Findings affirm the danger of all sugar
Studies over the years have found that sugar, in all of its forms, isn’t all that healthy.
High-fructose corn syrup, in particular, has fallen from its lofty place as a healthy alternative to cane sugar. Now, it resides in the most vilified pits of the food world, the monstrous foe of nearly everyone focused on health and food.
Many people now go out of their way to buy products with regular sugar, not only because the flavor is better but also because people take some assurance that they’re not consuming an artificial, refined product (nevermind the irony that cane sugar is refined as well).
But an article published last week in The New York Times Magazine, titled “Is Sugar Toxic?,” presents some newer claims, among them that HFCS is no worse than ordinary refined sugar and that all forms of sugar might be toxic — not just fattening, but poisonous for our bodies.
These are some intense claims. Refined cane or beet sugars, otherwise known as sucrose, are chemically composed of two molecules, fructose and glucose, in equal parts. HFCS, though much sweeter than regular refined sugar, is still only 55 percent fructose, with the remaining 45 percent nearly all glucose.
Both break down into fructose and glucose in our systems and affect us the same when eaten. In that sense, it really doesn’t matter what type of sugar you eat — it’s pretty much the same thing.
This concept has been thoroughly researched by scientists like Luc Tappy of the University of Lausanne, widely considered one of the top biochemists in the field of fructose study. For now, HFCS and regular sugar are essentially the same.
Don’t sigh in relief yet, though, because that’s exactly the problem: HFCS and refined sugar are essentially the same, and the fructose in both might be the factor that, when metabolized, creates health risks beyond just “empty” calories.
The major argument against sugar has been about its empty calories, calories that simply make you fatter, without really providing nutrients. It makes sense, of course.
Sugar has been around forever, and it seems our skyrocketing consumption of sugar in the last 20 or 30 years has been the main connection between sugars and serious health problems like diabetes.
But new research suggests consuming sugar is exposing us to more fructose, which encourages fat development in our livers, which can lead to fatty liver disease, hepatitis, metabolic syndrome and insulin resistance.
And the latter can lead to increased levels of insulin floating around in our system, which new reports suggest could encourage cancer cell growth.
Getting fatter because of sugar consumption is a given. Letting yourself binge on Cokes and Twinkies usually has visible and relatively rapid effects: A little pudginess here and there, maybe physical lethargy, maybe less muscle definition. It’s something we can track.
But fat deposits in our livers? Not so much.
And the scary part is although a fatty liver can happen in fatter people, it happens in slimmer bodies, as well.
And sugar consumption might be part of the problem.
“Sugar scares me,” Lewis Cantley, director of the Cancer Center at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center told The New York Times Magazine.
Should it scare us too? Time will tell. But until then, sugar consumption — high-fructose, cane or otherwise — might deserve a second thought.
Eddie Kim is a sophomore majoring in print journalism. His column, “Food As Life,” runs Thursdays.
Sugar in any form, is dangerous in large quantities. Clearly, it wouldn’t be in anyone’s best interest to be eating cakes and pies and cookies for their daily meal, even if they were to burn it off rather quickly. It’s still taxing to both the liver and the pancreas’ insulin producing cells. And constantly producing insulin is not a good thing.
On that note, the demonizing of HFCS is misdirected. Table sugar, honey, agave, maple syrup have nearly as much fructose as HFCS. HFCS did contribute to the obesity epidemic and diabetes, but only in an indirect way. It made processed food cheaper which eventually contributed to a dramatic increase in total food consumption since the 70s. But blaming “chemicals” per se, really is a scapegoat. We have to be looking at modern lifestyles and activity to get to the root of obesity, rather than blaming the man-made sugars.
We know that our problems are directly related to physical activity and consumption. It’s the pink elephant in the room as we try to find a quick easy answer rather than doing the hard work to stay healthy.
The headline doesnt match the content of the article. I know of no evidence, and certainly there is none presented here, that sugars like glucose, lactose, or maltose are dangerous or toxic. In fact, it would be pretty senseless to say glucose is toxic, since we literally cannot survive without glucose in our system.
Poor journalism.