Is Sugar Toxic?

NYTimes ^ | April 13, 2011 | GARY TAUBES

[newzjunkey]

...When I set out to interview public health authorities and researchers for this article, they would often initiate the interview with some variation of the comment “surely you’ve spoken to Robert Lustig,” not because Lustig has done any of the key research on sugar himself, which he hasn’t, but because he’s willing to insist publicly and unambiguously, when most researchers are not, that sugar is a toxic substance that people abuse...

...What we have to keep in mind, says Walter Glinsmann, the F.D.A. administrator who was the primary author on the 1986 report and who now is an adviser to the Corn Refiners Association, is that sugar and high-fructose corn syrup might be toxic, as Lustig argues, but so might any substance if it’s consumed in ways or in quantities that are unnatural for humans...

...It very well may be true that sugar and high-fructose corn syrup, because of the unique way in which we metabolize fructose and at the levels we now consume it, cause fat to accumulate in our livers followed by insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome, and so trigger the process that leads to heart disease, diabetes and obesity...

[Mase]

Taubes seems to think there is a metabolic advantage to a low carb diet. For some reason he doesn't realize that the total number of calories is more important than the ratio of macronutrients.

Demonizing one macronutrient over another is a common trait of diet fads and is exactly what Taubes engages in. Taubes understands that it's easier to sell diet advice if you claim that fats or carbs are the problem while ignoring the fact that it's really all about calories consumed vs. calories burned. Of course, a simple explanation like total calories consumed being the problem isn't the kind of information that people will pay for.

There are all sorts of pitfalls with Taubes' view of nutrition. You'd think a guy selling books about dieting would have learned the laws of thermodynamics before trying to defy them.

[Mase]

people who are sedentary do not use it up and it triggers an insulin response and yu will gain weight

Are you saying it's the insulin response that causes people to gain weight? If so, people who consume large amounts of caffeine would also be more likely to be overweight or obese. I've never seen anything correlating caffeine consumption with obesity.

[GOPJ]

Sorry - I won’t give the New York Times a hit even if it’s free... that said, being the NYT’s they probably feel sugar is poison because they believe every leftist nut ever created... and to hell with research - they know what they ‘feel’...

[GOPJ]

I seriously think it’s harmful to me unless used very sparingly. Note: this is not scientific, just my experience.

That's the difference between us and them - you know your position isn't 'scientific' ... but you express your opinion - AS AN OPINION. For liberals - anything they 'feel' becomes 'fact'.

[RaceBannon]

neither have I ever read that caffiene raises or lowers insulin, got a link?

[Mase]

We've known for some time now that consuming caffeine triggers the release of insulin. To this date, I don't believe anyone has been able to determine why that occurs, but I may be wrong.

Some people want to blame the rise of an overweight population on all sorts of things, but the real cause remains pretty simple. Obesity results from an imbalance between energy consumed in foods and energy burned by metabolic processes and physical activity. There is no bad food, only bad diets. And this, combined with a serious lack of physical activity in an ever more convenience-oriented country, is why Americans are fat. If people were truly concerned about the problem of obesity, they would be focused on our sedentary lifestyle rather than on the absurdity of blaming fat, or carbs, or processed foods, or high fructose corn syrup and so on.

[neverdem]

Thanks for posting. I’m halfway thru.

[neverdem]

This paragraph is from almost dead center of the printer friendly page of this NY Times' Magazine article.

At the time, many of the key observations cited to argue that dietary fat caused heart disease actually support the sugar theory as well. During the Korean War, pathologists doing autopsies on American soldiers killed in battle noticed that many had significant plaques in their arteries, even those who were still teenagers, while the Koreans killed in battle did not. The atherosclerotic plaques in the Americans were attributed to the fact that they ate high-fat diets and the Koreans ate low-fat. But the Americans were also eating high-sugar diets, while the Koreans, like the Japanese, were not.

Gary Taubes' article is dated April 13, 2011. On April 9, 2011, I wrote in comment# 6 on the following thread:

Atherosclerotic plaques formed during a late and limited time period in life

"...According to my pathology teacher in med school, they found "fatty streaks" in in various major arteries while performing autopsies of fairly young American[s] killed in action during the Korean War. These "fatty streaks" were thought to be precursors of atherosclerotic arterial disease, in particular, coronary artery disease."...

That pathology lecture was over two decades ago. It's nice to have a recent article verify my memory after the fact. This is one of the best Times' articles in a long time, IMHO.

To be honest, evidence against saturated fat in the diet is also accumulating.

UNC study helps clarify link between high-fat diet and type 2 diabetes.

This is a combined ping. FReepmail me if you want on or off the diabetes or immunology ping lists.

[neverdem]

What absolute moronic crap.

I used to think the same way too, but it's not. Just because it's in the New York Times' Magazine doesn't mean it's not true.

"The phrase Lustig uses when he describes this concept is 'isocaloric but not isometabolic.' This means we can eat 100 calories of glucose (from a potato or bread or other starch) or 100 calories of sugar (half glucose and half fructose), and they will be metabolized differently and have a different effect on the body. The calories are the same, but the metabolic consequences are quite different."

Fructose, insulin resistance, and metabolic dyslipidemia

Figure 2, "Hepatic fructose metabolism: A highly lipogenic pathway," does a good job showing the pathway.

"Fructose is readily absorbed from the diet and rapidly metabolized principally in the liver. Fructose can provide carbon atoms for both the glycerol and the acyl portions of triglyceride. Fructose is thus a highly efficient inducer of de novo lipogenesis. High concentrations of fructose can serve as a relatively unregulated source of acetyl CoA. In contrast to glucose, dietary fructose does NOT stimulate insulin or leptin (which are both important regulators of energy intake and body adiposity). Stimulated triglyceride synthesis is likely to lead to hepatic accumulation of triglyceride, which has been shown to reduce hepatic insulin sensitivity, as well as increased formation of VLDL particles due to higher substrate availability, increased apoB stability, and higher MTP, the critical factor in VLDL assembly."

When I went to med school, 1987 - 91, there was no mention of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, NAFLD. There is now, including in kids. Check out the keyword nafld.

I checked out high fructose corn syrup. HFCS-55, the version used in soft drinks, is 55 % fructose, 42 % glucose and 3 % other sugars. 56/42 is the same as 4/3. You're getting almost 4 molecules of fructose for every 3 molecules of glucose with HFCS-55.

[Little Ray]

Thank you very much!

[ottbmare]

Lord, there is nothing good left to eat! Can’t eat saturated fat, can’t eat sugar, can’t have empty carbohydrates; that’s 98% of a pleasant diet out the window!

[aruanan]

"The phrase Lustig uses when he describes this concept is 'isocaloric but not isometabolic.' This means we can eat 100 calories of glucose (from a potato or bread or other starch) or 100 calories of sugar (half glucose and half fructose), and they will be metabolized differently and have a different effect on the body. The calories are the same, but the metabolic consequences are quite different."

Yes, as I, a Ph.D. in human nutrition/nutritional biology (2001), said earlier, relative proportions of macronutrients, especially in the context of a hypercaloric diet, have effects on how the body metabolizes them. The major effect of a hypercaloric diet with protein and carbohydrates in excess of energy or protein synthesis needs, is to shift the body's oxidation away from fat oxidation and toward oxidation of proteins and carbohydrates to protect the body. The problem with fructose attains importance in the context of a hypercaloric diet. It's very, very easy in our food-wealthy society to eat far in excess of one's physiological needs. This can lead to trouble. It's probably, though, not as much trouble as we'd have if the population was, at large, as chronically underfed as they are overfed. And the situation is usually going to be either one extreme or the other, due to most people's inability to find and stick to a golden mean.

[neverdem]

Lord, there is nothing good left to eat! Can’t eat saturated fat, can’t eat sugar, can’t have empty carbohydrates; that’s 98% of a pleasant diet out the window!

That's why the Lord provided a wealth of spices!

[Errant]

Thanks for commenting on this subject! It deserves more than just a post and run as the OP had done.

I wasn't able to read the entire article because, I'm not going to do the NT the favor of signing up.

"It very well may be true that sugar and high-fructose corn syrup"

Typical garbage from the NT. Probably because what's left of their dumbed down patrons, can't fathom that "sugar" can mean a number of things. This article (what I've seen of it) wasn't written to educate the public, but to push an agenda.

1. IMO, HFCS (High Fructose Corn Syrup, a synthetic product - about 3 types) may is poisonous to our livers as you stated. According to studies, it must be almost entirely metabolized by the liver. The liver goes into hyper-drive, production of insulin and leptin levels are lower, and ghrelin levels higher. Instead of feeling full sooner, you're still hungry and consume more (hence 32 ounce drinks). The livers of the rats on the high fructose diet become cirrhotic. People who drink more than one soda a day, run a high risk of NAFLD.

2. On the other hand, most people think of "sugar" as the white stuff we buy at the grocery. This raw form of sugar "100% sucrose" breaks down in the body into glucose (able to be absorbed by every cell), and naturally occurring forms of "fructose". Some researches believe this digestion process, somehow inhibits the ability of fructose to damage the liver.

3. The author, by not explaining the differences isn't helping to educate. I'm not sure what his agenda is. I do believe we need to eliminate as much HFCS from our diets as possible and switch back to sucrose in drinks like we had in my skinny youth. Everything in moderation of course.

Thanks again, education is the key ...

[TigersEye]

I am surprised at the info you posted. Thanks for pinging me to it.

You're getting almost 4 molecules of fructose for every 3 molecules of glucose with HFCS-55.

If I understand it correctly the 4 molecules of fructose in HFCS-55 is metabolized just fine and the 3 molecules of glucose is like refined table sugar and is not fine. No? Or is sucrose (table sugar) OK?

Another question I have about it is; is this a significant metabolic difference or is it simply a measurable difference due to more sophisticated methods of looking into metabolic processes? I realize those may not be mutually exclusive things.

[aruanan]

1. IMO, HFCS (High Fructose Corn Syrup, a synthetic product - about 3 types) may is poisonous to our livers as you stated. According to studies, it must be almost entirely metabolized by the liver.

The fructose in high fructose corn syrup is the same fructose that is in an apple or sugar cane. It's like glucose: glucose is glucose is glucose.

The two most commonly used forms of HFCS are roughly 50/50 fructose/glucose (HFCS42 is 42% fructose, 53% glucose, HFCS55 is 55%fructose, 41% glucose), similar to the fructose/glucose ratio in sucrose. Fructose and glucose are chemical identities. They aren't generalized names for broad classes of chemicals that vary greatly.

[Errant]

The fructose in high fructose corn syrup is the same fructose that is in an apple or sugar cane.

Don't be too hasty. Fructose comes in a variety of molecular structures. Hydrolyzed corn starch is used as the raw material for production of HFCS through enzymatic processes. Maybe, the type of fructose produced by enzymes isn't exactly the same fructose structure as that produced by plants in nature (at least in relative quantities)?

I'm not an expert, but I don't think we know enough about the digestive processes, to understand everything that happens when the body processes these different fructose molecules in quantities not normally found in nature.

It makes far more sense from a health stand point, to stick with the sugars our bodies are familiar with, consumed in packages our digestive systems know how to handle due to thousands of years of evolution.

Example of two different fructose molecules:

[neverdem]

If I understand it correctly the 4 molecules of fructose in HFCS-55 is metabolized just fine and the 3 molecules of glucose is like refined table sugar and is not fine. No? Or is sucrose (table sugar) OK?

No on both counts. I'll try to explain. Go back to the figure of a hepatocyte, a cell in the liver, in comment# 29. It shows how the metabolism of fructose promotes the formation of triglycerides, one of the original polyesters, from the glycerol "spine" of triglycerides and three free fatty acids that had been converted into fatty acyl-CoA.

Table sugar, sucrose, aka a disaccarhide, will get hydrolyzed and break down into glucose and fructose, both 6 carbon monosaccarhides that get metabolized differently because of the difference in structure, glucose having a hexagon like structure, fructose having a pentagon like structure with part of a tail of methanol, especially if you're swallowing too many calories. The vertices in these polygons are carbon atoms, except the O's, oxygen atoms. It's a common convention in the structural drawing of organic chemistry. I'll let you guess what the H's mean. Hint, it's part of water.

Errant, the linear structures of D & L fructose is somewhat misleading as single bonded carbon atoms have 120 degree angles with neighboring atoms within a molecule. Think of methane. Carbon is in the center of a tetrahedron of 4 hydrogen atoms. Each angle from the carbon is 120 degrees. That's why the molecule can flop around and make ringed conformations in equilibrium with the "linear" structures, like you have in comment# 37.

The good part of sucrose is glucose. Your brain doesn't work on anything else. Your heart and most of the rest of your body can use free fatty acids for fuel, but not your brain. As I tried to explain, excess fructose tends toward de novo lipogenesis, i.e. the making of new fat, as in triglycerides from the glycerol "spine."

Another question I have about it is; is this a significant metabolic difference or is it simply a measurable difference due to more sophisticated methods of looking into metabolic processes? I realize those may not be mutually exclusive things.

IMHO, I think this a significant metabolic difference. With the epidemic of diabesity, I think the HFCS manufacturers should be made to prove otherwise when people are taking in calories in excess of their daily need. Since most individuals don't have their own personal dietitians, I'd say that for any sedentary individuals to use sucrose sparingly and avoid fructose except when it's natural like fruit.

[aruanan]

Don't be too hasty. Fructose comes in a variety of molecular structures.

If you ate L-fructose, or any other L sugar, you wouldn't be able to metabolize it at all. If you were to eat a racemic mixture of D and L, your body would absorb and metabolize the D and ignore the L. There was talk about 30 years ago about trying to use L forms of sugar in cooking to produce foods that would look and smell and taste exactly the same but be nutritionally null (or reduced) for weight loss purposes. All the sugars, both fructose and glucose, and a few others, in corn starch are D-enantiomers because that's the form that plants make.

[TigersEye]

Thank you. My chemistry is pretty sad but I think I followed that. (I do know what ‘H’ stands for. lol) I guess I have a more basic question about HFCS. Do you see any inherent problem with it? I get the impression from your closing statements that quantity, with an eye towards one’s personal metabolism, is the main danger to any type of sugar. That has been my basic understanding along with the notion that products made with HFCS have more sugars in them to achieve the same taste compared to something sweetened with sucrose.