

The Bitter Truth About Sugar - phaedrus
http://singularityhub.com/2010/06/16/sweet-little-lies-the-bitter-truth-about-sugar/

======
kellishaver
I cut all refined sugars out of my diet about a month ago, with a few rare
exceptions (the occasional meal out with friends, for instance, which may
happen once a month). Basically, it has been life-changing. I have more
energy, I sleep better, I don't have the stomach/digestive problems I used to,
I don't get the daily headaches, my blood pressure is lower, I don't get as
hungry, and I've lost 12lbs (with exercise, too).

~~~
pierrefar
How can you attribute the benefits you're seeing to cutting sugar, when there
is a ton of evidence saying exercise gives these exact benefits?

~~~
tome
Presumably a lot of things give the exact same benefits. The OP's post sounds
like a generic description of "I'm healthier". He said he cut out sugar; he
didn't say he exercised more. I'm guessing that's why he thinks the cause was
the sugar.

~~~
kellishaver
Yes, this. My level of exercise hasn't really changed. I just didn't want to
imply that I was sitting around doing nothing, and losing weight solely from
the sugar. I'm sure the exercise was a huge part of that, but I definitely saw
more weight loss the past month after cutting out the sugar than I did
previously from the same level of activity.

------
henryw
saw the video a few months ago by recommendation from a friend. it is really
really good. it has a slow start, but if you can finish the 90 min video, you
will learn a lot about eating right and imho it's worth your time.

direct link to video:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM&feature=playe...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM&feature=player_embedded#)!

------
Jun8
"Scientific innovation is pushing human longevity past the traditional limits.
Yet despite this upward trend, we’re still not much smarter about what we put
in our bodies. "

I expect medicine to _solve_ problems caused by my bad habits rather than
preach me about them! This is to say that sugar is my only vice (I don't
drink, do drugs, gamble, drive dangerously, or eat too much meat) and I'm not
quite ready to give it up. You may find that infantile but if the great things
in life are taken away (or substituted with tofu), what remains?

~~~
karzeem
Your expectation is a worthwhile ideal, but it's very far out of the reach of
modern medicine. Doctors are pretty good at treating symptoms, but when it
comes to root causes of serious diseases, they're pretty bad at treating them
without inflicting collateral damage on some other body system. Especially if
the treatment involves disrupting a body process designed by evolution.

The body owes as much of its function to _the ways its systems interact_ as it
does to the individual systems. And we're pretty much at a loss when it comes
to tracing the mechanism of those interactions.

In other words, I strongly suspect that until we're all flying around Mars in
hover cars, any "don't worry about sugar anymore" treatment will end up being
harmful in some insidious, not-discovered-until-years-later way.

~~~
carbocation
> Doctors are pretty good at treating symptoms, but when it comes to root
> causes of serious diseases, they're pretty bad at treating them without
> inflicting collateral damage on some other body system.

I'm sure this is true, but the examples that immediately come to mind don't
fit. New tyrosine kinase inhibitors inhibit the fusion "always-on" tyrosine
kinases that cause many cancers. Antibiotics kill bacteria. Statins stop the
production of cholesterol. All of these get at the root cause of the problem
and don't merely treat symptoms. When you say "good at treating symptoms,"
which things are you thinking about?

I'm in medical school and always want to improve my understanding of what
thoughtful people see as symptomatic treatments that don't get at the root
cause of problems. (Like I said above, I know that there are tons of these,
but would really like to know which ones come to mind for you; perhaps these
are the places where we, as a profession, are failing.)

~~~
nitrogen
One could perceive antibiotics alone as ignoring a deeper root cause, such as
the patient engaging in risky behavior (not washing hands, eating rotten food,
etc.). A prescription for statins doesn't necessarily address _why_ the body
is producing excess cholesterol.

But, of course, I am not in the medical field.

~~~
carbocation
Over 50% of the variability in cholesterol levels is attributable to genetic
factors. The root cause of high cholesterol will typically be an unlucky
genetic profile.

Hundreds of genes participate in cholesterol metabolism, and since cholesterol
is a complex trait, most people will have various polymorphisms in multiple
lipid genes, each of which confers only a modest effect. Consequently, while
the root cause(s) will ultimately become known in the next few years, it seems
unlikely to change the standard of care: statins. Sure, this knowledge will
help us develop new cholesterol lowering drugs, but the fact remains that it
will be impossible and, in general, pointless to target a specific therapy to
a specific genetic profile (at least for LDL).

I don't think that patient behaviors are a good example of _medicine's_
failures. A rational actor may decide to value many things over their own
personal health. It's like saying that intravenous drug use and unprotected
sex are the root causes of AIDS. That's more a public health viewpoint. I see
HIV as the root cause of AIDS, and I find treatments or cures as a far more
interesting medical problem. Likewise, the public health perspective on
bacterial infection is to avoid it (clean clothes thoroughly to reduce staph
transmission between wrestlers). From a medical perspective, the interesting
question is, once you have staph, can we cure it? Killing the causal bacterium
is basically the definition of a treatment aimed at the root cause. I don't
think that redefinition of "root cause" makes the problem more interesting; it
just makes it less medical.

~~~
nitrogen
I see your point, and concede that some "root causes" should be out of scope
for the medical field. I believe that solutions to problems should be sought
by the appropriate groups at every stage of progression and every level of
abstraction. However, during an actual patient/doctor visit, public health
"root causes" should probably be at least discussed.

~~~
carbocation
Definitely. Studies have shown that discussion with a physician is effective
(just not very much). But better than nothing. I just don't want to depend on
physicians talking people out of eating too much as being the only solution;
this is simply not effective enough given the severity of the problem.

------
zyb09
Yea, no news for the HN crowd I guess. Good to see that more and more sources
report on the dangers of sugar. Low-fat mentality is still the common opinion
for healthy food and this non-sense really needs to change.

~~~
chipsy
Nobody deserves to have to go so far out of their way and do tons of research
to achieve a healthful diet, though, and most people can't or won't due to
ignorance, stress, money, or any number of other problems in their life. Real
solutions should be coming top-down to the consumer, so that you would have to
_really_ go out of your way to eat a "vice meal."

As it is, companies seem to have barely budged for any of the trends of the
last decade - it's easier to sell addiction, after all. But I've often thought
that there's probably a lot of room for innovative approaches to the food
service business that try to take on these problems and make it sexy to eat
greens and drink tea.

~~~
karzeem
One big issue is that health advocates spend 99% of their time telling people
what not to eat. That doesn't work because, as you say, people aren't going to
think, "Now that I know not to eat x, I'll take the initiative to figure out
what I should be eating instead."

I think Whole Foods (among others) has realized this and capitalizes on it. It
eliminates the guesswork. "Come into the store and get whatever you want. You
can't mess up because it's _all_ healthy/sustainable/whatever." (Of course,
it's not really all healthy/sustainable/whatever, but it's certainly harder to
go wrong at Whole Foods than it is at Safeway.)

~~~
starkfist
I dunno about Whole Foods. I find it pretty easy to "go wrong" every time I
shop there. The percentage of food at Whole Foods that is actually "healthy"
is probably the same percentage as Safeway.

~~~
pyre
At Whole Foods a lot of the things that end up being really cheap from no-name
brands at traditional markets are coming from brands that have extra mark-up
for being organic or slightly out of the norm. So it's easier to _not_ buy it
due to the price?

In general, most of the cheap bulk food that you can get out there ends up
being not so great for you from a health standpoint. It's a lot less expensive
to buy a bagged cereal knock-off of some highly sweetened cereal (Cocoa Puffs,
etc) than to buy some sort of granola cereal. [That said, I haven't done any
direct comparisons to the bulk pricing on oatmeal or grits.]

~~~
starkfist
What I meant is that Whole Foods carries just as much junk food as Safeway.
There are entire sections of chips, cookies, candy, beer, cheese, ice cream
and so forth. You can easily go in and buy nothing that's good for you. I do
it all the time. Sadly, organic vegan potato chips aren't really any better
for you than Ruffles...

Slightly off-topic. I've lived in the alternate universes of NYC and SF for
the past 10 years, and for many staples, Whole Foods has the cheapest options.
The canned house brand beans have almost no sodium and cost 89 cents a can. In
comparison, Goya brand, the cheap option at Safeway, wloaded with sodium, cost
about the same. Produce at WF and Safeway can be about the same, especially if
you buy organic. It really depends on the season and location. The house brand
seltzer is about the same as any house brand seltzer and much cheaper than
Schweppes or Canada Dry. Safeway in SF is really only cheaper if you are
loading up on junk food for the superbowl game. I don't really make any meat
at home and I'm allergic to dairy so I don't know how meat, milk and cheese
compares.

WF is actually FAR cheaper than any of the bodegas or small grocery stores in
Brooklyn for any item. Buying fruit or vegetables in Brooklyn is usurious
almost anywhere besides Fairway foods in Red Hook, or the Farmer's Market.

------
elai
People living in different, default thin/rare diabetic cultures don't have
magical diet information, often they know nothing! It's just the default diet
or 'food culture' results in those results. In the 60s/70s most people were
fairly thin, and the smoking gun points to north america's changing food
culture, more sedentary work and transportation and food industry marketing
research, even though there is a much greater awareness now about food and
diet than back then.

------
Tim_M
Previous discussion: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1006980>

------
somebear
Researchers from the Bartholin Institute at the Danish national hospital have
found a correlation between intake of refined sugar and type-1 diabetes. There
is still quite a bit of controversy over whether an increased intake of
refined sugar does lead to type-1 diabetes, with researchers from the Danish
Diabetes association dissenting.

Unfortunately, the only information I could find about this research was in
Danish, but feel free to read the (translated) newspaper article here:
[http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&h...](http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fpolitiken.dk%2Ftjek%2Fsundhedogmotion%2Fborn%2Farticle991371.ece&sl=auto&tl=en)

------
Bjoern
A good alternative for a sweet tooth is Honey. Not the cheap rubbish but the
good stuff (e.g. UMF 10+). Manuka Honey even has antibacterial benefits and
tastes great.

~~~
rsheridan6
And it's loaded with sugar, just like high fructose corn syrup or cane sugar.

~~~
OrangeGuutan
There are different types of sugars. High fructose corn syrup is usually
either 55% fructose and 45% glucose, or 42% fructose and 58% glucose.

Honey is about 40% fructose, 30% glucose, along with sucrose and maltose. It's
also known to have antimicrobial and antioxidant effects.

Equating high fructose corn syrup with honey is a major oversimplification.

~~~
rsheridan6
Not really. The proportions of fructose and glucose are similar - actually
worse if you buy Lustig's theory that the fructose is the most harmful part of
sugar and HFCS. Sucrose is quickly broken down into sucrose and fructose -
according to Lustig there's no clinically important difference between sucrose
and HFCS. I doubt that a little bit of maltose makes much difference,
antimicrobial effects aren't going to save you from diabetes, and the results
of clinical trials for antioxidants have been underwhelming - they aren't
going to save you from diabetes or metabolic syndrome.

Honey is just more unhealthy crap, even if it's natural. Same with agave
juice. Sugar is sugar.

------
asdflkj
The guy in the video says energy expenditure and feeling good are synonymous.
How about with opiates?

------
zeynel1
towards the end of the article he writes

\--we as consumers have more power than we think when it comes to dictating
food industry trends which could advocate for a healthier population in the
long run--

but gives no explanation -how- we have more power dictating food industry - it
seems to me that we have no power - food industry dictates what we eat - and
we have to make an effort to protect ourselves from forming habits dictated by
the food industry

~~~
Lendal
The 'food industry' doesn't dictate what you eat. The 'food industry' provides
you with many choices at many different stores and restaurants. You just
choose the unhealthy ones. That's not the food industry's fault. Make better
choices.

~~~
zeynel1
the way i understand it -food industry- refers to these global corporations
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_industry#Prominent_Food_Co...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_industry#Prominent_Food_Companies)
rather than local restaurants but you are right at least here in new york
there are many choices to eat healthy - but my point is that we need to make
an effort to sustain a healthy diet because the global food industry is
pushing for us to consume highly processed food sold by them

