings of 48 or 72 hours. This kickstarts body self repair and optimization of your entire structure. It seems to even reverse cancer. Research this.. it is amazing.
See this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMZfyEy_jpI
What's the deal with milk? I've recently noticed most milk contains 5 percent sugar. Is that ok for some reason?
When people talk about sugar being harmful, they mean fructose. Sugar is used as a shortcut, but then some people mix it up or play semantic games by talking about other sugars.
Does the research on harms of sugar really only apply to fructose?
Basically yes. Other sugars don't have nearly the same effect. It might be a blend of pragmatic reasons in combination with biology (not as sweet, more filling, etc) but the result is still that the focus is fructose.
I happened to speak to a friend this evening who is a biochemist
She reckoned refined glucose was the real bad guy, as it's what your muscles actually burn, while other sugars need converting first. Therefore its distribution within the body is unregulated - you eat it, it gets burned, no question. Contrasting the others, for which the conversion process serves as some form of regulation and is likely to run slower when you don't actually need it.
She also acknowledged fructose as a problem, primarily when its in corn syrup (or vast quantities of fruit juice) as you don't have to digest cell walls etc to get it. Whereas in fruit the absorption is slower (though for something juicy like an orange I can't imagine that much slower)
I'm sure this is an oversimplification and any errors are mine!
She reckoned refined glucose was the real bad guy, as it's what your muscles actually burn, while other sugars need converting first. Therefore its distribution within the body is unregulated - you eat it, it gets burned, no question. Contrasting the others, for which the conversion process serves as some form of regulation and is likely to run slower when you don't actually need it.
She also acknowledged fructose as a problem, primarily when its in corn syrup (or vast quantities of fruit juice) as you don't have to digest cell walls etc to get it. Whereas in fruit the absorption is slower (though for something juicy like an orange I can't imagine that much slower)
I'm sure this is an oversimplification and any errors are mine!
I'm not an expert but I'll say a few things. First glucose is a molecule, so I don't think there can be a 'refined' version.
Also if glucose was immediately burned it wouldn't have a chance to be turned into fat, though I don't know if that is actually true.
If you watch 'sugar the bitter truth' you can see a lot of scientific studies condensed into a good presentation.
Also if glucose was immediately burned it wouldn't have a chance to be turned into fat, though I don't know if that is actually true.
If you watch 'sugar the bitter truth' you can see a lot of scientific studies condensed into a good presentation.
...but they were replying to a post talking about glucose.
Then, in the body of the article you get a feeling that it was commissioned by the sugar lobby. Showing the evidence but casting doubt every time. It concludes with a "it does not matter".