Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

basedmeds t1_j4b5gh6 wrote

This reads like a marketing piece.

>Most nutrition experts today will agree on at least one thing: that sugar should be treated as a poison in every respect.

Really? I sincerely doubt that. Glucose metabolism plays a critical role in things like brain function. Even though our brain accounts for only about 2% of body weight, it consumes about 20% of glucose-derived energy (source).

Yes, certain forms of sugar intake are proven to be harmful. Sugar-sweetened beverages can increase risk of (particularly rectal) cancer and diabetes. Fructose may be even worse than sucrose.

Instead of calling sugar the devil, people should receive more education about responsible sugar intake. Eating (or worse, drinking) something that is high in sugar but low in overall calories (especially by itself) can wreak havoc on our insulin sensitivity and lead to health issues down the line.

I feel like a lot of developments in dietary science are posited as cheap one-liners that find a way to make every macro nutrient beside protein into the devil, scaring people more towards disordered eating instead of a balanced diet.

4

craeftsmith t1_j4c0glt wrote

Overall, you are on the right track. I want to add that sucrose (table sugar) is made up of a glucose molecule attached to a fructose molecule. One of the things saliva does is to separate the glucose from the fructose.

Fructose is the main sugar found in fruit (thus its name). It isn't correct to uniformly say fructose is bad for you. It's the type of sugar people mostly consumed before sucrose became available.

Here is a reasonably reputable link that describes everything in more detail

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/sucrose-glucose-fructose#absorption-and-use

At the bottom, they talk about how the presence of glucose increases the rate of fructose absorption, which is likely to be the actual problem, as opposed to fructose itself.

3

texas-playdohs t1_j4bh62l wrote

But it’s not high in sugar, low in calories. It’s the same sugar, just finely powdered, and mixed in oil. For sure it’s PR, but I think you might’ve missed the point of the article.

2

basedmeds t1_j4bk5ag wrote

I see their point - but it stands to reason that the global sugar problem is based on the volume consumed and the effects that has on the human ingesting it. The reason there is so much sugar in products is not because it tastes sweeter, but because it elicits a certain response from the human body in those volumes.

If it was just about taste, sauces might all contain sweeteners. They don't, because the sugar volume enhances the effect. The 'bliss point' manufacturers target won't shift thanks to this product because the underlying physiology the manufacturers are abusing are sensitive to the volume of actual sugar-like substances, not the perceived sweetness.

As such, I find the idea that this product could be some miracle solution sort of laughable. I'd love to be wrong on this one though, the effects of all of those additives really is a huge driving factor in global health problems.

I mean yes - if this could make lower-sugar foods more palatable, that could have great effects. They also allude to that in the article. My main gripe is that the entire article is written as if the inventor is some sort of mythical superhero who just fixed a global problem in one fell swoop.

2

texas-playdohs t1_j4bmvk2 wrote

I see your point. And I definitely concede it is definitely PR. Most of these articles on Futurology are. A lot of publications in this sphere are basically PR vehicles.

3

MilkshakeBoy78 OP t1_j4brtwh wrote

> The reason there is so much sugar in products is not because it tastes sweeter, but because it elicits a certain response from the human body in those volumes. If it was just about taste, sauces might all contain sweeteners.

Tons of sugar are added to products for the taste.

The reason some sauces do not contain sweeteners is because those sauces aren't meant to taste sweet and will not taste good when used with certain foods. Not all foods are meant to taste sweet. There are four other types of tastes...

3

zaywolfe t1_j4es1u1 wrote

The article addresses this. It even names a few reasons to use sugar outside of taste like texture in pastries and as a preservative. The article is really detailed and goes through a number of different challenges

1

MilkshakeBoy78 OP t1_j4bi5kj wrote

Sugar should be treated like a poison. So many people overconsume sugar when they will get enough from the foods they already eat.

2