[arcticbull]

I think this is an example of proportionality bias. There's a cognitive bias that big effects (obesity, cancer, diabetes, etc) must have big and complex causes.

In reality, sugar is just straight-up bad in anything resembling the quantities we eat it, and we should not. It's addictive because there's very little of it in nature and it's high energy density. Therefore it makes sense to seek out. In our synthetic world, we can make as much as we want and eat it whenever we want.

The reward system exhibits unconstrained positive feedback.

As a counter-example there are tons of things that 'feel good' but are destructive, like opioids and cigarettes. Things that are addictive aren't de facto good for you. In fact they're usually very bad for you because they overload your reward feedback network.

[462436347]

> It's addictive because there's very little of it in nature and it's high energy density

Fat has 2.25x times the energy per gram that sugar does.

[raincole]

It's very weird to quote someone's sentence while deliberately ignoring half of it.

[ablyveiled]

Counterpoint: Try munching on some pure cane sugar. Observe that it is not very addictive at all.

[arcticbull]

Yeah, I don't agree with that. Plenty of people all over the world drink literal cane juice. [1]

Not to mention cane sugar is just sucrose, also called table sugar, and it's the same as beet sugar.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugarcane_juice

[CyberDildonics]

'Sucrose' is made up of glucose and fructose. Fructose is what people are talking about when they are talking about harmful effects of 'sugar'.

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

It is not much different than high fructose corn syrup.

"Sucrose is composed of 50% glucose and 50% fructose, whereas the forms of HFCS used in most foods and beverages are typically composed of 55% fructose and 45% glucose "

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3649104/

[arcticbull]

Where are you getting the idea that fructose is the sugar people consider harmful? That's definitely not mentioned in your supporting link - yes, HFCS and sucrose are the exact same to within a rounding error - except that HFCS is pre-digested corn starch, while sucrose requires enzymatic decomposition before it can be utilized by your body - a rate-limiting step after consumption.

Fructose just the principal sugar in fruit, and is used by diabetics as a sweetener. It has to be enzymatically decomposed in the liver, and doesn't yield a large insulin spike. The only particular risk is of non-alocoholic fatty liver disease if you consume way too much of it.

The point I was making in my reply was exactly what you said - there's no real difference between sucrose and HFCS, while the parent was implying there was. So at least on that we agree.

[CyberDildonics]

there's no difference between HFCS and sucrose Where are you getting the idea that fructose is the sugar people consider harmful?

"Robert H. Lustig, MD, UCSF Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology, explores the damage caused by sugary foods. He argues that fructose (too much) and fiber (not enough) appear to be cornerstones of the obesity epidemic through their effects on insulin."

https://robertlustig.com/sugar-the-bitter-truth/

That's definitely not mentioned in your supporting link

My link was showing that table sugar and high fructose corn syrup are not very different from each other.

The only particular risk is of non-alocoholic fatty liver disease if you consume way too much of it.

Everyone is consuming way too much of it, that's the point.

[arcticbull]

> My link was showing that table sugar and high fructose corn syrup are not very different from each other.

That's what I was saying too! Violent agreement :)

> Everyone is consuming way too much of it, that's the point.

Agreed!