A sciency view on the "sugar is evil" stance would be much a

Pebble321

I've seen a few references this week (not only on MFP) to "sugar is toxic" and I really want to believe that this is a myth.

While I'm sure that the large quantity of overly-processed sugary treats, with no nutritional value, that surround us in western society are not a healthy addition to our diets, I'm yet to be convinced that cupcakes are as bad as cigarettes or that eating fruit will reverse my weight loss (damn that juicy nectarine I just ate!).

The guy I saw on tv earlier in the week claims that glucose is fine, fructose is the enemy - but it sounds like extremism to me and I'm too fond of sweet things to take this at face value without anything to back it up.

I'd love some educated comments on this topic, I'm not game to post it on the general boards!

BrettPGH

Not here to answer, more to second the request. Also if we could get a final verdict on whether sugar is best and HFCS is in fact a product of satan sent to make our children swell up OR if it's really just a minor difference between glucose and sucrose or whatever that'd be really cool to know.

tameko2

Not here to answer, more to second the request. Also if we could get a final verdict on whether sugar is best and HFCS is in fact a product of satan sent to make our children swell up OR if it's really just a minor difference between glucose and sucrose or whatever that'd be really cool to know.

I just happen to have been reading this yesterday http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/straight-talk-about-high-fructose-corn-syrup-what-it-is-and-what-it-aint-research-review.html on that topic but will await further discussion/answers.

LabRat529

Okay... I have MAJOR issues with Lustig now. Grrr. He hits all my 'this is not how science is done' buttons.

I'm assuming this is in response to the most recent thread citing Lustig's Nature paper? Found here: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v482/n7383/full/482027a.html

Sooo I'll start with what I think about the paper. First, I think the authors' are irresponsible in their choice of titles. "The Toxic Truth About Sugar"?! REALLY? The title implies 1) that monosaccharides are somehow poison, and 2) that they have enough data to bypass the hypothesis stage, bypass the theory stage, and just move straight to "truth". It doesn't work that way.

Second problem, they make some outrageous claims. In the summary, for example, they say that sugar can have effects on the body similar to alcohol. Baloney. It simply does not. Not on a biochemical level, that's for sure. No way. Certainly sugar activates certain reward pathways in our brain... so does alcohol... but *gasp* so does sex, food in general, and a host of other activities that are programmed into us courtesy of evolution and/or God so that our species will reproduce and survive.

Anyway.. I could go on... but the question wasn't 'what do you all think of Lustig's paper' and instead was about whether there is any evidence that high fructose corn syrup, fructose, or sucrose can be harmful to your body.

I think the answer is simply- no. Not by itself. Your body has no problem processing any of those molecules. Sucrose is broken down to glucose and fructose, and both glucose and fructose are shuttled into cells and fed into the citric acid cycle to produce ATP. Excess glucose is converted to fat.... excess fructose is... I actually don't know. I'll have to find out what our bodies do to excess fructose, but I can't imagine anything too scary since man-kind has been eating fruit (a common source of fructose) since way before we became homo sapiens... I'm pretty sure it's just not a problem.

The problem is excess... and it also is us choosing sugary foods over foods that have a higher nutritional (but not caloric) value. Unfortunately, we're not wired to crave leafy green stuff because it's rich in vitamins, minerals, antioxidants, and so on... evolutionarily, high-calorie carbs took a front seat... and so we are where we are.

I did do some digging... and found out some rather interesting things about the molecule sucrose... but no evidence that it is in anyway toxic to our cells and thus our body.

Pebble321

Labrat - thank you, that is exactly the kind of educated response I was hoping for (and was confident I would NOT get on the main boards.) I will continue to do some reading on this topic, but it seems like yet another paper that has some actual information that has been taken way out of context.
You're a genius .

Nikusz

I think this review is more balanced than Lustig's works: http://orbi.ulg.ac.be/bitstream/2268/90906/1/fructose metabolic diseases _nutrition_ocr.pdf
They say: "There is however only limited evidence that fructose per se, when consumed in moderate amounts, has deleterious effects. Several effects of a high-fructose diet in humans can be observed with high-fat or high-glucose diets as well, suggesting that an excess caloric intake may be the main factor involved in the development of the metabolic syndrome."

CaptainMFP

Okay... I have MAJOR issues with Lustig now. Grrr. He hits all my 'this is not how science is done' buttons.

I'm assuming this is in response to the most recent thread citing Lustig's Nature paper? Found here: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v482/n7383/full/482027a.html

Sooo I'll start with what I think about the paper. First, I think the authors' are irresponsible in their choice of titles. "The Toxic Truth About Sugar"?! REALLY? The title implies 1) that monosaccharides are somehow poison, and 2) that they have enough data to bypass the hypothesis stage, bypass the theory stage, and just move straight to "truth". It doesn't work that way.

Second problem, they make some outrageous claims. In the summary, for example, they say that sugar can have effects on the body similar to alcohol. Baloney. It simply does not. Not on a biochemical level, that's for sure. No way. Certainly sugar activates certain reward pathways in our brain... so does alcohol... but *gasp* so does sex, food in general, and a host of other activities that are programmed into us courtesy of evolution and/or God so that our species will reproduce and survive.

Anyway.. I could go on... but the question wasn't 'what do you all think of Lustig's paper' and instead was about whether there is any evidence that high fructose corn syrup, fructose, or sucrose can be harmful to your body.

I think the answer is simply- no. Not by itself. Your body has no problem processing any of those molecules. Sucrose is broken down to glucose and fructose, and both glucose and fructose are shuttled into cells and fed into the citric acid cycle to produce ATP. Excess glucose is converted to fat.... excess fructose is... I actually don't know. I'll have to find out what our bodies do to excess fructose, but I can't imagine anything too scary since man-kind has been eating fruit (a common source of fructose) since way before we became homo sapiens... I'm pretty sure it's just not a problem.

The problem is excess... and it also is us choosing sugary foods over foods that have a higher nutritional (but not caloric) value. Unfortunately, we're not wired to crave leafy green stuff because it's rich in vitamins, minerals, antioxidants, and so on... evolutionarily, high-calorie carbs took a front seat... and so we are where we are.

I did do some digging... and found out some rather interesting things about the molecule sucrose... but no evidence that it is in anyway toxic to our cells and thus our body.

I second all of this! From the evolutionary perspective, figure it this way. What did early humans have easy access to? Leafy green stuff, meat, nuts, berries, etc. What did we have the least easy access to? Sweet, carb-rich foods...which we need as an energy source. So what would we rationally expect to develop a craving for -- the easily accessible or the hard-to-come-by? And yes, here we are.