It's very bad, it's everywhere and addictive in ways you could never realise. Sugar addiction is very related to carbohydrates. When I cut carbs (and increased fat content) I also lost all interest in sweetness and sugar. Not even diet cokes.<p>When I was my fittest, I had totally cut sugar/carbs out. Even complex carbs (meh, not much benefit of "complex carbs anyway). I was running on ketone or whatever the terminology is. I was swimming everyday for two hours with no problems what so ever. I was basically running on fat. This takes a while, usually 2-3 weeks to get into.<p>Usually when I switched from carb loaded fuel to fat. It took a day of being tired and sleepy. That's it. But it takes a bit longer to completely exercise on fat than just running normal errands.<p>Most "low calorie" or "low fat" branded "food" products usually have high sugar content. The low fat version of the cremé fraiche we USED to consume at home had more sugar and/or carbs than the high fat one. We consume the latter these days and gain no additional weight. We're not as easy as thermo dynamics, it's more complicated than kcal in/out. Which is why most people prefer carbs/sugar instead of fat. Since the kcal per fat grams is higher.<p>EDIT; That being said, I've seen the opposite in my partner who happens to be of Chinese descent and others of similar background. The only explanation I have is that their bodies are more advanced than our primal vessels :-)
We will end forbidding everything. Besides, taking sugar is a personal option wich doesn't kill anyone around you. Tobacco while you smoke you make smoke everyone the room, even on the street. We just need education to measure the excesses.
I don't get these health related HN submissions. Salt bad, sugar bad, wheat bad, fitness is a lie... what's next?<p>I dont't troll. I just don't understand why all of our basic foods are now bad. Guess we made them bad as we put sugar and salt in everything...
There's an easy fix for that: a shift from sugar to artificial sweeteners. Same as there's an easy fix for cigarettes: move to electronic cigarettes.<p>But i guess we're more afraid of the unknown chemicals(although limited tests have shown they are much safer) than the original poisons, And we're stuck on trying to teach ideals than implement practicalities.<p>Such a shame.
"You want to get As and As? Eat breakfast."<p>"I don’t have time to eat breakfast," the [13 year old] girl said.<p>"She'd rather put on makeup than eat breakfast," the girl's mother interrupted.<p>I'm a Lustig fan, but the people who deserve an overwhelming about of the blame here are the parents.
Sugar is bad. I'm trying hard to quit using it, but it's EVERYWHERE!
I bought some smoked salmon the other day and the damn thing had sugar put in it! Why?!
The same goes for a lot of supermarket sold crap. Sugar, sugar, sugar.
Robert Lustig, while having great science to back up his claims, is very alarmist and has been derided for some of his outright demonization of fructose. Which, when you think about it, is opposite to many demagogues out there; they'll talk up a big storm with very little to back it up. Here, Lustig has plenty to back up what he's saying, but just does it in the wrong way unfortunately. I also thoroughly disagree with his legislation ideas. Legislating society's habits rarely ever works. This is an incredibly complex societal problem that won't be solved by removing sugar from the Generally Recongnized as Safe list.
And for an alternate viewpoint - <a href="https://secure.huffingtonpost.com/david-katz-md/sugar-health-evil-toxic_b_850032.html" rel="nofollow">https://secure.huffingtonpost.com/david-katz-md/sugar-health...</a><p>"So while fructose as an ingredient excessively engineered into processed foods is, indeed, a problem- I find it far-fetched at best to suggest the native composition of, say, berries is "evil." Lustig seems to be tossing out the the strawberries with the soda. You find me the person who can blame obesity or diabetes on eating strawberries, and I will give up my day job and become a hula dancer."
I started the slow carb diet last year for new years resolution. At the time I was addicted to peanut M&M's. Took probably 3-4 months to completely rid myself of the temptations to eat a large bag of them. Anyways, in addition to that time period I can remember the first week of the diet feeling the need for a piece of bread. I was like feigning for it. But I resisted. Definitely surgars have withdrawal symptoms, but with so many different foods and drinks out there I do think its an easier addiction to cure than any drug like alcohol or tobacco or even heroine for that matter.
Why was this article suddenly de-ranked? It was on the front page, and literally 10 seconds later it is on page 3. Is there some kind of rule that this article violated? Who makes this decision? Why is there not any transparency on if an article is de-ranked and why?
While it's a good idea to get people off sweet stuff beyond the level of healthy fruit intake, I think it would also help if people stopped demonizing sweeteners like aspartame.
<i>especially after he proposed in the journal Nature that sugar should be regulated like alcohol and that people who buy soda should be carded.</i><p>Another sick leftist that wants to regulate every human activity.
<i>The suits against Big Food have largely been stalled at the failure stage.</i><p>Big Tobacco, Big Oil, and now Big Food. These socialists are sick in the head.
At what point do we start talking about sanctions against leftist-statists like this guy and others who want to essentially enslave us.<p>At what point is enough is enough, and these people are held to account for infringing on civil liberties.