Treat sugar like tobacco and alcohol?

[William Wallace]

New editorial in Nature says yes. What say you folks?

[yorost]

Infants are born with a desire for sugar, not tobacco or alcohol.

[Implode]

It's too ubiquitous.

Ubiquitous. Ubiquitous. That's fun to say.

And that's besides the fact that I don't think the government should be regulating what we eat this much.

[Nekov]

Doing a control that is similar to tobacco or alcohol is a little extreme but I do believe there should be a limit on the amount of sugar that can be used in manufactured products. Obesity is a very real problem and needs to be tackled. They should probably be worrying about fat more than sugar but the truth is sugar causes diabetes so there is a very valid reason to try to control the consumption.

[William Wallace]

It's too ubiquitous.

Ubiquitous. Ubiquitous. That's fun to say.

[lordxizor]

As much as I think Americans are killing themselves with too much refined sugar and in many ways could stand to be saved from themselves, this is just one step too far.

[pogoowner]

No, that would be ridiculous. Even though sugar (and carbs in general) are probably more of a health issue than either tobacco or alcohol at this point.

[kirksnosehair]

New editorial in Nature says yes. What say you folks?

Absurd.  Not you, William Wallace.....just the idea of treating sugar like tobacco and alcohol.

[Ben_Jamin]

So, High Fructose Corn Syrup is the real culprit not Sugar.

But yeah, this is something the government should have no responsibility with whatsoever. It's the individuals responsibility to understand what they're eating isn't healthy, rather than depending on the gov't.

Good article and I agree with most of what it says.

[snapple]

So, High Fructose Corn Syrup is the real culprit not Sugar.

 

Uhh, you know that your body treats them as the same thing? High fructose corn syrup is just sugar?

[PraXis]

No. Enough of the nanny state!

[Scheavo]

So, High Fructose Corn Syrup is the real culprit not Sugar.

 

Uhh, you know that your body treats them as the same thing? High fructose corn syrup is just sugar?

Actually, it doesn't. Fructose get's stored more as belly fat, which has different results for the body (specifically diabetes), than compared to glucose. There was a study that looked at this.

As for the topic, it's ridiculous. Sitting around has been shown to be just as bad or worse than smoking, should we start banning and regulating how much people sit? Furthermore, how far does this go? At what point are you controlling and regulating fruit and vegetable production and consumption, seeing as how both of those are full of technical sugars?

Besides, there's studies that show moderate alcohol consumption is good for the body. I believe I remember a study that showed sugars are primarily responsible for helping power the brain, specifically the prefrontal cortex that control higher thought.

The problem is, the human body is, from the moment it's born, on a path to destruction and death. Studies basically show that doing this leads to that, then get all up in a fit because, oh my god!, we're going to die!

[Fiery Winds]

So, High Fructose Corn Syrup is the real culprit not Sugar.

 

Uhh, you know that your body treats them as the same thing? High fructose corn syrup is just sugar?

Actually, it doesn't. Fructose get's stored more as belly fat, which has different results for the body (specifically diabetes), than compared to glucose. There was a study that looked at this.

What study?  Everything I've read, including a friend of mine who is a chemist all say that "sugar is sugar". 

Sugar is about 50/50 fructose and glucose when digested.

High Fructose Corn Syrup changes that to at MOST 55/42 (other 3% is other), which is used mostly in soft drinks.

HFCS42 is 42/53 and is the more widely used version for food and beverages.

The problem isn't the composition of sugar or its variants but the amount of consumption because EVERYTHING contains sugar now, including a slice of whole wheat bread.

[Scheavo]

https://www.webmd.com/heart/metabolic-syndrome/news/20090421/fresh-take-on-fructose-vs-glucose

The study showed clear differences in how fructose and glucose are metabolized by the body, nutrition researcher and principal investigator Peter J. Havel, PhD, of the University of California at Davis tells WebMD.

And to be clear, I agree with this:

The problem isn't the composition of sugar or its variants but the amount of consumption because EVERYTHING contains sugar now, including a slice of whole wheat bread.

But it's still just wrong to say that sugar is sugar, so it's metabolized by the body the same.

[Dr. DTVT]

While both sugars metabolize to about the same amount of energy, there is one major difference in how your body perceives them.  When your body metabolizes sucrose, your body releases a hormone that signals to you that you're full.  When your body metabolizes fructose, this doesn't occur.  This is why kids nowadays can drink an entire 2 liter bottle of soda, because your body is taking in the sugar but not getting the signal that you're full.  Try drinking a 2 liter bottle of sugar sweetened soda.  Ain't going to happen.

The corn growers lobby is airing those "sugar is sugar" commercials because they don't want people to know the truth.  They're just spinning part of the information to suit their needs - aka their bank accounts.  HFCS is cheaper to produce than sugar, which is why HFCS containing products are cheaper than sugar ones.  I'm not saying that soda is good for you, but a can of Jones is better because you'll at least feel someone satiated after drinking it compared to HFCS sodas.

[Fiery Winds]

Ok, that clarifies the issue a bit more.  That still doesn't say that HFCS is worse than sugar if consumed in equal quantities. 

[hefdaddy42]

Ok, that clarifies the issue a bit more.  That still doesn't say that HFCS is worse than sugar if consumed in equal quantities.

Yes, but that point almost seems irrelevant since they wouldn't be consumed in equal quantities.

[Jamesman42]

While I agree that sugar (and especially its more evil stepbrother HFCS) is evil, this is taking it too far.

[Jamesman42]

Doing a control that is similar to tobacco or alcohol is a little extreme but I do believe there should be a limit on the amount of sugar that can be used in manufactured products. Obesity is a very real problem and needs to be tackled. They should probably be worrying about fat more than sugar but the truth is sugar causes diabetes so there is a very valid reason to try to control the consumption.

What's to stop someone from buying double the product and consuming it?

And fat consumption would not be a problem if sugar consumption was nixed. Our bodies could run fine (even better) on a high fat, low sugar/carb diet.

[Nekov]

Doing a control that is similar to tobacco or alcohol is a little extreme but I do believe there should be a limit on the amount of sugar that can be used in manufactured products. Obesity is a very real problem and needs to be tackled. They should probably be worrying about fat more than sugar but the truth is sugar causes diabetes so there is a very valid reason to try to control the consumption.

What's to stop someone from buying double the product and consuming it?

And fat consumption would not be a problem if sugar consumption was nixed. Our bodies could run fine (even better) on a high fat, low sugar/carb diet.

I'm not saying that would stop people from buying lots of products, but there is a limit to how much someone can eat. If you reduce the sugar amount in products it will help to a certain degree.

[7StringedBeast]

Regulate sugar?  For fucks sake.  People's health should be their own responsibility when it comes to simple things like buying soda, or drinking water from their tap.  If people who ate unhealthy just stopped drinking soda all the time, they'd probably be not doing too bad granted they eat some foods that give them the basic nutrients they need.  Soda is a huge culprit of ingesting too many sugars and calories.

Anyways, some exercise can go a long way for people.  If you can't bother yourself to take of your body then that's a shame.  It shouldn't be up to the government to come in and say sugars need to be regulated because some people in the population can't handle it.  Interfere with the market and products people enjoy because some people can't handle it.

[Ben_Jamin]

7string, that makes sense. If you want freedom the responsibility is all you.

[Omega]

While I oppose someone telling me how much sugar to eat, I see why such a provision is being thought up for: imagine the huge burden obesity, diabetes and fat/sugar related health problems places on the system. And now imagine 20 - 50 years from now if the trend of obesity/diabetes, etc continues... Yikes

[jasc15]

While both sugars metabolize to about the same amount of energy, there is one major difference in how your body perceives them.  When your body metabolizes sucrose, your body releases a hormone that signals to you that you're full.  When your body metabolizes fructose, this doesn't occur.

Can you cite something that says this??  Also, you are comparing fructose and glucose (which are the components of sucrose and HFCS), and there is no debate on the differences.  the question is if there is any difference between HFCS and sucrose, both of which contain fructose and glucose in roughtly equal proportions (HFCS is ~55/45 fructose/glucose, and sucrose is ~50/50).  The WebMD article posted here says that "Any added sugar used as an alternative to high-fructose corn syrup would have a similar chemical composition... While it is possible that there are differences in how these sugars affect metabolic pathways, I know of no studies that show this."

Based on what I've read on the subject, HFCS is no more a health risk than sucrose, rather it is the increased presence in foods due to its lower cost, and as a result is a higher component of many diets.