
America’s Diet, Too Sweet by the Spoonful - robg
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/health/nutrition/10brod.html?ref=science
======
jballanc
"Although much fuss has been raised about high-fructose corn syrup, when it
comes to calories and weight gain, it makes no difference if the sweetener was
derived from corn, sugar cane, beets or fruit juice concentrate."

This is subtly wrong, but I think it's important that people understand why.
Yes, the calories from HFCS are the same calories from sucrose or fruit
sugars. However, you body's reaction is different. See this paper for an idea
of the kinds of differences that can be observed:
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19064538?ordinalpos=2&...](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19064538?ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum)

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

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

[https://www.health.harvard.edu/fhg/updates/What-you-eat-
can-...](https://www.health.harvard.edu/fhg/updates/What-you-eat-can-fuel-or-
cool-inflammation-a-key-driver-of-heart-disease-diabetes-and-other-chronic-
conditions.shtml)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

