
Is sugar really bad for you? (2018) - Udik
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20180918-is-sugar-really-bad-for-you
======
aritmo
The original title ask whether sugar is REALLY bad for you, implying even in
the title that it may not be that bad.

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".

~~~
timthorn
> 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.

~~~
scottlocklin
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](http://www.jessicaebrown.com/writing)

[2]
[http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html)

~~~
bonoboTP
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.

------
moltar
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.

------
moksly
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.

~~~
ndzig
What's a drug? If sugar causes addiction, withdrawal, and it's unhealthy, then
it definitely is a drug.

~~~
Broken_Hippo
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.

~~~
dtwest
"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.

------
grabbalacious
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.

~~~
toasterlovin
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.

~~~
steve_adams_86
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.

------
mantap
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.

~~~
dgzl
Doesn't that just mean we'll evolve into a new environment?

~~~
trickstra
Likely yes. In 100 thousand years.

~~~
toasterlovin
More like 1000 years, but still: much longer than is useful to anybody alive
now.

~~~
dgzl
Can I use this excuse with climate change?

~~~
trickstra
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/2019/10/Southern-Vietnam-could-all-but-
disappear.jpg?resize=750%2C523&ssl=1) [https://i2.wp.com/vietnaminsider.vn/wp-
content/uploads/2019/...](https://i2.wp.com/vietnaminsider.vn/wp-
content/uploads/2019/10/Thailand-projection.jpg?resize=750%2C430&ssl=1)

------
thewizardofaus
I recently started tracking my diet more and realised I've been having 200+
grams of sugar a day !

------
bg117
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.

~~~
balfirevic
> 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?

~~~
bg117
Refined sugar is just converted to fat. Reduced intake helps. Unrefined sugar
is just more healthy alternative

------
esquire_900
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.

~~~
Udik
> 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.

~~~
esquire_900
> 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 :)

~~~
Udik
> 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.

------
hamilyon2
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

------
rendeyc
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](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMZfyEy_jpI)

~~~
sideshowb
What's the deal with milk? I've recently noticed most milk contains 5 percent
sugar. Is that ok for some reason?

~~~
BubRoss
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.

~~~
sideshowb
Does the research on harms of sugar really only apply to fructose?

~~~
BubRoss
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.

~~~
sideshowb
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!

~~~
BubRoss
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.

~~~
sideshowb
Agreed on glucose, I should have written glucose aka refined sugar.

~~~
BubRoss
I don't know what 'refined sugar' means but I have never heard glucose called
that.

