Hacker News Reader

Comment by awjr | Hacker News Reader

I don't think it's the fact that sugar is evil, but that it has been marketed as better than fat. Low fat food high in 'hidden' sugars are sold to us as better for us. Both have their issues, but looking at our diet over millennia, high sugar diets are new to our bodies.

When we bring the car into the equation and the way it has transformed the way we travel we suddenly have this health 'time' bomb that is beginning to explode.

Now people may say it's down to the individual to make dietary decisions, but this is more fundamental than this. In the same way the tobacco industry has to pay for the damage it inflicts on the population through taxation, I can see sugar taxes becoming something governments will implement to recover the cost to the state of a unhealthy population.

View on HN

There are no singular reasons for obesity. Certainly the reason is not sugar or fat. The reasoning here seems to be a basic misunderstanding of logic. Just because "no carbs => lean" doesn't mean "lean iff no carbs".

I would hate for ignorance to turn the essential sugar fuel I need to ride 100 miles on my bike (no, it turns out, you don't want to do that on fat metabolism alone!) into some unobtainable luxury.

> (no, it turns out, you don't want to do that on fat metabolism alone!)

i'm not an expert in this field, but during my personal ketogenic diet research, i came across many elite but amateur endurance athletes blogging about their switch from carb-adapted to fat-adapted performance.

to a layman like me, it would seem that professionals wouldn't be publicizing the fact that they have switched to fat-fueled endurance training because it would be a massive competitive advantage.

the research in this area of biology is extremely cutting edge with new information being published monthly, and i can only imagine well-funded professional athletes are simply training/eating and performing at a level far and away beyond the typical enthusiast or fitness athlete. not only that - they can sustain a specialized, ketogenic diet required to actually achieve such a state.

>to a layman like me, it would seem that professionals wouldn't be publicizing the fact that they have switched to fat-fueled endurance training because it would be a massive competitive advantage.

Except it's a disadvantage, not an advantage. All kinds of diets have been tried in the name of performance and the results are pretty clear. The typical world class runner's diets in the top performing country (Kenya) has 76.5 percent of daily calories consumed as carbohydrates. This group of runners has absolutely demolished lower carbohydrate consuming western runners. Marathoners from other top-performing countries (Ethiopia and Japan) have similarly been scrutinized with similar results.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15657475

yeah, but that's not what we're testing. this data doesn't isolate the variable of being kenyan.

the proper experiment would be to take half of the kenyan runners and fat-adapt them, and compare their performance to the other kenyans, as well as their previous selves.

has that study been done?

The phenomena isn't limited to Kenyans. Top runners around the world have that kind of diet.

You're not going to find a "proper" experiment, but many, many athletes experiment with their diets, and ketogenic diets are pretty well explored ground. Athletes and coaches alike gravitate towards what yields results. Running is an extremely competitive sport with few barriers to entry and the claim of such a low-hanging "massive competitive advantage" is an extraordinary one that requires extraordinary evidence to be taken seriously.

My father performs long rides all the time so I have an idea of the caloric needs you and him have.

Carbohydrates shouldn't be unobtainable or something just for the rich, but a bag of gummi bears should no longer be 2 ten thousandths of a cent per calorie.

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%2412.25+divided+%285+p...

As far as the energy argument is concerned, wouldn't starch be a better source, since it's all glucose? Sugar is not only an inferior source of energy (since it's only half glucose), the fructose wreaks havoc on your liver.

As for the obesity argument, I think there are two things to consider here: 1. sweet foods are calorie dense. Hence, it's easy to consume too many calories until you feel full. 2. they also have a high reward factor, so it's likely that you would keep eating even after you're full - there's always room for dessert!

Though, these problems not limited to sugar/hfcs. Fructose-free sweeteners suffer from them as well.

> In the same way the tobacco industry has to pay for the damage it inflicts on the population through taxation, I can see sugar taxes becoming something governments will implement to recover the cost to the state of a unhealthy population.

That is going to be much trickier, though. The sugar binge is partially a result of the well-meaning but misguided demonization of fats during the 70s and 80s, something those very governments participated in.

Be aware that the 'sugar' lobby fought hard not to have sugar demonised the way fat was by the WHO. This really is of their own making.

It is probably the demonisation of fat that pushed people to consume excessive sugar.

A 10 cent tax per gram of added sugar or HFCS for every product. Implement this and watch obesity rates plummet.

(This is not a serious suggestion, but I think it would still be interesting to brainstorm the implications of such a tax.)

How do you define added. If you have pure apple juice, it has 35g in an 8 fl. oz. serving (using the Martinelli's in my pantry as an example). There is no sugar added, but it clearly has plenty of sugar. What happens if instead of adding the sugar to the apple juice, I were to just reduce the amount of water instead? I'm still not adding any sugar, but the concentrate would clearly have more sugar than not. How is this much different than producing maple syrup, which is pretty much designed to be sugar?

In this case, "added" would mean "extra," as in any amount you add on top of what is produced once the apples are converted into juice.

I agree that some stuff already has a high amount of sugar in it naturally, but I think in the grand scheme of things they make up just a small minority of all products. My concern is for more common stuff, like bread. Why does bread have to have high-fructose corn syrup in it again? The answer is that it doesn't.

You need a small amount of sugar for the yeast.

Does US bread have more than that?

Yeasts are perfectly capable of splitting starches, you don't need any sugar.

Yes. Here's a higher end "grocery store shelf" bread maker:

http://www.pepperidgefarm.com/FreshBreadsGateway.aspx

2 to 4 grams of sugar per slice is typical there. That sort of bread is prepared at large regional bakeries.

Decent grocers will also have a fresh bakery, with somewhat more variety to the product, and probably breads with little added sugar.

If you live in a decent size town, there will also be one or more store front bakeries that uses a shorter list of ingredients (I almost said they are more traditional, but I'm sure they are mostly using big mixers and nice ovens and the like).

satisfying a taste and product differentiation is the main driver. the body loves sweets, salts and fat and who wants wheat bread when you can have honey wheat bread.

Some blame comes down to the producer and marketing trends, gluten is a good example. Up until recently, gluten free had no regulation with using that on packaging. http://www.fda.gov/food/guidanceregulation/guidancedocuments...

When discussing this with friends, I use the example of sodas being marketed as caffeine-free, rather than caffeine added. They are all caffeine free to start.

I think that if you introduced a tax like this, food producers would be more adept at reading the rules and determining what is "added". They could also simple start substituting in artificial sweeteners or the like to maintain some of the taste. There are people who thing that aspartame or other zero-calorie sweeteners are worse than sugar.

It would mean diet drinks would be cheaper than non-diet drinks. They can still read the label.

You don't need a tax. Just get rid of the massive subsidy that HFCS gets.

edit: I had meant the indirect subsidy through corn subsidies. I agree that there shouldn't be much of a distinction between HFCS and sugar (fructose) from other sources.

I don't think HFCS gets any subsidies. Corn gets subsidized and there are very high tariffs on imported cane sugar.

HFCS is metabolically identical to white sugar and bobos singling it out are misguided.

HFCS is metabolized primarily by the liver, unlike sugar.

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/4/895.full

HFCS is equal parts fructose and glucose, exactly the same as sugar. Your link indicates no distinction.

HFCS is produced by running corn starch through an enzyme process identical to one that happens in your pancreas. Corn starch is broken up into glucose and then half the glucose is converted to fructose.

Personally I find HFCS drinks have a mild metalic aftertaste whereas sugar doesn't. I don't know what causes it. But HFCS is metabolically exactly the same as white sugar. And neither are "bad" for you.

It's the amount that matters. HFCS is cheaper to produce thanks to corn subsidies and cane sugar tariffs, therefore more of it goes into food, and it goes into more types of food. The tax I proposed above is a way to offset this effect.

I don't recall seeing sugar being marketed as "better than fat". Companies just upped the sugar when fat fell out of favor, because junk food that's neither fat nor sweet won't sell...

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.

Source?

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com