60 minutes: Is sugar toxic?(cbsnews.com)
cbsnews.com
60 minutes: Is sugar toxic?
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7403942n&tag=contentBody;storyMediaBox
16 comments
Personally, I'm still convinced that a calorie is a calorie
Do you believe that a person can subsist only on mayonnaise?
According to this: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=calories+in+mayonnaise, it seems that 50 tablespoons of mayo will get you around 2500 calories, so that should be enough calories per day, right?
Your answer might be "no, you also need vitamins". So suppose I add to this hypothetical experiment the daily recommended intake of vitamins through pills (and similarly for other things, like fiber). Would the hypothetical subject live, according to your estimation?
What a curious reply. Obviously a person needs more than calories to live. Protein, carbohydrates, fats, vitamins, minerals, and water are all essential to life. Dietary fibre is pretty handy, but being indigestible is not counted as a nutrient.
I'm not sure I understand your reply:
Protein: OK, add to the hypothetical experiment enough protein shakes.
Carbohydrates: their inclusion in your list seems to suggest that a calorie is not a calorie, in the sense that one can't substitute all one's carbohydrates with fats, as long as the calories add up to the same amount. Right?
Fats: Mayonnaise has quite a lot of fat.
Vitamins, minerals: Take enough pills of those.
Water: OK, drink water as much as you want.
Would a person living on this diet be healthy? If not, and we controlled all the non-caloric variables, does that mean that the premise that "a calorie is a calorie" is false?
Would a person living on this diet be healthy? If not, and we controlled all the non-caloric variables, does that mean that the premise that "a calorie is a calorie" is false?
Then why is wildlife getting fatter?
And also to eat low calorie per ounce of weight or volume, and slow digesting foods like ruffage to give the feeling of fullness.
It's true that you don't lose weight without caloric deficit. But while a calorie equals a calorie, the body reacts differently to fast calories and slow calories: a steady supply of blood sugar, vs. spikes and troughs. This affects feedback loops of insulin, satiety, etc., prompting people to overeat.
Side note: I'm really looking forward to future biofeedback tech. It'd be interesting to know my blood sugar level and heart rate at all times.
Side note: I'm really looking forward to future biofeedback tech. It'd be interesting to know my blood sugar level and heart rate at all times.
> Side note: I'm really looking forward to future biofeedback tech. It'd be interesting to know my blood sugar level and heart rate at all times.
It's a neat idea, and I'd enjoy collecting all that data too.
Would this data be useful for researchers? Or is it just too much information?
And there are risks of knowing too much about your body. People can develop anxiety illnesses (such as hypochondria, which has unfortunate popular connotations but in severe forms can be distressing and expensive) when they become too aware of their heartbeat, for example. See also full body MRI scans which are pointless unless you have an idea of what you're looking for.
It's a neat idea, and I'd enjoy collecting all that data too.
Would this data be useful for researchers? Or is it just too much information?
And there are risks of knowing too much about your body. People can develop anxiety illnesses (such as hypochondria, which has unfortunate popular connotations but in severe forms can be distressing and expensive) when they become too aware of their heartbeat, for example. See also full body MRI scans which are pointless unless you have an idea of what you're looking for.
> It's true that you don't lose weight without caloric deficit.
Are you sure? I've lost plenty of weight following a low carb diet while eating tons of high calorie dark chocolate and oily meats.
Are you sure? I've lost plenty of weight following a low carb diet while eating tons of high calorie dark chocolate and oily meats.
Preaching to the choir, I've been paleo for three months and lost almost 40 lbs. I'm just talking about the physics involved: caloric energy used vs. caloric energy consumed. If you could measure them perfectly, there would be a loss.
> If you could measure them perfectly, there would be a loss
Again, how do you know?
Below someone says diet follows the laws of thermodynamics. That's hogwash. While our bodies certainly follow all laws of physics, that has nothing to do with diet.
We are perfectly capable of expelling unconsumed dietary energy.
Again, how do you know?
Below someone says diet follows the laws of thermodynamics. That's hogwash. While our bodies certainly follow all laws of physics, that has nothing to do with diet.
We are perfectly capable of expelling unconsumed dietary energy.
Thermodynamics doesn't govern diet so much as it does everything in the known universe. ;) But I'll admit that my statement is merely a highly probable assumption. If fat doesn't leave based on burning it for energy, where does it go?
When in ketosis, excess ketones are expelled in the urine.
The basic equation is:
calories consumed - calories burned = weight loss (or gain)
If you lost weight it means you burned more calories than you ate.
If you lost weight it means you burned more calories than you ate.
This is widely believed but not true or supported by scientific evidence. Have a look at Gary Taubes "Good Calories, Bad Calories" for a rundown on much of the relevant research.
It's thermodynamics. Living takes energy, and that energy needs to come from somewhere. We can't photosynthesize energy, and we can't get it from air or water. So if there's not enough energy in food to sustain our body's processes, then it must come from stores in the body (fat).
I don't think there's any other possibility.
I don't think there's any other possibility.
Weight loss only reduces to simple thermodynamics if the body is functionally equivalent to a coal furnace. It turns out metabolism is more subtle than that.
There are subtleties to nutrition and weight loss, of course. But let's say you stopped eating, and you didn't just die: do you think it's somehow possible to NOT lose body mass?
Of course not, and nobody here thinks that.
I didn't read the book but I wonder if what the scientific evidence concludes isn't necessarily the refutation of that equation, but rather that it's more complicated than x-y=z. For example, foods that require a bit more energy to consume such as foods high in fiber.
I mean, calories are just a unit of measure for energy, so if you consume energy, it must go somewhere, either expended or stored in the body. What happens if the body lacks the energy for its processes...doesn't it then burn fat? If you turn fat into energy, that means less mass in the form of fat, with the excess energy dissipating into heat. Isn't this just physics?
I mean, calories are just a unit of measure for energy, so if you consume energy, it must go somewhere, either expended or stored in the body. What happens if the body lacks the energy for its processes...doesn't it then burn fat? If you turn fat into energy, that means less mass in the form of fat, with the excess energy dissipating into heat. Isn't this just physics?
Yeah, Taubes' main point (simplified) is that your muscle and organ cells are pretty good at burning fat, unless you eat lots of carbohydrates, which releases insulin, which will tell your body to stow away any fat that's in your bloodstream instead of burning it. So while consumed - burned = loss is still true, eating a diet that is high on carbs will reduce the amount of calories you burn from the same caloric intake.
Carbohydrates also have the added problem of making your blood sugar swing, which leads to hunger pangs and bigger appetites.
Paradoxically, it's not fat that makes you fat, it's hormones and pasta/rice/potatoes/bread/sugar because they mess with those hormones.
If your body wants more energy, it will find a way to get it, either by inducing you to overeat, or by making you less active. So fixing your hormone balance (specifically insulin levels) is more effective than trying to control your food intake.
Of course, the fact that many restaurants and diners in the US serve really big portions, that most of us don't do a lot of exercise, that we have very easy access to high-calorie foods, that the food industry precision-engineers foodstuffs to be addictive... all of that surely doesn't help, but if Taubes is correct those environmental factors are not the chief cause of obesity.
Carbohydrates also have the added problem of making your blood sugar swing, which leads to hunger pangs and bigger appetites.
Paradoxically, it's not fat that makes you fat, it's hormones and pasta/rice/potatoes/bread/sugar because they mess with those hormones.
If your body wants more energy, it will find a way to get it, either by inducing you to overeat, or by making you less active. So fixing your hormone balance (specifically insulin levels) is more effective than trying to control your food intake.
Of course, the fact that many restaurants and diners in the US serve really big portions, that most of us don't do a lot of exercise, that we have very easy access to high-calorie foods, that the food industry precision-engineers foodstuffs to be addictive... all of that surely doesn't help, but if Taubes is correct those environmental factors are not the chief cause of obesity.
It's not that they're good at burning fat, it's that they require more energy to operate. They will get that energy from anywhere they can, be it from diet, stored energy in the form of fat cells, or protein in the form of muscles.
Don't anthropomorphize the constituant parts of the anthropos.
Also, if your body wants more energy, it's for a reason, and that reason is that the processes of maintaining life require it. And yes, it will get it, but not by making you less active - that's the tail wagging the dog. You're less active in that case because your body can't support the activity rate without burning more calories.
Don't anthropomorphize the constituant parts of the anthropos.
Also, if your body wants more energy, it's for a reason, and that reason is that the processes of maintaining life require it. And yes, it will get it, but not by making you less active - that's the tail wagging the dog. You're less active in that case because your body can't support the activity rate without burning more calories.
I think the best way I managed to wrap my head around the refutation of that is this: First off, some foods make you hungrier so you consume more calories. People have a very strong tendency to eat when they're hungry. The might be able to put that aside for a short while (dieting) but its' very hard to combat in the long run
Secondly, it has to do with how the body stores fat. Eating fast carbs produces insulin which signals the body to store fat in larger amounts than low/slow carb.
It's a pity that the caloric model is so entrenced when really it's the least useful one.
Really, it's not rocket science,stop eating white foods, don't drink calories, eat quality meat and veggies,and your set.
Secondly, it has to do with how the body stores fat. Eating fast carbs produces insulin which signals the body to store fat in larger amounts than low/slow carb.
It's a pity that the caloric model is so entrenced when really it's the least useful one.
Really, it's not rocket science,stop eating white foods, don't drink calories, eat quality meat and veggies,and your set.
Me too. Just spent 8 weeks on a low carb diet and lost 17 pounds so far. Calories do not factor into it. Low carbs and low sugar intake lead to weight loss.
You can lose fat if you eat nothing but Doritos and a Coke 3 times a day.
Weight loss is far more straightforward to achieve than health and fitness.
Weight loss is far more straightforward to achieve than health and fitness.
You can, but you won't. Blood glucose is tied to willpower, so once you crash, it's exceedingly difficult to not eat more sugar.
Do you have evidence for that? The Lustig view on the biochemistry of fat creation and insulin resistance is pretty persuasive.
Try it. I have (not that exact combo, but the same ballpark). Or find one of the many people who eat terribly but not excessively and are thin.
I didn't say it was in any way a good idea - just a retort to the OP's position that short term weight loss is not about calories.
I didn't say it was in any way a good idea - just a retort to the OP's position that short term weight loss is not about calories.
I don't think a skinny guy who eats junk food proves anything. I believe that ukdm's position is not that calories are entirely irrelevant, just that if you focus on low carbs and low sugar, then counting calories in practice doesn't matter.
"I'm really looking forward to future biofeedback tech. It'd be interesting to know my blood sugar level and heart rate at all times."
http://youtube.com/watch?v=bt-lv6IJPxc (animation of a hypothetical, nanotech-based, dermal display)
P.S. I have a reply to your McLuhan comment, but I've been too busy/lazy to have typed it out yet.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=bt-lv6IJPxc (animation of a hypothetical, nanotech-based, dermal display)
P.S. I have a reply to your McLuhan comment, but I've been too busy/lazy to have typed it out yet.
Oh, man. I want one.
> I have a reply to your McLuhan comment, but I've been too busy/lazy to have typed it out yet.
Haha, that's beautiful. Better get it out of your head before the idea half-life expires. ;)
Allow to me say pre-emptively that the Myers-Brigg abstraction is relevant to the medium/message issue. People inclined towards [P]erception can are more likely to suss out the author's intent regardless of how it is transmitted; people who lean [S]ensory are more likely to influenced by the subjective experience of the idea's packaging.
> I have a reply to your McLuhan comment, but I've been too busy/lazy to have typed it out yet.
Haha, that's beautiful. Better get it out of your head before the idea half-life expires. ;)
Allow to me say pre-emptively that the Myers-Brigg abstraction is relevant to the medium/message issue. People inclined towards [P]erception can are more likely to suss out the author's intent regardless of how it is transmitted; people who lean [S]ensory are more likely to influenced by the subjective experience of the idea's packaging.
The red meat study from the nytimes article you link received a lot of criticism, for example: http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2012/03/red-meat-mortality-the-us...
She spends a long time attacking the research. Really her problem is with how science is reported.
It's frustrating that she takes quotes from the BBC R4 Programme 'Today' out of context. John Humphries is an idiot and has no clue about interviewing technical people. The researchers were careful not to overplay the research.
Even though this is epidemiology and not a double blind controlled study the results are pretty clear; the research was good quality.
Here's what the research said. (She quotes this.)
> “Unprocessed and processed red meat intakes were associated with an increased risk of total, CVD, and cancer mortality in men and women in the age-adjusted and fully adjusted models. When treating red meat intake as a continuous variable, the elevated risk of total mortality in the pooled analysis for a 1-serving-per-day increase was 12% for total red meat, 13% for unprocessed red meat, and 20% for processed red meat.”
This is a calm, cautious, undramatic statement.
The problem is that risk is presented as a percentage, and most people have no idea what that means to their life expectancy; or how to compare that risk to other things.
Check my math, but I think the above figures mean a decrease of one year in life expectancy over 80 years. Eg: compare Bob who doesn't eat too much red meat who lives to 80 with the same Bob who does eat too much red meat who lives to 79. (But risks unpleasant medical treatment that decreases quality of life.)
It's frustrating that she takes quotes from the BBC R4 Programme 'Today' out of context. John Humphries is an idiot and has no clue about interviewing technical people. The researchers were careful not to overplay the research.
Even though this is epidemiology and not a double blind controlled study the results are pretty clear; the research was good quality.
Here's what the research said. (She quotes this.)
> “Unprocessed and processed red meat intakes were associated with an increased risk of total, CVD, and cancer mortality in men and women in the age-adjusted and fully adjusted models. When treating red meat intake as a continuous variable, the elevated risk of total mortality in the pooled analysis for a 1-serving-per-day increase was 12% for total red meat, 13% for unprocessed red meat, and 20% for processed red meat.”
This is a calm, cautious, undramatic statement.
The problem is that risk is presented as a percentage, and most people have no idea what that means to their life expectancy; or how to compare that risk to other things.
Check my math, but I think the above figures mean a decrease of one year in life expectancy over 80 years. Eg: compare Bob who doesn't eat too much red meat who lives to 80 with the same Bob who does eat too much red meat who lives to 79. (But risks unpleasant medical treatment that decreases quality of life.)
There's a lot more wrong with how the data was interpreted, not to mention the hyperbolic statements made by the researchers themselves.
"The statistics are staggering," study author Frank Hu, a professor of nutrition and epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public health, told us. "The increased risk is really substantial." http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/03/12/148457233/death-...
That statement alone is absolutely contra-calm/cautious/undramatic.
The fact that this was an observational study based on a food frequency questionnaire is dubious as well. It's well established that participants underreport foods that are perceived as being "bad" for them and overreport things that society says are "good."
"Foods underestimated by the FFQs compared with the diet records (ie, the gold standard) included processed meats, eggs, butter, high-fat dairy products, mayonnaise and creamy salad dressings, refined grains, and sweets and desserts, whereas most of the vegetable and fruit groups, nuts, high-energy and low-energy drinks, and condiments were overestimated by the FFQs." http://www.ajcn.org/content/69/2/243.full
"The statistics are staggering," study author Frank Hu, a professor of nutrition and epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public health, told us. "The increased risk is really substantial." http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/03/12/148457233/death-...
That statement alone is absolutely contra-calm/cautious/undramatic.
The fact that this was an observational study based on a food frequency questionnaire is dubious as well. It's well established that participants underreport foods that are perceived as being "bad" for them and overreport things that society says are "good."
"Foods underestimated by the FFQs compared with the diet records (ie, the gold standard) included processed meats, eggs, butter, high-fat dairy products, mayonnaise and creamy salad dressings, refined grains, and sweets and desserts, whereas most of the vegetable and fruit groups, nuts, high-energy and low-energy drinks, and condiments were overestimated by the FFQs." http://www.ajcn.org/content/69/2/243.full
> Personally, I'm still convinced that a calorie is a calorie.
turns out that idea violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC506782/
turns out that idea violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC506782/
Personally, I'm still convinced that a calorie is a calorie.
According to this New York Times article[1], a calorie is not always a calorie:
A food isn’t a food — they’re all different — but since a calorie is just a measurement of energy, how can it vary? When I asked my question, Nestle’s answer was confounding: “Yes and no,” she said, adding, “It’s Talmudic.” Because calories change as they enter the body, the nine grams for fat and four for everything else turn out to be not very accurate measures at all; besides, foods are only rarely one thing or another.
Here’s what is true, she said: “The studies that have measured calorie intake, that have put people on calorie-reduced diets and measured what happened, show no difference in weight loss based on composition of the diet.” When people are essentially incarcerated, when all intake is weighed and measured, they will lose weight if the calories in their diets are reduced — regardless of the composition of the diet.
[1] http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/20/is-a-calorie...
According to this New York Times article[1], a calorie is not always a calorie:
A food isn’t a food — they’re all different — but since a calorie is just a measurement of energy, how can it vary? When I asked my question, Nestle’s answer was confounding: “Yes and no,” she said, adding, “It’s Talmudic.” Because calories change as they enter the body, the nine grams for fat and four for everything else turn out to be not very accurate measures at all; besides, foods are only rarely one thing or another.
Here’s what is true, she said: “The studies that have measured calorie intake, that have put people on calorie-reduced diets and measured what happened, show no difference in weight loss based on composition of the diet.” When people are essentially incarcerated, when all intake is weighed and measured, they will lose weight if the calories in their diets are reduced — regardless of the composition of the diet.
[1] http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/20/is-a-calorie...
I'm a big fan of Alan Aragon, one of the country's leading experts on nutrition/health (in my and a lot of people's opinion). He did a pretty well informed takedown of Dr. Lustig's alarmist stance... check it out here and make up your own minds:
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-ab...
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/02/19/a-retrospective-of-...
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-ab...
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/02/19/a-retrospective-of-...
Compare:
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/about/
to:
http://chc.ucsf.edu/coast/faculty_lustig.htm
I'm not saying that's dispositive, but why exactly is Alan Aragon more credible than a medical doctor and UCSF clinical pediatrics professor?
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/about/
to:
http://chc.ucsf.edu/coast/faculty_lustig.htm
I'm not saying that's dispositive, but why exactly is Alan Aragon more credible than a medical doctor and UCSF clinical pediatrics professor?
I've never heard of Alan Aragon, but he claims to have a master's degree in nutrition. That's a HELL of a lot more nutrition training than your average MD gets.
I'm sure both have tons of post-degree self-study in nutrition, and that's virtually impossible to measure.
The problem of quantifying levels of expertise is a hard one, especially in the world of nutrition.
I'm sure both have tons of post-degree self-study in nutrition, and that's virtually impossible to measure.
The problem of quantifying levels of expertise is a hard one, especially in the world of nutrition.
In the UK things are slightly easier. The word "dietician" is reserved. It is illegal to call yourself a dietician unless you have specific qualifications and are registered.
Anyone can call themselves a nutritionist. I could set up shop tomorrow, calling myself a nutritionist.
That's made a bit more complex because you have sensible nutritionists working within public health doing real science, and you have wingnuts.
Anyone can call themselves a nutritionist. I could set up shop tomorrow, calling myself a nutritionist.
That's made a bit more complex because you have sensible nutritionists working within public health doing real science, and you have wingnuts.
The word 'dietitian' is protected similarly in the United States, and the word 'nutritionist' is similarly unprotected.
In this case, Lustig is a professor at a major medical school and is the director of a university clinic that focuses on obesity. He has also done substantial published research in the area. In comparison Aragon's only formal credential is a master's from an unspecified university. So if we're going purely on credentials, I think Lustig wins.
I would go with:
Bio PHD > MD > Masters in Nutrition
I'll admit that I'm biased, because my wife has a PhD in nutrition (as well as being a registered dietitian), but my best friend from high school is now an MD, and my wife knows more about nutrition and its effect on the body than he does.
Also, I'm aware that's merely an anecdote. Based on purely empirical evidence, I'd place both my wife and my friend in the top 10% of their respective fields, though.
Also, I'm aware that's merely an anecdote. Based on purely empirical evidence, I'd place both my wife and my friend in the top 10% of their respective fields, though.
Though of course, if the sugar question was a settled question in nutrition science, this thread wouldn't be happening, so comparing credentials isn't really relevant to the sugar question.
I disagree.
The sugar question is settled in nutrition science. Sugar that doesn't occur naturally in food is pretty bad for you. But underqualified people have different opinions and get a disproportionate amount of face time on media.
In fact, I'd say the question is almost identical to the climate change 'debate'. The science is settled, but the average American doesn't know who to believe.
The sugar question is settled in nutrition science. Sugar that doesn't occur naturally in food is pretty bad for you. But underqualified people have different opinions and get a disproportionate amount of face time on media.
In fact, I'd say the question is almost identical to the climate change 'debate'. The science is settled, but the average American doesn't know who to believe.
How can something be merely anecdotal and empirically evidenced at the same time?
You've misread his comment.
The comparison of his wife and best friend is the anecdote.
He then adds separately that he has empirical evidence--unshared with us--that each is competent in their respective fields.
He doesn't claim anything to be simultaneously an anecdote and empirical evidence.
The comparison of his wife and best friend is the anecdote.
He then adds separately that he has empirical evidence--unshared with us--that each is competent in their respective fields.
He doesn't claim anything to be simultaneously an anecdote and empirical evidence.
[deleted]
A good reason why lustig spends much of his talk discussing the chemistry of sugar metabolism.
Definitely can't argue with you there. Although AA's arguably the leader in his field, a top sports nutritionist going against any sort of deeply credentialed scientist/doctor is going to be put at a credibility disadvantage.
I encourage you to read the two articles though and see what you think.
I encourage you to read the two articles though and see what you think.
Are you arguing proof by appeal to authority?
No, obviously, I'm rebutting an appeal to authority.
The parent posted a link to a 1,500 word argumentative essay backed up with inline references to 19 peer reviewed journal papers and included the words "check it out here and make up your own minds". Instead of making any comment on the content of said essay, you merely compared credentials of the speakers.
Which poster seems more guilty of a fallacious argument?
Which poster seems more guilty of a fallacious argument?
Did you actually read the linked articles and the referenced links? They don't say what the AA claims they say. He makes scientific statements that can generally be inferred from the cited sources, but which the sources don't actually prove.
It would be like some guy saying that physical money is bad and referring you to a CBO publication about hyperinflationary currencies.
It would be like some guy saying that physical money is bad and referring you to a CBO publication about hyperinflationary currencies.
I read both links but only 4 abstracts of the referenced articles (which on their face seemed legit but I did not have access to the full articles. His analysis of the last 37 years of American diets seemed accurate based on http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/FoodConsumption/ compared to what Dr. Lustig cites for 6 years for children.)
If you disagree with one of his conclusions, please post your thoughts - but be specific. I'm open minded... if "He makes scientific statements that can generally be inferred from the cited sources, but which the sources don't actually prove"...I'm happy to agree with you but that seems like that would be simple to show but you don't link to anything or provide any arguments or even a sentence or two to back it up.(?)
I don't have a horse in this race, but I'm not going to discount someone just because they aren't a professor at UC-SF.
If you disagree with one of his conclusions, please post your thoughts - but be specific. I'm open minded... if "He makes scientific statements that can generally be inferred from the cited sources, but which the sources don't actually prove"...I'm happy to agree with you but that seems like that would be simple to show but you don't link to anything or provide any arguments or even a sentence or two to back it up.(?)
I don't have a horse in this race, but I'm not going to discount someone just because they aren't a professor at UC-SF.
The problem with this comment is that it assumes I have a horse in this race too. I think maybe you'd have been better off posting a comment on the root of the thread rather than attaching it to mine.
I think you overestimated how obvious that was. While rebutting a particular appeal to authority, you made your own.
This right here is one of the more annoying message board tics.
I'm pretty sure that's not what people mean when they talk about appeal to authority. An actual appeal to authority is fine. A fallacious appeal to authority is one where the 'authority' in question has little or questionable authority in the area being discussed.
An actual appeal to authority isn't "fine", it's saying
"Accept my logic as correct because I namedrop a well regarded name as a supporter". But since well regarded people can be wrong this is no sort of proof at all.
"Accept my logic as correct because I namedrop a well regarded name as a supporter". But since well regarded people can be wrong this is no sort of proof at all.
I think you need to read the Wikipedia entry on Argument from Authority.
Here is a possibly legitimate appeal to authority, although you could refute it on its own grounds :-)
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
[deleted]
[deleted]
Aragon's "rebuttal" of Lustig is nonsensical.
He completely biffs Lustig's position on fruit (vis a vis Atkins Diet). In that lecture, Lustig says fruit is okay, whereas fruit juice isn't, because the fiber in fruit blocks the fructose from being metabolized, while the glucose gets used.
Lustig may be right or wrong. But criticisms should be about what he actually said.
Since Lustig publishes his research and results, Aragon could step up act like a scientist and either refute or confirm Lustig's data. But sciencificalologeries is hard work, whereas just making shit up is pretty easy.
Further, while I'm on board with Lustig's science, and conclusions, and strategy, I've personally adopted a nutrition somewhere between Eat To Live and Dr Terry Wahls "eat 9 cups of fruit and veggies per day". Works great for me.
He completely biffs Lustig's position on fruit (vis a vis Atkins Diet). In that lecture, Lustig says fruit is okay, whereas fruit juice isn't, because the fiber in fruit blocks the fructose from being metabolized, while the glucose gets used.
Lustig may be right or wrong. But criticisms should be about what he actually said.
Since Lustig publishes his research and results, Aragon could step up act like a scientist and either refute or confirm Lustig's data. But sciencificalologeries is hard work, whereas just making shit up is pretty easy.
Further, while I'm on board with Lustig's science, and conclusions, and strategy, I've personally adopted a nutrition somewhere between Eat To Live and Dr Terry Wahls "eat 9 cups of fruit and veggies per day". Works great for me.
Yes, this. I just watched the Lustig YouTube lecture and then read Aragon's rebuttal. Aragon is arguing either with things Lustig didn't say or with small bits taken out of context.
In particular, Aragon doesn't seem to get the difference between a lecture and an academic paper. One can't edit a lecture, so you have to give the speaker a little leeway. Aragon also can't seem to tell the difference between a rhetorical flourish and a claim of absolute fact. Disappointing!
In particular, Aragon doesn't seem to get the difference between a lecture and an academic paper. One can't edit a lecture, so you have to give the speaker a little leeway. Aragon also can't seem to tell the difference between a rhetorical flourish and a claim of absolute fact. Disappointing!
My boss, on my first job, whenever presented with any alarmist "study" of this nature would mumble:
"If you feed a rat a boxcar of anything, it'll get cancer".
"If you feed a rat a boxcar of anything, it'll get cancer".
Yes, sugar is toxic. It was never found in a natural diet for humans in the high quantities it is now ingested by people. The two major effects it has on the body is: 1) simultaneously raising blood sugar levels while promoting insulin resistance when it is eaten, and 2) promoting the glycation process that badly affects metabolic processes. Do a google search on "Advanced Glycation End Products" (also called AGEs) for a better understanding of what exactly sugar does to you.
[deleted]
What alternative would you suggest for high short term energy?
If you cut the highly processed carbs (sugar and wheat based snack foods primarily) from your diet, you will stop having the 2-3 hour cycles of hunger, energy rush, crash, and food cravings. Once your body has corrected itself, you will no longer need to eat for "high short term energy". Think about human history for a minute and consider whether it would be an advantage for hunter-gatherers to have to stop and eat every couple hours. The fact that everyone generally does now and that people living on traditional diets like the Masai of Africa do not should tell you something.
While it is an aside, getting enough sleep will also reduce your necessary daily food requirements by about 400 calories.
While it is an aside, getting enough sleep will also reduce your necessary daily food requirements by about 400 calories.
If you cut the highly processed carbs (sugar and wheat based snack foods primarily) from your diet, you will stop having the 2-3 hour cycles of hunger, energy rush, crash, and food cravings. Once your body has corrected itself, you will no longer need to eat for "high short term energy". Think about human history for a minute and consider whether
While it is an aside, getting enough sleep will also reduce your necessary daily food requirements by about 400 calories.
While it is an aside, getting enough sleep will also reduce your necessary daily food requirements by about 400 calories.
Eat natural fats - butter, coconut oil, animal fat (lard) and natural food with high fat content - bacon, eggs... You won't have energy ups-downs and you will feel strong and satisfied (drop sugar and flour).
Unprocessed starch, as in brown rice or oat, or fructose (bananas etc.). Potatoes, white rice, and most fruits will give you an even shorter term energy boost, spiking your blood sugar more sharply. By sugar, people normally mean processed sugar; they do not mean starch or fructose found in vegetables or fruit.
Does there need to be an alternative? Using sugar for that purpose is fine.
Hepatic gluconogenesis?
HN threads on this topic already:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3781829
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2443316
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3781829
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2443316
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...
NYTimes article, same subject: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.ht...
Interesting newsstory. Dr Lustig was also features on Science Friday a few months ago -- http://www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/201202172
One concern of the doctor's that's somewhat glossed over is how fructose, unlike other sugars, is metabolized in the liver. His gripe here is partly with the glut of sugar in our diet, and partly how all of the sugars in a food product are lumped together on the nutrition label as "sugar", with no distinction between the different molecules.
One concern of the doctor's that's somewhat glossed over is how fructose, unlike other sugars, is metabolized in the liver. His gripe here is partly with the glut of sugar in our diet, and partly how all of the sugars in a food product are lumped together on the nutrition label as "sugar", with no distinction between the different molecules.
As a person who read about studies like these, how do I filter out the "real" studies versus the studies blown out of proportions? I've read Ben Goldacre's Bad Science (which I highly recommend), but I don't have the time to do much research on every study newspapers/other media come out with. Is there a simple way to find out whether this - or any other study, for that matter - is a study to take seriously?
There really isn't a simple way to find out if a study should be taken seriously or not.
What you need to do is read the original literature and pay attention to the details. Bad studies are usually bad for a few reasons:
1. Bad experimental design. If you are testing hypothesis X, but your study design doesn't control for all the variables, then the data won't really tell you anything. For example, if you want to see if a high-fat diet increases the risk of cancer and you don't control for smoking or environmental exposure, your data is crap whether it supports or rejects your hypothesis.
2. Bad data. You may have a great experimental design, but if your data isn't strongly supportive of a conclusion, then it's a weak study. If we take the above example and compare a high-fat diet to a low-fat diet across 5 different group and 2 groups show no effect, 2 groups are right on the border of being statistically significant and one group is strongly positive, it doesn't really tell you anything.
3. Bad conclusions. The data says one thing, but the author goes ahead and concludes it means something else. You see this a LOT in bad science. Again if we take the above example, the data may strongly support that a high-fat diet is bad, but then the author goes ahead and says that all fats are bad. The data doesn't support this. This is sort of what the sugar-is-toxic studies do. Are diets that are hyper-caloric and have a high percentage of carbohydrates derived from simple sugars bad for you? Most likely. Should you actively try and exclude them from your diet? The answer to that is no (and the data doesn't support that conclusion).
I was formally trained as a scientist, but no longer work in the lab, but the training on I got in designing experiments (be they in the lab or in marketing) has served me well in filtering out "crap" of all sorts.
What you need to do is read the original literature and pay attention to the details. Bad studies are usually bad for a few reasons:
1. Bad experimental design. If you are testing hypothesis X, but your study design doesn't control for all the variables, then the data won't really tell you anything. For example, if you want to see if a high-fat diet increases the risk of cancer and you don't control for smoking or environmental exposure, your data is crap whether it supports or rejects your hypothesis.
2. Bad data. You may have a great experimental design, but if your data isn't strongly supportive of a conclusion, then it's a weak study. If we take the above example and compare a high-fat diet to a low-fat diet across 5 different group and 2 groups show no effect, 2 groups are right on the border of being statistically significant and one group is strongly positive, it doesn't really tell you anything.
3. Bad conclusions. The data says one thing, but the author goes ahead and concludes it means something else. You see this a LOT in bad science. Again if we take the above example, the data may strongly support that a high-fat diet is bad, but then the author goes ahead and says that all fats are bad. The data doesn't support this. This is sort of what the sugar-is-toxic studies do. Are diets that are hyper-caloric and have a high percentage of carbohydrates derived from simple sugars bad for you? Most likely. Should you actively try and exclude them from your diet? The answer to that is no (and the data doesn't support that conclusion).
I was formally trained as a scientist, but no longer work in the lab, but the training on I got in designing experiments (be they in the lab or in marketing) has served me well in filtering out "crap" of all sorts.
I quit white sugar for some time and I am not sure if sugar is really toxic but I can say:
- Coming through the day w/o white sugar is a completely different experience: no more downs (or "sugar crashs") through the day and work motivation is always up
- These sugar crashs or downs can be severe especially if you are under stress; then the stress is multiplied which leads to depression and more white sugar consumption
- Eating now fruits because of the fructose regularly, before I've never ate fruits (there was no reason because anything with white sugar was much sweeter and tastier than fruit)
Now when I accidentally eat something containing white sugar I immediately "feel" the white sugar: my brain is getting a high like with alcohol or caffeine—it's a difference compared to fructose. It's a subtle feeling and you probably won't feel it if your are used to white sugar. Before I related the downs to the heavy lunch I had before, that I haven't slept well or that the work is just so boring, etc.
Another observations regarding "white sugar could be drug": Look how many shelves with sweets you find a grocery store and compare the amount to other foods and with alcohol (where you usually find similar quantities).
- Coming through the day w/o white sugar is a completely different experience: no more downs (or "sugar crashs") through the day and work motivation is always up
- These sugar crashs or downs can be severe especially if you are under stress; then the stress is multiplied which leads to depression and more white sugar consumption
- Eating now fruits because of the fructose regularly, before I've never ate fruits (there was no reason because anything with white sugar was much sweeter and tastier than fruit)
Now when I accidentally eat something containing white sugar I immediately "feel" the white sugar: my brain is getting a high like with alcohol or caffeine—it's a difference compared to fructose. It's a subtle feeling and you probably won't feel it if your are used to white sugar. Before I related the downs to the heavy lunch I had before, that I haven't slept well or that the work is just so boring, etc.
Another observations regarding "white sugar could be drug": Look how many shelves with sweets you find a grocery store and compare the amount to other foods and with alcohol (where you usually find similar quantities).
Please could someone help me unpick the numbers?
> Americans are now consuming nearly 130 pounds of added sugars per person, per year.
This sentence is so vague as to be almost meaningless. Assuming 311,600,000 Americans. I have no way of telling how many Americans are eating a "safe" level of sugar versus how many Americans are eating a "dangerous" level of sugar.
130 lb is nearly 60 kg - that's a remarkable amount of sugar. And if that's a mean then there are people eating considerably more than that.
Scarily, the amount of added sugar has decreased (between 2000 and 2008) - (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db87.htm)
> Although the percent of daily calories derived from added sugars declined between 1999–2000 and 2007–2008 (2), consumption of added sugars remains high in the diets of Americans.
> Americans are now consuming nearly 130 pounds of added sugars per person, per year.
This sentence is so vague as to be almost meaningless. Assuming 311,600,000 Americans. I have no way of telling how many Americans are eating a "safe" level of sugar versus how many Americans are eating a "dangerous" level of sugar.
130 lb is nearly 60 kg - that's a remarkable amount of sugar. And if that's a mean then there are people eating considerably more than that.
Scarily, the amount of added sugar has decreased (between 2000 and 2008) - (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db87.htm)
> Although the percent of daily calories derived from added sugars declined between 1999–2000 and 2007–2008 (2), consumption of added sugars remains high in the diets of Americans.
Actually, the 'average' (mean presumably) intake won't apply to you as an individual in any meaningful way. You'll have to try and monitor your daily diet, focusing on known high-sugar foods and most commonly consumed foods. This data is all over google, thanks for various consumer protection laws. Example:
60kg/365 = 164g per day sugar in a coke: 39g sugar in starbucks skinny latte: 13.2g / 17.5g / 22.9g (small->large) heinz ketchup: 23.7g / 100g etc.
(Looking at that list, I probably hit 100g or more per day, even though I stopped adding sugar to my tea and coffee.)
60kg/365 = 164g per day sugar in a coke: 39g sugar in starbucks skinny latte: 13.2g / 17.5g / 22.9g (small->large) heinz ketchup: 23.7g / 100g etc.
(Looking at that list, I probably hit 100g or more per day, even though I stopped adding sugar to my tea and coffee.)
The crux of the piece, as I heard it, was that sugar is about as bad as fat when it comes to causes of heart disease and heart attacks, that HFCS is, in fact, worse than cane sugar because of the way the liver processes them, AND that the brain responds to sugar about the same way it does cocaine, and proves to be about as addictive.
So, toxic might a little strong, but when the doctors that worked on these studies recommend no more than about 100g/day of added sugars in your diet, less than what's in a can of soda, "large quantities" may not mean what you think it means either.
So, toxic might a little strong, but when the doctors that worked on these studies recommend no more than about 100g/day of added sugars in your diet, less than what's in a can of soda, "large quantities" may not mean what you think it means either.
I think you heard a couple of things wrong.
For starters, there are pathways for breaking down fat, storing it, and burning it in the body.
Secondly, refined sugars incorporating fructose are all about equivalently bad.
Thirdly, when you go over a certain smallish amount of fructose, your liver has to respond to eliminate this 'toxin' from the body, which produces really bad LDL cholesterols, which contributes to stroke and heart disease risk.
On the basics, and this is the slightly confusing thing for those new to this topic, your body really only uses glucose sugar directly. There is a whole mechanism dedicated to storing glucose as glycogen (in the liver), and then retransforming it and burning it when you need energy. This does not work with fructose, which has to be transformed to fat, stored, then burned later.
This nutritional disadvantage of fructose would be enough for me to stop eating it, even without all the other problems.
The US move from complex carbs like starch that can be broken down to glucose in the body and readily used by cells, to poorer quality foods with much added (cheap) fructose, has massively increased the amount of fructose we ingest, and according to Lustig, increased the damage to our bodies.
I personally don't eat refined / fructose sugar except in fruit and small amounts of honey or jam, and the times when I have a something like a cookie with lots of sugar, I really really feel the effects, the worst being a sort of sugar come-down that manifests as extreme irritability.
For starters, there are pathways for breaking down fat, storing it, and burning it in the body.
Secondly, refined sugars incorporating fructose are all about equivalently bad.
Thirdly, when you go over a certain smallish amount of fructose, your liver has to respond to eliminate this 'toxin' from the body, which produces really bad LDL cholesterols, which contributes to stroke and heart disease risk.
On the basics, and this is the slightly confusing thing for those new to this topic, your body really only uses glucose sugar directly. There is a whole mechanism dedicated to storing glucose as glycogen (in the liver), and then retransforming it and burning it when you need energy. This does not work with fructose, which has to be transformed to fat, stored, then burned later.
This nutritional disadvantage of fructose would be enough for me to stop eating it, even without all the other problems.
The US move from complex carbs like starch that can be broken down to glucose in the body and readily used by cells, to poorer quality foods with much added (cheap) fructose, has massively increased the amount of fructose we ingest, and according to Lustig, increased the damage to our bodies.
I personally don't eat refined / fructose sugar except in fruit and small amounts of honey or jam, and the times when I have a something like a cookie with lots of sugar, I really really feel the effects, the worst being a sort of sugar come-down that manifests as extreme irritability.
The liver is able to convert fructose into glucose and glycogen.
In small quantities.
25% of calorie intake as fructose, like many Americans, and the liver floods your system with fat.
25% of calorie intake as fructose, like many Americans, and the liver floods your system with fat.
Don't give cocaine a bad name by comparing it to sugar.
I think the piece said 'no more than 100 calores from sugar per day, less than that in a can of soda.'
I thought there was about 40g of sugar per can of pop?
That seems about right:
http://www.learnnc.org/lp/media/uploads/2010/07/coca-cola-la...
No, the story was saying that sugar is a hell of a lot worse than fat.
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.
Most of the same dangers as alcohol.
Pretty much everything's toxic depending on the dosage. Salt, water (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication), and, of course, sugar.
I haven't finished watching this yet so maybe it will be stated, but cancer loves sugar. It's sort of like adding high-octane fuel to a car. It speeds up the process. That's the main reason I would (should, but don't) avoid sugar.
Cancer loves insulin, going by the study on 60 Minutes .
A better analogy would be adding nitrous oxide , if you added high octane fuel to a car that uses regular results in less power.
A better analogy would be adding nitrous oxide , if you added high octane fuel to a car that uses regular results in less power.
One of the main points of the story is that sugar intake has increased dramatically in America. They talked about the reduction of fat in food, and manufacturers responded by replacing the fat with sugar.
The point being that the average American now consumes sugar at "toxic" quantities (and of course, the word "toxic" was very much link bait). It's hard to deny America has an obesity and diabetes problem.
The point being that the average American now consumes sugar at "toxic" quantities (and of course, the word "toxic" was very much link bait). It's hard to deny America has an obesity and diabetes problem.
Some people take the word "sugar" literary and switch to brown sugar, agave syrup, evaporated cane juice and so on, which aren't much better and some are actually worse. The only acceptable form of fructose is the one part of an organic fruit as you get the full complex of phytochemicals, not just the fructose. I'm really mad at the organics industry, which puts so much redundant "healthy" sugars in so many products.
Agave syrup has the benefit of being vegan; normal refined sugar is processed with bone meal. People have various different reasons for wanting 'alternative' sugars. Attempting to move away from refined sugar because it's 'bad' is just one of them.
Agave nectar is probably not that healthy either. It's highly processed and more akin to HFC than sugar.
The original post was lamenting the existence of products such as agave nectar as attempting to falsely lead people astray that are looking for alternatives to sugar, as a more 'healthier' choice. I posited a completely separate motivation that someone might have for choosing/using agave nectar (one that I might add does not necessarily have anything to do with being 'healthy').
The conversation is coming off like:
The conversation is coming off like:
Original Post: "People might choose agave nectar for
<reason 1>, but it fails to deliver what
they are attempting to do."
Me: "Agave nectar doesn't exist just to satisfy
people with <reason 1>. There are people that might
choose it for <reason 2>."
You're right and I apologize. I can't stand when people talk "past" each other in discussions/arguments. My comment was about Agave in general and not the particular aspect you spoke of.
Aside 1: I'd heard that Agave wasn't that good nutritionally and did a quick search to clarify. The first piece I read was actually about how many people see Agave nectar as a raw food sweetener when in fact it is cooked at 250+ degrees for many hours to break down the starches into simpler fructose.
Aside 2: To be fair, the original discussion was about health effects not the philosophical/moral considerations our our food choices.
Aside 1: I'd heard that Agave wasn't that good nutritionally and did a quick search to clarify. The first piece I read was actually about how many people see Agave nectar as a raw food sweetener when in fact it is cooked at 250+ degrees for many hours to break down the starches into simpler fructose.
Aside 2: To be fair, the original discussion was about health effects not the philosophical/moral considerations our our food choices.
As johan pointed out, agave syrup (I won't use the fancy marketing term "Blue Agave Nectar"), is highly process and a lot more dangerous due to high fructose content. Here's more on the topic: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-jonny-bowden/debunking-the-...
As in all articles that have a question as title, the answer is "no".
I'm betting on April Fools for this one, too.
I've concluded humor isn't allowed on HN. Seriously, why the downvotes?
Most people don't go to HN to read jokes. That said, I've seen humor get upvoted, but it has to be pretty spectacular humor.
I don't come to HN for jokes either, but I'm always surprised by the extent to which incidental displays of cleverness go over like farts in churches. I keep wondering if the people who feel compelled to police this stuff heavily also struggle to connect with "the normals" at work.
It has been observed that as online communities like HN grow, the signal-to-noise ratio falls on a progression that can be summarized as HN -> Reddit -> Digg. As we become more complacent regarding downvotes on well-written comments because we disagree or not downvoting witty fluff, HN slides farther and farther into the noise pit. No one yet knows how to permanently stave off the Diggnation of HN. But, in the mean time, it is worth trying to delay as much as possible.
I don't want Hacker News to be a place where everyone types their opinion, and if they don't have an opinion, they type something else. I care about reading informed experts' thoughts about interesting things, not some guy's display of cleverness.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
This one time I replicated Dave McClure style in verse. It was spectacular.
Of course it is. Why do you think preserved jams and jellies work? Bacteria love sugar as much as any other creature but it's a preservative in large quantities.
That's because it acts as a desiccant, which is different from 'toxic'.
I don't think it is much different. The definition of "toxic" is "poisonous", which is really anything that (chemically) damages an organism. Anything that interferes with a biological process is toxic, no matter if it's by dehydration or some other more complex mechanism.
Then let us please stop assigning such gravity to the word "toxic", as by your definition virtually anything can be considered toxic.
[deleted]
Also it should be pointed out that we aren't made of fruit. We preserve meat in salts, does that mean salt is toxic to us as well?
High doses of salt is toxic
Upvote. Also candied fruit.
And since when is monitoring people in a controlled lab for a few weeks at a time (likely limiting their physical activity and who knows what kind of stress to the system having your blood drawn every 30 minutes induces) considered valid scientific research when it in no way exemplifies real world situations that people are exposed to. And sugar is apparently carcinogenic because it can cause an increase in baseline insulin levels as a response, which can drive glucose into potential tumor cells allowing them to grow. That's purely speculative, and very difficult to substantiate when there are so many other reasons for people to develop cancer: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/13/health/research/red-meat-l...
Personally, I'm still convinced that a calorie is a calorie. And the reason we've been gaining weight, with greater incidence of heart disease, diabetes, etc. is that we simply consume too much food, perhaps too much processed food, but in general we just eat too much. So eat less, and the best way is to consume small portions of food multiple times a day instead of large meals with large gaps in between. Trust me, it works.