Hacker News Reader

Comment by a8da6b0c91d | Hacker News Reader

De novo lipogenesis from sugar in humans is extremely inefficient. Sugar really is less fattening, calorie for calorie, than dietary fat. So in at least one sense sugar is in fact "better" than fat.

You can live in perfect health on close to zero fat intake. Sustained zero sugar/carb intake is extremely stressful for the body and sends catecholamine levels way up, accelerating aging.

The anti sugar thinking is basically some dumb ideas from diabetes research extrapolated out. If you have a healthy pancreas there is zero reason not to get a load of your calories from sugar. You just have to get sufficient mineral and vitamin intake as well, so for this reason fruit juice is better than white sugar.

View on HN

You can live in perfect health on close to zero fat intake.

I very much doubt that - quite the opposite, you can live in perfect health on close to zero sugar intake. In fact, there are essential amino acids, and there are essential fatty acids, so you can not live without either protein or fat. There's nothing like "essential sugars", however.

Sustained zero sugar/carb intake is extremely stressful for the body and sends catecholamine levels way up, accelerating aging.

I'm interested to see sources for "low carb accelerates aging" claim.

The idea of essential amino acids is silly because it's impossible not to get enough from almost any diet. No experiment has ever succeeded in inducing an EFA deficiency. It's like calling air essential. Well, yes, but that's not a factor worth worrying about here on the surface of the earth.

Sugar/starch is more rightfully considered essential because glucose is clearly the preferred fuel for animal cells. Glucose deprivation leads to disease.

No experiment has ever succeeded in inducing an EFA deficiency.

You may look up Pellagra. It is, of course, not a threat in a modern western society, but it used to kill people. Not even an experiment, but something that happened in nature. Yes, there are reasons to consider EFA deficiency.

Would a person die horribly if good sources of fat and protein are abundant, but glucose is not? I don't think so.

Glucose deprivation leads to disease.

Again, I would like to see some source. What particular diseases? There are whole groups of peoples (i.e. Inuit, Maasai) who were eating diets almost entirely lacking glucose before Western foods became available to them.

Do you realise, at least, that the body can produce it's own glucose from the excess fat (Gluconeogenesis)?

Pellagra is a vitamin B deficiency. It has nothing to do with EFA. I repeat, there is no such thing as an EFA deficiency. Nobody has ever induced a disease by restricting EFA intake because it's impossible to fail to get enough.

A person eating nothing but fat and protein will have chronically elevated adrenalin and cortisol, will prematurely age, and be more prone to various degenerative diseases.

Pellagra is a vitamin B deficiency. It has nothing to do with EFA.

You could at least look up the first line of a Wikipedia article? Tryptophan is an essential amino acid.

It can be caused by decreased intake of niacin or tryptophan,[1] and possibly by excessive intake of leucine.

Anyway, in the absence of any sources there's not much I can gain from this discussion, unfortunately.

You are confusing amino acid and fatty acid. Two totally different things. I realize now I made a typo reinforcing your misunderstanding higher up.

Really, this is an incredible assertion that goes against all recent research results, and therefore requires sunbstantial evidence or citation thereof. I believe his source would be the author John McDougall, who is pretty much the only person you can find pushing this... 'Hypothesis' might be a strong word. McDougall goes as far as to say Sugar is less fattening thank Olive oil. The reason he is so anti-fat looks to be a strong support for movement toward a Vegan diet. Spreading misinformation such as this is a huge diservice to vegans though, and would likely only lead to higher instances of obesity and metabolic diseases for anyone unfortunate enough to buy into it.

What experiments are you talking about? It is very well established that human lipogenesis from sugar is rare. You have to eat a totally fat free diet and push the sugar intake to hundreds of grams to make it happen at all. A human's adipose fat is simply stored dietary fat. Plentiful sugar intake will suppress fat burning and cause all dietary fat to be stored, so obviously loading up on sugar will usually make you a lard-ass. Just somewhat less so than gorging on fat. It should be noted that this state of affairs is not true in animal models. Rats very efficiently form body fat from sugar, for example.

Frankly, almost every single word in the stated bears no relevance to the reality. Glucose role in lipogenesis is so well known that I won't bother going past the most obvious source:

«Lipogenesis is the process by which acetyl-CoA is converted to fatty acids. The former is an intermediate stage in metabolism of simple sugars, such as glucose, a source of energy of living organisms. Through lipogenesis and subsequent triglyceride synthesis, the energy can be efficiently stored in the form of fats».

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipogenesis

Yes, human adipose tissue and the liver perform lipogensis. I don't know where I said otherwise. The point is it happens at a very negligible rate in humans on any realistic diet. The process can be ramped up if you go on a truly fat free diet, but that's almost impossible in practice. You can take a fat sample from a human and profile almost exactly what fatty things they usually eat, because stored human body fat is pretty much entirely just dietary fats stored away.

If you have a healthy pancreas there is zero reason not to get a load of your calories from sugar.

If you have healthy pancreas and keep overloading them with sugar, you will quickly develop insulin sensitivity and eventually kill your pancreas.

"Anti-sugar thinking" has started out as diabetes research and over the last few decades has turned up plenty of evidence of how unrestricted sugar heavy intake leads to a number of health related issues and degenerative diseases. Role of sugar in endogenous glycation processes can't be underestimated either.

Source?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com