Two comments from the article that I liked:<p>As the principal author of this study, I wanted to clarify some of its details for scientifically-minded readers, in order to avoid misinterpretations:
<a href="http://epianalysis.wordpress.com/2013/02/27/sugardiabetes/" rel="nofollow">http://epianalysis.wordpress.com/2013/02/27/sugardiabetes/</a><p>-----<p>The opening line ("Sugar is indeed toxic.") is distorted and inane. Sugars are not toxic, as evidenced by our evolution of taste buds that respond so positively to them. Sugars are a dense source of energy, which is why our metabolic systems cherish them. Let's leave such excessive, unsubstantiated commentary to The Onion or Mad Magazine, and just apply common sense to our diets.
A NYT Editor's Pick Comment:<p>"""
I'm glad the smoking gun has been found.<p>High fructose corn syrup is in virtually everything people buy to eat. It needs to go. Enough people's lives have been ruined. The design and engineering of prepared foods people commonly buy is toxic and addictive.<p>Now we need to re-educate people and make sure long-held views are erased. People have long blamed gluttony for obesity and obesity for diabetes. We now know it isn't true and that the super-sugars we are being force-fed are the culprit. We must all, together, demand that processed sugars such as high-fructose corn syrup be banned or, at the very least, severely restricted. I don't use the words force-fed lightly. Those among us who are on food stamps or a limited income have no choice but to buy the cheapest foods. Those are the ones that most commonly have the highest amount of sugars added. Anyone with a busy lifestyle eats out a lot. Fast foods, including the ones that claim to be "better," are laced with sugars, sodium, and fat.<p>We must demand policies that protect us from harm and the greed-driven irresponsible practices of Big Food.<p>Thank you, Mr. Bittman, for keeping us informed.
"""<p>So is "Big Food" the new scapegoat? I guess the next article we'll see a comment proclaiming how "Big Grocery" prices unhealthy foods too low, so now it's their fault.<p>This is a great study, and it's results are extremely interesting, but this article, and the inferences people are getting from it border on witch trials. The article does a great job of doing everything but coming out and saying what the commenter does "They're force feeding us toxins!". There is such a clear departure from responsibility in today's culture it's almost astonishing. The blame lies 100% with nobody, but the individual has just as much a part to play as those producing the food.<p>Edit: Does anyone notice the language used in the comment? "Force-fed", "re-educate", "We must all, together", "Enough people's lives have been ruined". It sounds almost like something from 1984.<p>Also, look how easily the commenter provides inclusion to victimhood... anyone "with a busy lifestyle", or those who "are on food stamps or a limited income". Limited income is pretty broad. It's interesting also, how they "have no choice but to buy the cheapest foods".
This is ridiculous. Sugars are fundamental bio-molecules and are essential for life.<p>Yes, we know that over-eating causes diabetes and obesity. And this study says that foods high in sugar pose the greatest threat. But seriously, are we going to start to say that sugar is <i>toxic</i> in the same way that cigarettes are toxic? We can manage the dangers of sugar toxicity pretty easily by exercising. The damage done by smoking... not so much.<p>This reminds me of a pet peeve that my grad advisor had. In our area it was common to see signs that said something to the effect of "No dumping of chemicals". He loved to point out that water was a chemical.
>In other words, according to this study, obesity doesn’t cause diabetes: sugar does.<p><i>Sigh.</i> No, according to this study, there is a stronger <i>correlation</i> between sugar and diabetes than between obesity and diabetes.<p>>Each 150 kilocalories/person/day increase in total calorie availability related to a 0.1 percent rise in diabetes prevalence (not significant), whereas a 150 kilocalories/person/day rise in sugar availability (one 12-ounce can of soft drink) was associated with a 1.1 percent rise in diabetes prevalence.<p>Much better! Lead with that next time, medical research reporter.<p>All in all, this seems like a pretty good study that controls for a lot of confounding variables that a lot of diet related studies completely neglect. I just wish the reporting here, and in general in all medical research reporting, wasn't so sloppy. The goal should be to spread awareness of new findings, not to spread misconceptions.
Wouldn't it be better for us to link directly to the study, rather than to Bittman's editorial about it? I find the study harmonizes nicely with my view of the world, and I'm even ok with Bittman, but he's not a subject matter expert at all. He's the NYT's former food writer who recently decided to write more about food policy.
They had better change the messaging. I'm in favor of common-sense regulation of mass-production food ingredients, and "sugar is toxic" even rubs me the wrong way.
There is no mention of it in this thread so far, so here: <a href="http://reddit.com/r/keto" rel="nofollow">http://reddit.com/r/keto</a> Check the sidebar out.<p>See the transformations which happen to people when they (mostly) give up consuming sugars: <a href="http://www.reddit.com/r/keto/search?q=progress&sort=top&restrict_sr=on" rel="nofollow">http://www.reddit.com/r/keto/search?q=progress&sort=top&...</a>
A very related, and VERY WELL PRESENTED and scientific video explanation of why sugar is poison, presented to residents at the University of California: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM</a><p>If you like TED talks, this will just blow your mind. It gets highly medical at one point of the talk, but HN should be able to follow along. I recommend watching this when you have an hour of absolute free time and want to learn.
Is there something special about sugar compared to other carbs? If I had to choose between eating bread or cake for the same calories will cake hurt me more?
There's an interesting idea in this article:<p><pre><code> ... and ideally removing fructose (the “sweet” molecule in sugar
that causes the damage) from the “generally recognized as safe”
list, because that’s what gives the industry license to
contaminate our food supply.
</code></pre>
Ignoring the loaded language, does anyone know what the consequences of removing fructose from the GRAS list would be?
>>> The next steps are obvious, logical, clear and up to the Food and Drug Administration. To fulfill its mission, the agency must respond to this information by re-evaluating the toxicity of sugar, arriving at a daily value — how much added sugar is safe? — and ideally removing fructose (the “sweet” molecule in sugar that causes the damage) from the “generally recognized as safe” list, because that’s what gives the industry license to contaminate our food supply."<p>Oh fer cryin out loud, just try to educate people a little better on how to MODERATE intake of everything, don't go overboard here and try to get a ban on sugar.... What is this world coming to when everybody expects some bigger force to make all the decisions for them and keep them safe. Learn how to think for yourselves and take some vested interest in you actions and decisions. Gotta strike a balance between natural selection and idiotracy I suppose...
Every time I see an article related to Medicine on HN it seems a high amount of people comment without reading or at least comprehending the article. It's pretty and remind me of the negative parts of Reddit.
I'm uncomfortable with how this article keeps repeating that because it's "not possible" to do a better study, that the result must be conclusive. That simply does not follow. The fact that you can't do a better study doesn't mean we should believe the result of the best study we have uncritically - and it certainly doesn't mean by itself that the "smoking gun" has been found. So many health myths have been conclusively believed in the past that we should know better than this by now.
I think many people know by know sugar is "toxic" and is responsible for pandemic obesity, type 2 diabetes and 99% of the dental mafia, erm... industry; at least I for one preach against sugar every time there's a discussion on diets and food.<p>This might have just reached a level where authorities need to get their shit together and do something about it... And this is the sad and hard part as many of our politicians may be "subsidised" by the food industry.
With luck, this will encourage people to cook their own food. It isn't that hard to do, doesn't really take that much time, and the benefit of knowing what you are eating really helps inform your diet choices.