Hacker News new | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I recently watched http://thatsugarfilm.com/ which looks into why sugar is so bad. Sugar consists of Glucose and Fructose. Your body knows what to do with glucose, releases insulin preventing fat from being burnt and enables your cells to use glucose. Fructose is converted into fat by your liver but cannot be used until the insulin subsides. Fructose really is "bad". Sweetners do not help either as they keep your body addicted to sugar. It also looked at the impact sugar had on brain function. Note that in the film he kept to similar calorie intake, just swapped out his good fat sources with low fat "healthy" choices. He gained 8kg primarily around the waste within 40 days.

Combine that with the meta study that showed exercise was not something to take up as part of a weight reduction regime http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/... and you can begin to understand how important it is that Coca Cola need to push this message.

The reality is, added sugar products need taxation which is then ring-fenced to support healthy eating education and healthy transport schemes (Walking, cycling and public transport). We need to recognise that added sugar, in particular fructose, has to be treated on the same level as smoking is.




Read more about the "science" in the Sugar movie and you may not be so quick to cite it:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_exa...


> Your body knows what to do with glucose, releases insulin preventing fat from being burnt and enables your cells to use glucose. Fructose is converted into fat by your liver but cannot be used until the insulin subsides. Fructose really is "bad". Sweetners do not help either as they keep your body addicted to sugar. It also looked at the impact sugar had on brain function. Note that in the film he kept to similar calorie intake, just swapped out his good fat sources with low fat "healthy" choices. He gained 8kg primarily around the waste within 40 days.

Ok but the insulin does subside and you do use the fat created from fructose provided you aren't eating a caloric surplus. There may be minor differences but calling any macro or micronutrient category "bad" is missing the forest for the trees. There is quite simply no way he gained nearly 20 lbs in a little over a month without significant increasing his calorie intake or decreasing his calorie output.

> The reality is, added sugar products need taxation which is then ring-fenced to support healthy eating education and healthy transport schemes (Walking, cycling and public transport). We need to recognise that added sugar, in particular fructose, has to be treated on the same level as smoking is.

The reality is that sugar is completely healthy for many people, and that the idea that sugar is "poison" is completely incorrect. It's dose dependent, like any other food. If you are sitting around all day doing nothing and you eat a lot of sugar you will gain unhealthy body mass, but for many atheletes, for instance, sugars are an extremely important part of performance quality. Protein or fat when eaten in excess will also make you fat. What separates sugar from cigarettes is that there are doses at which sugar is completely fine (even good) for you, and there is no dose at which a cigarette is good for you.


Isn't the problem that once the insulin subsides you're hungry again? Sugar (and other high-GI foods) are very quickly processed and stored as fat, and the reserves in the blood are depleted soon afterwards.

The amount you eat isn't a function of how many calories are in the food, but how hungry you feel (assuming that the willpower you can put into fighting against your hunger is constant). Therefore the best foods to eat would be the ones with the largest "satiety load" per calorie, and I'm pretty sure high GI is inversely correlated with that


Yep, I think that's a totally fair analysis, but it still is one that involves poor health outcomes resulting from consuming more calories than you need, not directly because you consumed a specific macro or micronutrient.


> Combine that with the meta study that showed exercise was not something to take up as part of a weight reduction regime http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/.... and you can begin to understand how important it is that Coca Cola need to push this message.

One, it is not a "meta study"; it is an editorial[1]. One which provoked an almost immediate contrary response from other doctors, both mentioned in the very article you posted and in the BJSM[2].

Two, Malhotra's editorial does not say "exercise was not something to take up as part of a weight reduction regime". It said exercise doesn't contribute to weight loss. It specifically said exercise reduces the risk of numerous conditions that are frequently comorbid with obesity.

[1] http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2015/05/07/bjsports-2015-0...

[2] http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2015/06/10/bjsports-2015-0...


Sweeteners keep your body addicted to the taste of sugar, but if all you eat is sweeteners, then you won't actually consume more sugar.


True but you are telling your body to keep producing insulin. There is some indication that certain sweeteners increase your risk of diabetes http://www.nhs.uk/news/2014/09September/Pages/Do-artificial-...

I'm on a low sugar (not low carb) and no sweetener lifestyle as I find sugar makes me crash and feel very sleepy.


Source on the insulin claim? Your link deals with saccharin, but diet soda uses aspartame and ace k.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: