
Sugar Love - glasnoster
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/print/2013/08/sugar/cohen-text
======
001sky
_Americans are fat because they eat too much and exercise too little. But they
eat too much and exercise too little because they’re addicted to sugar, which
not only makes them fatter but, after the initial sugar rush, also saps their
energy, beaching them on the couch. “The reason you’re watching TV is not
because TV is so good,” he said, “but because you have no energy to exercise,
because you’re eating too much sugar.”_

Pretty sure the reason for the is also the do-gooders. For 40 years people
have been preaching "low fat" and "no animal fat" to kids.

Now, wanting to be healthy...they eat "low fat" diets. Diets that are full of
Carbs (because protein is expensive). Its a zero sum game.

And what's funny is that "low fat" foods are almost always high in sugar.
Because starch is unappetizing. And protein is not an ingredient you can
sprinkle into skim-milk yoghurt.

Don't get me started on 'gluten free', its just as bad. You know what's gluten
free? Sugar. And stuff full of sugar (raisins!).

And while we're at it lets look at replacing "sugar" with Juice because its
healtier. Oh, wait...its full of sugar.

If you want to eat healthy just pick a balanced diet.

~~~
MisterBastahrd
Balanced diet? For the longest time, the FDA has claimed that a balanced diet
includes 5-7 servings of rice and grains a day, 2 servings of fruits and
veggies, 2 servings of protein, and a small amount of fat.

That's one of the biggest problems here. What people have been taught is
patently incorrect. It's a recipe for riding a blood sugar roller coaster.

We teach our kids from an early age to eat sugary foods. We use cartoon
characters to goad them into begging their parents for them. What's cereal and
milk? Most of the time, it's a sugar coated grain-based product soaked in a
sugary liquid that is somehow healthier when you remove all the fat from it
and add more sugar. What do kids want for a drink? Sunny Delight, a half-
artificial sugar bomb which is nutritionally not much better for you than a
can of soda. What do most kids get at school for lunch? Two enriched slices of
bread surrounding a small piece of meat and some fried starch on the side. And
more milk, because you can't ever have enough sugar to drink.

I can go on and on, but the point is, this starts with parents getting
educated and taking charge of the eating habits of their kids.

~~~
crusso
_Balanced diet? For the longest time, the FDA has claimed_

This is what sets my alarm bells off the most loudly. When I was growing up in
the 70s and 80s, we heard over and over how the science was settled. Fat was
bad for you. Nutritionists the world over were supposedly on board with the
food pyramid. Contrarians like Atkins who had objections to the science and
advocated something different were ignored -- or to the extent that they
received media attention, they were ridiculed or held up as misguided or
frauds.

It was an extremely painful and costly example of top-down, politically
motivated, government funded "science". Although we learned some lessons about
sugar vs fat vs protein, society learned almost nothing about avoiding this
kind of trap again in the future.

~~~
sparkie
I see quite a striking parallel in the way AGW "denialists" are treated
similarly to how the likes of Yudkin were treated for speaking out against the
dogmatic ideas of health "science".

Very few scientists today speak out against the "climate change" dogma out of
fear of losing their jobs, status among their peers, or funding - and those
who dare are ridiculed, despite having published peer reviewed science
(although little of it gets into established journals). There's no such thing
as "settled science", and the term alone should set alarm bells ringing.

~~~
eropple
Peer reviewed denialist science? Links please. (And this isn't a joke--I very
much want to read this, but it looks like downvotes are easier than
substantiating.)

~~~
pdonis
[http://nipccreport.org/](http://nipccreport.org/)

Note that "denialist" is a very broad (not to say loaded) term. A better term
would be: skeptical of the claimed "consensus" that we need to drastically
reduce CO2 emissions, even if the economic costs are huge, or else the planet
is doomed.

~~~
eropple
I'm sorry, maybe I was unclear. I'm talking about _peer-reviewed work_ (which
the NIPCC stuff is not) that is being trumpeted by people who are, like, not
being funded by a libertarian think tank. I mean, NIPCC is bankrolled by the
Heartland Institute (a Cato-alike wishcasting group) and two advocacy groups
that won't reveal their funding, one of which was headed by Fred Singer (who
to this day is trying desperately to make people think that the University of
East Anglia emails are actually a thing).

I wanted to give you a chance to show me something I hadn't seen before, on
the off chance that maybe somebody, somewhere, was actually doing
intellectually defensible work that wasn't being publicized...and you bilged
it by bringing up the same utterly discredited junk that's in the denialist
toolbox. I mean, you do realize why it's named the NIPCC, right? It's named
that to confuse people with the IPCC, an actual _scientific organization_ that
does not lead off their papers with statements about how politically
independent they are.

The mindset that compels one to the false equivalency you are choosing to
employ between a policy group's own paid-for studies and the peer review
process of, like, _actual science_ is exactly why I use the term "denialist".

(For folks interested in a pretty good rundown of exactly why I and folks who
pay attention to this may react in this manner towards the NIPCC, I recommend
this as a great summary:
[http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/09/09/heartland-
inst...](http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/09/09/heartland-institute-
nipcc-fail-the-credibility-test/) )

~~~
pdonis
_I 'm talking about peer-reviewed work (which the NIPCC stuff is not)_

Neither is the IPCC report, taken by itself. It _references_ peer-reviewed
work. So does the NIPCC report. Did you bother to actually read any of it?

 _NIPCC is bankrolled by..._

In other words, you didn't bother to read any of it. You just assumed that
they must be wrong because of their funding source. Well, guess what? If we're
going to judge by funding sources, the IPCC itself is just as suspect. They
are funded by governments which have a vested interest in increasing
government control over all aspects of life. Government-funded research is not
likely to come up with the answer, "No reason for government regulation here",
even if it's the right answer.

If you want to play the funding source finger-pointing game, sorry, I'm not
interested. I don't care who funds what; I want to see the actual content. See
below.

 _the IPCC, an actual scientific organization_

No, the IPCC is a _political_ organization. It's an _Intergovernmental_ panel.
It uses information from scientists, but the final reports, and particularly
the summaries for "policymakers", are driven by politics, not science.

 _the false equivalency you are choosing to employ_

Not at all. Anyone can refer to peer-reviewed science, and both the IPCC and
the NIPCC do so--see above.

Actually, if anyone is making a false equivalency here, it's you; you are
equating "peer-reviewed science" with "valid science", which is simply
laughable. Many peer-reviewed papers turn out to be wrong, for a variety of
reasons: honest mistakes, insufficient knowledge in the field, reviewers too
busy to really review, and corruption of the peer review process by political
agendas.

If you want to actually distinguish valid science from invalid science, you
_have_ to look at the content. There is simply no shortcut; there is no way to
tell what's valid science by looking at funding sources, or "consensus", or
any other indirect measure. You have to look at the actual content. In the
case of the IPCC, there's a very simple content question you can ask: have the
IPCC's predictions about the climate matched the actual climate? The answer to
that question is "no". No amount of harping on how wonderful the IPCC's
process is will change that.

 _I recommend this as a great summary:_

This article makes the same mistake you are making: it looks at process
instead of content. There's not a single substantive point addressed; it's all
about who is funding whom and what process they are using. Sorry, no sale.

------
js2
Oh the irony - the ad I was served with the page informs me it's a ”Pillsbury
Cinnamon Rolls weekend” with an image of a child about to stuff one into his
mouth.

[http://i.imgur.com/UBRJOIa.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/UBRJOIa.jpg)

------
doesnt_know
Here is the non-print link. Which is actually formatted better for reading and
doesn't automatically open the print dialog.

[http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/08/sugar/cohen-
text](http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/08/sugar/cohen-text)

~~~
audunw
But you get hit with an annoying pop-up asking you to register.

~~~
doesnt_know
Do you? Sorry, I didn't know.

Adblock or Disconnect or something probably blocked it on my machine.

------
stefantalpalaru
> [...] an injection of sugar into the bloodstream stimulates the same
> pleasure centers of the brain that respond to heroin and cocaine. All tasty
> foods do this to some extent—that’s why they’re tasty!—but sugar has a
> sharply pronounced effect. In this sense it is literally an addictive drug.

Sugar doesn't get into the blood stream. Glucose does. Glucose is the only
nutrient that neurons are using in normal conditions.

Criticizing excess is fine and dandy but labeling sugar an "addictive drug"
and comparing it with heroin and cocaine by way of some scientific sounding
"pleasure centers" is downright insane. Makes me question the validity of the
historic part I enjoyed so much...

~~~
js2
_Glucose is the only nutrient that neurons are using in normal conditions._

And to elaborate, the other is ketone bodies produced by the liver from fatty
acids.

Their production occurs in healthy individuals as nutritional ketosis under a
carbohydrate restricted diet (typically less than 100g/day) or in diabetics as
the pathological condition ketoacidosis.

~~~
stefantalpalaru
Not ketone bodies, but lactate. More details in this article titled: Energy
Substrates for Neurons During Neural Activity: A Critical Review of the
Astrocyte-Neuron Lactate Shuttle Hypothesis[1]:

> The brain can consume lactate as a substrate, as has been demonstrated by
> studies showing that the brain uses lactate during hypoglycemia or during
> periods of elevated blood lactate [...]

> However, because lactate does not pass through the blood-brain barrier
> nearly as well as glucose [...], lactate cannot serve the brain as a blood-
> borne substrate the way glucose does.

[1]:
[http://www.nature.com/jcbfm/journal/v23/n11/full/9591474a.ht...](http://www.nature.com/jcbfm/journal/v23/n11/full/9591474a.html)

------
jdkuepper
Peter Attia wrote a great article on sugar here:
[http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/is-sugar-
toxic](http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/is-sugar-toxic)

The conclusion at the end of that article is:

"So, in response to the question, “Is sugar toxic?” it seems to me the answer
is, “yes, sugar is probably chronically toxic to many people.” And so is
water. And so is oxygen. My sincere hope, however, is that you now understand
that this is probably the wrong question to be asking. The better question is
probably “What dose of sugar can I (or my child) safely tolerate to avoid
chronic toxicity?” The goal should be to figure out your toxic dose, then stay
well below it. (It’s probably not wise to consume 95% of the toxic dose of
APAP just because you have a really bad headache.) What makes this important,
of course, is that with water and oxygen, the toxic doses are so far out of
the range of what we normally consume, it’s not really necessary to expend
much mental energy worrying about the toxicity. But with sugar, at least for
many of us, the toxic dose is easy to consume, especially in world where sugar
resides in almost everything we eat."

------
puzzlingcaptcha
_As far back as 1675, when western Europe was experiencing its first sugar
boom, Thomas Willis, a physician and founding member of Britain’s Royal
Society, noted that the urine of people afflicted with diabetes tasted
“wonderfully sweet, as if it were imbued with honey or sugar.”_

Just to point out, the high concentration of glucose in urine of diabetics is
the _result_ of the disease. A healthy person who just happened to eat some
sugar would not have elevated glucose in urine. This of course does not rule
out increased sugar consumption as a risk factor in developing type 2 diabetes
(type 1 is genetic) but the article does not make it clear.

~~~
yourapostasy
Correction: _both_ type 1 and type 2 diabetes have genetic risk factors. In
fact, genetic factors are stronger with Type 1. I would expect to see subtype
categories filter out into the mainstream in the next generation or so, as the
explosion of diabetes in the developed world carries discussions of it out
into the wider population. The current primary differentiator between Type 1
and 2 is Type 1 is an autoimmune disorder, while Type 2 is an insulin
resistance disorder.

------
crazygringo
> _The solution? Stop eating so much sugar. When people cut back, many of the
> ill effects disappear._

I understand the article focuses just on sugar, but when it starts getting to
the health effects, the focus shouldn't be on _just_ sugar but rather all
high-glycemic-index foods, including bread, pasta, potatoes, and so on -- at
least from what I understand. It doesn't do much good to cut back on sugar if
you replace it with bread.

~~~
wmil
It's still disputed, but there's a lot of evidence the problem is fructose,
not glucose. Meaning that bread and potatoes aren't particularly bad on their
own.

Here's "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" that lays out the theory.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM)

~~~
whyme
I'm pretty sure, in that video, the argument was that while glucose is still
really bad for you, fructose[1] is much, much worse - it's a poison that's
causing an epidemic.

1\. And specifically the manufactured fructose isolates vs. natural fructose
found in fruit.

Edit: rather glucose in high quantities as noted in response below.

~~~
_delirium
> And specifically the manufactured fructose isolates vs. natural fructose
> found in fruit.

Is there an explanation as to why this would be the case (if it is)? With a
lot of vitamins the argument is over absorbability of different forms, e.g.
there are various forms of dietary calcium, and various kinds of calcium
supplements, and they may not be equivalent. But my understanding was that
fructose in fruit is pretty much just fructose, readily absorbable just like
the isolated version is. The only plausible difference I can come up is
concentration; there's a limit on how much fructose you can get from fruits
because the average person is not going to scarf down a half-dozen pears in a
sitting. But if high concentrations are the issue, it would also apply to
concentrated "natural" fructose, e.g. the pear-juice concentrate that some
"naturally sweetened" products use.

~~~
hristov
There is an explanation. I urge you to watch the entire video. The problem
with fructose is that the liver has only a limited ability to properly process
it. This if you get too much the liver processes a lot of it through the wrong
pathways, and that causes all types of chaos.

There are a couple of differences with natural fructose. First natural
fructose almost always comes with fiber. The fiber if processed at the same
time as the fructose allows the liver to properly process more fructose. This
is because the fiber provides certain nutrients which allow the liver to
process more fructose along the proper pathways.

Second, natural fructose is usually in plant cells. In order for us to process
these, we much first break down the plant cells in our stomach. This takes
some time, so the effect is that the natural fructose does not hit the liver
in the same speed and concentration as refined fructose.

This all has scientific support by the way. Lustig mentioned a study in old
Caribbean sugar plantations. There they tracked the health of the masters and
workers. It turned out that while both the masters and workers ate mostly
sugar, the masters had a lot of health problems associated with obesity and
diabetes, while the workers did not. The difference was that the masters ate
refined sugar, while the workers mostly just ate raw sugar cane.

There was another study in japan, where scientists tried to give people
massive amounts of sugar in the form of apples. These people did not have any
of the problems associated with high sugar intake.

~~~
raverbashing
I think you're almost there

Fructose is fructose, there's no "natural fructose" however it's one thing to
eat it pure, another one in a fruit

"The problem with fructose is that the liver has only a limited ability to
properly process it."

Correct, glucose can replenish muscle glycogen, fructose can't (the liver
produces both types of glycogen) -
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3592616](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3592616)

"This is because the fiber provides certain nutrients"

Fibers, per definition are not digestible but are other things that may happen
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietary_Fiber](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietary_Fiber)

And of course glycemic index may be a problem with sugars as well.

~~~
_delirium
_Fructose is fructose, there 's no "natural fructose" however it's one thing
to eat it pure, another one in a fruit_

That I can buy. What I'm more skeptical of is that there's a distinction
between "manufactured" and "natural" fructose once both have been concentrated
and are used as additives to sweeten other products. Eating a pear is one
thing, but I'm less sure that a "naturally sweetened" product which has been
sweetened with concentrated pear juice or a similar fruit-based sugar extract
is really more healthy than the same product that has been sweetened with more
conventional "manufactured" sugars. I don't doubt that eating an actual fruit
is almost certainly better than either one.

~~~
sizzle
I've come to learn that "natural" is a marketing weasel word that adds nothing
of value to describing a product.

------
wavefunction
An interesting article about one of the worst enemies of health for modern
humans. It seems like it completely discounts sugar-beets and other sources of
sugar available outside the tropics though.

I assume their refinement into sugar is a result of exposure to the arab
techniques of sugar-cane refinement mentioned throughout the article, but the
history of that other thread of sugar would have been another interesting one
to weave into this narrative.

~~~
makomk
Yeah, beet sugar is a relatively recent innovation that postdated the
widespread availability of cane sugar.

------
aalpbalkan
Somebody remove /print/ in the url.

~~~
prawn
Choice between cancelling a print dialogue or cancelling a "subscribe to read"
pop-up, I think.

