Questionable industry-funded review tries to cast doubt on harms of excess sugar | Hacker News Reader

Questionable industry-funded review tries to cast doubt on harms of excess sugar

arstechnica.com

29 pointsshawndumas4 comments

I wonder if the curtain will ever be completely pulled back on this, like on asbestos or tobacco. In the future, sugar may be relegated to a spice, like salt, pepper or MSG in percentage used in a person's diet. Fifty years down the road, a bunch of people mulling, "What were they thinking?" about our generation. not that sodium in processed foods doesn't need attention as well.

I think it has to eventually. I personally think we need to use people's A1C levels as a cost differentiator on healthcare premiums. Having a lower A1C is a major reduction in risk for type 2 diabetes and most heart conditions.

Who will cast doubt on the safety of starch? After all, starch, as long chains of glucose, provokes twice the release of insulin as sugar (50/50 glucose/fructose).

Sugar is mostly safe, as long as one's liver is healthy.

Soybean oil is much more dangerous than sugar: http://swindledandpimped.org/obesity-epidemic/

Starch is not really the problem. It is overly simplifying to equate insulin release with problem. Yes, diabetics have a problem here but everyone else not. In fact the insulin release is critical for satiny.

Three factors constitute the main impact of carbohydrates:

1 How much of what hits the bloodstream

2 How fast is glucose getting into the bloodstream

3 How much is left over in the intestine

1) There are mainly two molecules getting into the blood: glucose and fructose. In particular the quantity of fructose matters from an inflammation and cholesterol point of view as fructose in processed in the liver and impacts triglyceride levels.

2) The faster glucose gets into the blood the more stress on the insulin system. Refined carbohydrates go faster. Fat in the meal slows absorption down (in that sense french fries are easier on the body than cooked potatoes).

3) Carbohydrates are easy energy for bacteria. Too much left over and bad things can happen (reflux, diahera, headache and if persistent other chronic conditions). Lactose intolerance and fructose malabsorption are conditions where this happens. Complex sugar alcohols (often used sweeteners with low/zero calories) can slow/block in larger quantities absorption of fructose leading to problems in combination with real sugar. Also even healthy people have limits in how much fructose they can absorb that are in the range of western sugar laden diet. Re-heated food is harder to digest than freshly cooked food as carbohydrates form longer chains when cooling.

While there are mainly two molecules entering the blood there are a large number of molecules in the food. They get broken down and are absorbed or they are passed through. The sugar industry is using this complexity to throw smokescreens. They have an interest in playing down the role of fructose as fructose is much sweeter than glucose and thus helps to lower the calorie count important for selling the product. A cynic may also note that fructose also does not trigger insulin and thus keeps the person hungry. Again to evaluate the impact of carbohydrates one just needs to ask: how much, of what (glucose%, fructose%), how fast and what are the left-overs.

Pasta: 100% glucose, medium fast, perfect

Sugar: 50/50 glucose/fructose, very fast, glucose perfect, fructose depends on quantity, individual and prior food in intestine

Beans: ?/? %, slower as longer chained fructose molecules, glucose perfect, fructose depends on individual

HFCS: 40/60% glucose/fructose very fast, glucose perfect, fructose depends on individual, quantity and prior food in intestine

Milk: 100% glucose, fast, glucose digestion depends on lactose intolerance

Sugar alcohols: 0/0%, is passed through but may impact absorption of fructose in other food

Reply on news.ycombinator.com