Sugar is killing you.

I've always been a firm believer in 'sugar is sugar', your body doesn't know if you're drinking apple juice, maple syrup or soda and processes them all the same way. That said, just read an interesting article which (while largely agreeing with that belief) cites a number of studies on the way our body metabolizes glucose and fructose and how they directly impact our health, would love to hear what you all have to say!

Excerpt below but you can read the full article here - http://www.salon.com/2014/02/25/sugar_is_killing_us_and_it_doesnt_take_much_to_destroy_your_body_partner/

"...The general term “sugar” can mean any number of things. Table sugar, or sucrose, is composed of a glucose molecule bonded to a fructose molecule. Glucose is what plants make during photosynthesis and it’s half as sweet as table sugar. Fructose, naturally found in honey and many fruits, is 70 percent sweeter than table sugar.

On your tongue, you taste a difference in sweetness between glucose and fructose. Once in your body, the difference continues. Glucose is metabolized by every cell in your body. After you eat, your blood glucose levels rise, and your body releases insulin. The insulin helps your muscles, fat and liver absorb the glucose, decreasing your blood sugar. Levels of another hormone, leptin, also rise. Leptin regulates your appetite; once you’ve eaten and your body has plenty of fuel to keep going, leptin tells you to stop. Another hormone, ghrelin, decreases. Ghrelin stimulates your appetite, and after you’ve eaten, it’s already done its job.

Fructose, on the other hand, is only metabolized by your liver. The title of a 2004 study says it all: “Dietary fructose reduces circulating insulin and leptin, attenuates postprandial suppression of ghrelin, and increases triglycerides in women.” In other words, after you eat fructose, your body never gets the message, “You’ve eaten enough, now stop.” As for those increased triglycerides, well… another word for triglyceride is “fat.”

In scientist-speak, “Compared with glucose, the hepatic metabolism of fructose favors lipogenesis, which may contribute to hyperlipidemia and obesity.” Translated, that says when fructose is metabolized in your liver, it is often converted to fat.

These facts about fructose are often cited in arguments against high-fructose corn syrup, but remember that sucrose, honey and even apple juice contain lots of fructose too.

One consequence of overdoing it on sweets is called “metabolic syndrome.” That’s a medical term for a number of risk factors for heart disease, diabetes and stroke: a large waistline, bad cholesterol, high blood pressure, and high fasting blood sugar. In fact, fructose and sucrose are such reliable causes of metabolic syndrome that scientific papers often use the terms “fructose-induced metabolic syndrome” or “sucrose-induced metabolic syndrome.”...
«13456789

Replies

  • F00LofaT00K
    F00LofaT00K Posts: 688 Member
    One consequence of overdoing it on sweets is called “metabolic syndrome.” That’s a medical term for a number of risk factors for heart disease, diabetes and stroke: a large waistline, bad cholesterol, high blood pressure, and high fasting blood sugar. In fact, fructose and sucrose are such reliable causes of metabolic syndrome that scientific papers often use the terms “fructose-induced metabolic syndrome” or “sucrose-induced metabolic syndrome.”...

    I believe this journalist has grossly misunderstood what Metabolic Syndrome is. . . . and it makes me not want to read the article at all. If you gave me access to whatever actual studies these conclusions are being draw from, I would gladly read those and determine for myself whether this is a situation of correlation or causation. Then I would gladly share my opinion with you. Also curious to see what other people have to say.


    ETA: Sites that have articles such as this: http://www.salon.com/2014/02/24/my_boobs_my_burden_partner/
    generally aren't sites that I trust to properly interpret scientific studies. :\
  • RhineDHP
    RhineDHP Posts: 1,025 Member
    Sugar is killing you.

    No it's not.

    /end thread
  • cwsreddy
    cwsreddy Posts: 998 Member

    2010 article vs 2014 article is worth taking into consideration.
  • AJ_G
    AJ_G Posts: 4,158 Member

    2010 article vs 2014 article is worth taking into consideration.

    Not really when one is an article on Salon.com and the other is an article written by a very well respected nutrition scientist backing up his claims with scientific evidence and published scientific studies, especially when the science on glucose and fructose hasn't changed in 4 years...
  • cwsreddy
    cwsreddy Posts: 998 Member

    2010 article vs 2014 article is worth taking into consideration.

    Not really when one is an article on Salon.com and the other is an article written by a very well respected nutrition scientist backing up his claims with scientific evidence and published scientific studies, especially when the science on glucose and fructose hasn't changed in 4 years...

    who is still not actually a scientist and just a blogger.

    salon and aragon are no different in that - in this particular case - they are both mouthpieces for studies, neither has done the research themselves.
  • Achrya
    Achrya Posts: 16,913 Member
    Nope.
  • Cranquistador
    Cranquistador Posts: 39,744 Member
    Nope.
    exactly
  • HawkeyeTy
    HawkeyeTy Posts: 681 Member
    I am going to die anyways...
  • julialdr
    julialdr Posts: 100 Member
    I'm not saying I'm buying into what they are selling but if you read the actual article on Salon (also not originally from Salon but re-posted there) they do cite a number of studies from the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute, American Society for Clinical Nutrition, University of Queensland, University of California and the University of Pennsylvania.

    I think it's a bit small minded to write off an article based on where it was posted instead of the actual content.

    And p.s. I wasn't being serious with the title in case anyone didn't catch that.
  • julialdr
    julialdr Posts: 100 Member
    who is still not actually a scientist and just a blogger.

    salon and aragon are no different in that - in this particular case - they are both mouthpieces for studies, neither has done the research themselves.

    Thank you!! People act like because it's from Salon it's automatically worthless.
  • cwsreddy
    cwsreddy Posts: 998 Member
    I'm not saying I'm buying into what they are selling but if you read the actual article on Salon (also not originally from Salon but re-posted there) they do cite a number of studies from the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute, American Society for Clinical Nutrition, University of Queensland, University of California and the University of Pennsylvania.

    I think it's a bit small minded to write off an article based on where it was posted instead of the actual content.

    And p.s. I wasn't being serious with the title in case anyone didn't catch that.

    agreed, but there's a mob of folks here who will shout you down without ever having read the article in the first place. :frown:
  • 2Dozen
    2Dozen Posts: 66 Member
    Sugar has saved me!!!!!. What would a twinkie be without it?
  • jofjltncb6
    jofjltncb6 Posts: 34,415 Member
    who is still not actually a scientist and just a blogger.

    salon and aragon are no different in that - in this particular case - they are both mouthpieces for studies, neither has done the research themselves.

    Thank you!! People act like because it's from Salon it's automatically worthless.

    That's a reasonable starting point.
  • a_stronger_me13
    a_stronger_me13 Posts: 812 Member
    who is still not actually a scientist and just a blogger.

    salon and aragon are no different in that - in this particular case - they are both mouthpieces for studies, neither has done the research themselves.

    Thank you!! People act like because it's from Salon it's automatically worthless.

    That's a reasonable starting point.

    Personally, I find all my credible information from Huffington Post and Wikipedia.

    :wink:
  • LiftAllThePizzas
    LiftAllThePizzas Posts: 17,857 Member
    DOn't be reddiculous.
  • AJ_G
    AJ_G Posts: 4,158 Member
    I'm not saying I'm buying into what they are selling but if you read the actual article on Salon (also not originally from Salon but re-posted there) they do cite a number of studies from the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute, American Society for Clinical Nutrition, University of Queensland, University of California and the University of Pennsylvania.

    I think it's a bit small minded to write off an article based on where it was posted instead of the actual content.

    And p.s. I wasn't being serious with the title in case anyone didn't catch that.

    agreed, but there's a mob of folks here who will shout you down without ever having read the article in the first place. :frown:

    Hard to read the article when the posted link takes you nowhere...

    BTW, how is that small minded? There's so many absolutely misleading articles about nutrition on the internet that you really should pick and choose where you get your information. For example, it's better to link to an actual scientific study, than an article about a study that can misconstrue the facts.
  • Mr_Bad_Example
    Mr_Bad_Example Posts: 2,403 Member
    Life will kill ya.

    lkycoverbw2000.jpg
  • HawkeyeTy
    HawkeyeTy Posts: 681 Member
    DOn't be reddiculous.

    giphy.gif
  • julialdr
    julialdr Posts: 100 Member
    Hard to read the article when the posted link takes you nowhere...

    Sorry, seems the end of the URL keeps getting cut off!
    http://www.salon.com/2014/02/25/sugar_is_killing_us_and_it_doesnt_take_much
    _to_destroy_your_body_partner/