You must log in or register to comment.

AaronJeep t1_j48nig1 wrote

Apparently a 12oz coke has 39 grams of sugar. I have one cup of highly overpriced coffee in the morning. I do like my three teaspoons of sugar in it. That comes out to about 13 grams of sugar.

So the question is, is that the same bad habit (gram for gram) as someone drinking cokes and energy drinks? Obviously, if someone drinks three or four cokes a day they are getting about 150 grams of sugar to my 13 (all other things ignored), but is all sugar bad, period. Or is there a reasonable amount you can have and not feel like you are poisoning yourself?


Cleistheknees t1_j493eoa wrote

> but is all sugar bad, period

The molecule is the same, but the “badness” is based on where it goes, and metabolism is contextual and prioritized. A lot of absolutist sucrose defenders put these studies on blast by saying things like “what about fruit!!!”, noting that the epidemiological data on “fruit” isn’t nearly as bad as on SSBs. Obviously, though, they’re either consciously or mistakenly forgetting that the concentration of sucrose in SSBs is much higher than almost all fruits, and lacks a single gram of fiber, which nearly all fruits have. There is the added problem that “fruit” is a very nonspecific term. An apple and fig have substantially different sugar concentrations and fiber ratios.

The most important factor is time. The longer you can stretch out your liver’s exposure to a given sugar bolus, the better. This is exactly what fiber does: slows motility. The liver (and most peripheral tissues) can metabolize glucose without insulin, but when you’re at rest it’s only at a basal rate, which is the homeostatic demand for hepatic glucose output. The closer you can get your sugar intake to match that “background level” of insulin-independent glucose metabolism, the less negative effect (ie insulin requirement) it would have. Endothelial tissue gets it’s glucose via GLUT1 transporters, which are insulin independent. It’s why the vasculature takes the brunt of chronic hyperglycemia: it isn’t able to prevent all that glucose from diffusing in and wreaking havoc on its internal machinery via glycation.

Low-intensity exercise (ie Zone 2) also opens up an insulin-independent glucose pathway, but into skeletal muscle. That’s why taking a brisk walk after meals is consistently so effective at improving glycemia in diabetics.

So, the “good or bad” gist would be that any sugar which exceeds the ability of the liver to metabolize, which they gets exported as VLDL or contributes to chronic insulin spikes, is bad. I guess the problem isn’t the molecule from a certain point of view, it’s just that it has nowhere to go without a pattern of insulin secretion that is desensitizing in the long-term. Any sugar which is metabolized normally (especially into skeletal muscle) and without chronic insulin spikes is fine. Obviously this is just based on energy and ignores the other 99% of nutritional quality.


KetosisMD t1_j49fysl wrote

Love your post. Knowledge is power.

Thoughts on this ?

> get glucose intake to match glucose-independent uptake

If blood glucose was stable and it went up 18mg/dl (1 mmol) wouldn’t that indicate the intake was too high ?


Cleistheknees t1_j49r5gs wrote

What Eades is saying doesn’t really make sense. If a type 1 diabetic (ie, complete lack of endogenous insulin) consumes 15g of glucose or 150g, the change in serum glucose will be wildly different, and commensurate with the amount ingested. If what he’s saying was correct, that insulin-independent glucose disposal can account for even large boluses in the form of a meal, then the change in serum glucose in a T1D would the same regardless of intake, as that change would be from hepatic output, not from the meal, which in the absence of insulin will be the same whether you’re eating a bowl of pasta or arugula with salmon. As someone who’s last endogenous secretion of insulin was about 26 years ago, I can pretty confidently tell you that is not the reality. I can eat a turkey sandwich before a 20mi bike ride no problem, but a 16oz soda with 70g of sucrose is going to put me past 500mg/dL even with the same exercise.

It is true that the effect of insulin on serum glucose in the advanced T2D patient specifically seems mostly based on suppressing hepatic output, and not entirely on opening GLUT4 channels in skeletal muscle as was thought before, but that doesn’t mean it’s black and white. GLUT4 exists, and is activated via IRS1, and GLUT1 is virtually unexpressed in skeletal muscle after the first year of life (Gaster et al, 2000). That is beyond contestation at this point. If Eades has a good argument as to why this exquisitely architected system of insulin-dependent glucose uptake into muscles that are perfectly prepped for its immediate oxidation would all exist for no reason, I would love to hear it. In fact, we have a version of what Eades is describing, in the form of AMPk activated GLUT4 translocation, skipping IRS1 and the need for insulin, but that’s in situations where the myocyte senses energy deficiency, not at rest. You probably know as well as I do how inefficient exercise is for disposing calories, so unless Eades expects us all to take 6 hour zone 2 jogs after every meal, at some point insulin-mediated glucose disposal has to be accepted.

Plus, we and our predecessors in Homo have been consuming starches for hundreds of thousands of years, there is evidence of strong selection on regions like AMY1 that extends long before our genus, etc. It’s clearly just as native to us at this point as any other nutrient. What’s not native is—like I said before—the context. The liver obviously can’t handle 3 100g boluses of refined glucose per day, for 30 years, especially in a sedentary person. That doesn’t mean glucose, or insulin, is a thing to be suppressed at all costs, just like the mechanistic connection between fatty acids and cardiovascular disease doesn’t mean fatty acids should be suppressed at all costs. IMO, an insulin sensitive person who exercises 4-6 times per week can eat whatever combination of whole foods they like and have basically zero fear of MetS or accelerated atherosclerosis. Remember that JAMA paper in Jan 2021 that computed the WHI biomarkers HR for CVD? LDL was like 1.6, lipoprotein insulin resistance was higher, near to obesity, and T2D was like 10.5. To my mind, insulin resistance is the smoking gun, whether it’s the initial causative agent or not, it seems pretty clear that if you’re weight stable and insulin sensitive, you’re safe.

Plus, I feel like he of all people shouldn’t be relying entirely on rodent data. Isn’t that usually his thing? That metabolic observations from rats shouldn’t be extrapolated to humans?

> If blood glucose was stable and it went up 18mg/dl (1 mmol) wouldn’t that indicate the intake was too high ?

I mean, maybe in an absolute sense it means intake was greater than the ability of basal glucose disposal to completely account for, but “too high” seems like it suggests pathology, and I don’t see that small of a disturbance to serum glucose being anywhere near such a threshold. Any healthy person’s glucose will rise more than that simply by waking up, or lifting weights for a bit.

Plus, insulin shuttling glucose into muscle and adipose tissue isn’t bad. It’s a normal physiological process. Provided both of those tissue categories remain sensitive to insulin and the person is at stable weight, I don’t see how you could sneak your way into MetS.


glawgii OP t1_j47vwet wrote


>The metabolic syndrome (MetS) is a cluster of cardiovascular risk factors that includes atherogenic dyslipidemia, abdominal obesity, high blood pressure, as well as high blood glucose.


Pr0gr3s t1_j48zb9l wrote

Is that really how the authors defined it? Hyperinsulinemia getting no love.


Cleistheknees t1_j490tsv wrote

They didn’t define it, just listing some common criteria. The ICD10 criteria for metabolic syndrome (E88.81) includes insulin resistance. In this constellation, IR is nearly 100% coincident with hyperinsulinemia. You can’t have one without the other. Resistance to insulin by definition means the pancreas is secreting more than the observed serum glucose would suggest in an insulin-sensitive person.


kyoko9 t1_j47uzjo wrote

This is the worst news I've ever heard.


Coquenico t1_j48ent5 wrote

tbh this hardly qualifies as news at this point, sweet beverages are likely the single worst dietary habit one can have


AutoModerator t1_j47rbod wrote

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.


[deleted] t1_j47u2jw wrote



Sanpaku t1_j4824f5 wrote

Having read quite a few of the prospective studies, there are usually considerable and sometimes fairly comprehensive attempts to statistically correct for other background and lifestyle factors.

For example, this study on Tehranian children and teens adjusted for age, sex, total energy intake, physical activity, family history of diabetes, intakes of dietary fiber, tea and coffee, red and processed meat, fruits and vegetables and BMI. This one on Taiwanese teens adjusted for Taiwanese region, age, physical activity, total calories, the intake of meat, fruit, fried food, food with jelly/honey, alcohol drinking and cigarette smoking. This one in Korean adults adjusted for adjusted for age, energy intake, household income, education level, alcohol consumption, smoking status, and physical activity.

It's obviously impossible to prove causality with prospective epidemiology. But when there the mass of benchtop, animal, case control and prospective studies pointing to the same conclusion, at some point its time to stop shilling for Coca-cola.


paceminterris t1_j48wk1o wrote

While YES, it is true that the development of metabolic syndrome is multifactorial and sugar-sweetened beverage consumption correlates with other poor dietary choices...

...Are you really trying to say "we don't have enough data to say that sugary beverages strongly drive poor health?" It's clear from the data that it is a strong contributor; just because it's not the ONLY contributor doesn't mean that it doesn't deserve significant blame.


DrTonyTiger t1_j481u53 wrote

This pub is from MDPI, the world's leading purveyor of junk science.

The conclusion may be true, but this is not the review paper I would trust.


glawgii OP t1_j48emmc wrote

I mean it's good enough for Harvard, so what's wrong with the methodology?


DrTonyTiger t1_j4cj1fu wrote

You mean that one of the authors visited Harvard and put that address in their contact info also? That is not a good way to judge the credibility.


brohamsontheright t1_j486wd5 wrote

It's a stupid study.. this has been STUDIED TO DEATH... like to the point that it's now basic common sense amongst the population.

How on earth does someone get funding to run a study like this, these days?