[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

[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.

[hristov]

I don't think so. The video says that there is nothing wrong with glucose, it is the fuel of life. Fructose is the problem. More specifically, refined fructose.

This by the way reflects real life. You can find populations that live on mostly bread and pasta, or mostly rice and noodles and they do not have obesity problems. It is only when refined sugar enters the diet that obesity shows up.

[_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

"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

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.

[stefantalpalaru]

There's only one type of glycogen that's stored in different places. The article you linked only refers to "rapid glycogen restoration". Don't assume from that that the liver can't produce glycogen from fructose.

[a8da6b0c91d]

There is absolutely no explanation. It's just neo-puritanical mystical thinking. The only problem with eating refined sugars is the paucity of vitamins and minerals. Fruit juice is loaded with both of these, yet the lustigites still try to claim fruit sugars without the fiber are bad for you, with no sound basis.

[a8da6b0c91d]

> glucose is still really bad for you

Every cell in your body runs on glucose. To say glucose is "bad for you" is simply idiotic.

[whyme]

yeah, i should have said in high quantities, but I was just paraphrasing the video. The point was, in the video, he did not say it was just fructose, glucose can also be a problem.

[a8da6b0c91d]

It can be a problem if you're type I diabetic or are obese, both of which result in impaired insulin sensitivity.

Otherwise, you can quite healthily gorge on starch and sugars and your tissues will happily mop up the glucose and fructose into glycogen. And then if necessary into fat, but lipogensis from sugars is surprisingly inefficient and glycogen capacity is more than you probably think.

[a8da6b0c91d]

Lustig is a crackpot.

http://www.andrewkimblog.com/2013/02/quick-commentary-on-dr-...

[greenyoda]

Unfortunately, I don't have enough time or knowledge to track down and understand all the references in this article. So I need another way of establishing the author's credibility.

What are Andrew Kim's qualifications (his web site doesn't list any)? Why should I believe him more than Lustig, who is an endocrinologist who has treated and studied a lot of obese patients?

[grannyg00se]

Would a 100 calorie quantity of bread not be better than a 100 calorie quantity of sugar cereal?

Assuming of course that you don't buy bread with sugar in it.

"Although the Glycemic Index provides some insights into the relative diabetic risk within specific food groups, it contains many counter-intuitive ratings. These include suggestions that bread generally has a higher glycemic ranking than sugar and that some potatoes are more glycemic than glucose." - Wikipedia

[a8da6b0c91d]

The glycemic index is a totally broken concept. Your body and tissues are made to happily work with surges of insulin and there is absolutely nothing problematic about that.

From a weight loss perspective sugars, such as in fruit juice, are superior to starches for two reasons. The fructose is thermogenic and raises base metabolic rate. Secondly, starches tend to reach lower lengths of the intestine undigested where they can feed bacteria that generate endotoxins.

Low starch, high sugar, low fat, and 80 grams of protein a day is a very good formula for weight loss.

[manmal]

The amount of macronutrients to be consumed would of course depend on your weight and activity level. I use this calculator for Leangains: http://sareyko.net/leancalc/

I agree that fructose (whole fruits) is preferrable to starch, and people with colitis/IBD seem to find relief from that: http://www.breakingtheviciouscycle.info

But I'd recommend agains juices - they allow to pour down way more fructose quicker than you could chew in the form of whole fruit.

[grannyg00se]

You're reccomending a high sugar diet for weight loss. Yet its nutritional value is nil. How does it benefit? Low starch, high sugar, low fat, decent protein sounds like a diet that would be improved by omitting the sugar.

[dnissley]

That diet would be low in everything except protein. Of course, in theory, that would be better for weight loss. But the question is whether or not that is really sustainable, which is especially important for a long term goal.

IIRC, although your body can run on just the glucose it gets by breaking down fat, it is less efficient. In my own experience this shows up as a negative effect on mood -- which makes me more likely to want to eat (and binge).

[eshvk]

Sure. I don't disagree on being more careful with high glycemic foods. However, the other extreme which I am seeing more and more these days (especially with the popularity of things like atkins/keto) is to switch to the other extreme and claim that carbohydrates in general are evil. There is a place for them. How much and in what percentage depends on you, your genetics and your requirements (do you weightlift?, are you genetically insulin resistant? etc )

[refurb]

Don't forget that the glycemic index of food is impacted by what else is eaten.

For example, a candy bar had a lot if simple sugars in it, but also a lot of fat, which slows gastric emptying and results in a much lower than expected glycemic index.