Access to Energy

SUCROSE

It has been estimated that the average American eats about 100 pounds of sucrose per year. A reading of grocery store labels, especially if one attempts to buy groceries without added sugar, demonstrates how ubiquitous this substance has become in our food supply.

This was not always so. Prior to recent advances in technology, sucrose was a relatively expensive condiment which could be afforded in only small amounts by ordinary people. It is naturally present in most foods. Unless sucrose is added separately, however, the amounts in food are much lower than those routinely consumed today.

Food is, of course, entirely made up of chemicals. There is not any difference between sucrose contained in sacks of a chemical labeled "sugar'' and sucrose contained in a "healthful'' glass of orange juice. (Orange juice has so much sugar that, during one period of inflated world sugar prices, consideration was given to converting the Florida orange crop into sucrose and selling it for a higher price.) When, however, a chemical substance is extracted from ordinary food and purified before use, several changes can take place - none of which change the fact that the chemical in the food is entirely identical to the same chemical after extraction and purification.

First, substances not normally present in food can be inadvertently added to the chemical during extraction and purification. Second, substances that are normally present with the chemical in the food and are needed for its healthful use can be removed. Third, the amount of the chemical eaten can be altered radically because it is no longer portioned by combination with other substances. This third effect has been large in the case of industrial purification of sucrose. Also, the specific form of a substance has an effect upon its rate of absorption. Carbohydrate supplied as starch releases sugars slowly into the blood stream, while carbohydrate from sugar is released more quickly. This rate of release can have physiological effects.

As shown in Figure 1, sucrose is a dimer of glucose and fructose. Soon after it is eaten, this dimer is hydrolyzed to produce separate glucose and fructose molecules. Fructose, sometimes referred to as "fruit sugar,'' is also contained in many foods. Glucose is even more common. It is a major metabolic constituent, and it has many other uses. For example, cellulose, the primary structural component in many plants, is a polymer of glucose.

It is, as yet, not definitively known whether or not a change in diet in which the intake of sucrose is increased far beyond that to which the human body was previously exposed is harmless, harmful, or beneficial. This is a continuing subject of research. It is a complicated problem because foods are made up of tens of thousands of different chemicals in variable amounts. Also, humans are notoriously difficult research subjects, so controlled experiments are difficult.

Twenty five years ago, a remarkable biochemist, Milton Winitz, developed a completely defined chemical diet upon which humans can live indefinitely. He marketed this diet as "Vivonex 100.'' It may still be available. The Winitz diet was made entirely with purified chemicals - amino acids, vitamins, minerals, fats, and carbohydrates. The amounts of chemicals in the diet could not be optimized for each individual person, since the necessary information was unknown. The formula was an average that supported satisfactory health in most people.

One interesting property of this diet is that it requires no digestion and contains no waste. All of the constituents are physiologically absorbed and utilized as provided. Therefore, an individual eating this diet has no solid waste. The colon just rests with nothing to do. This makes the diet useful in treating some digestive disorders. Experiments showed that this rest was not harmful. After many months of disuse, the colon starts working again as soon as it is given something to do.

The original carbohydrate source in Vivonex 100 was solely glucose. In this form, Vivonex 100 was extensively tested on convict volunteers who were biochemically and physiologically monitored during a prolonged period ingesting only this diet.

One remarkable finding was that, after a few weeks on Vivonex 100, the convicts' average blood cholesterol had dropped to about 150 as compared with about 220 previously. The convicts complained, however, about the monotonous taste of the diet, so Winitz decided to provide a variation. He removed 25% of the glucose and replaced it with sucrose. After this, the average of the convicts' blood cholesterols immediately returned to pre-diet levels.

Winitz found that he could control blood cholesterol over a range of a factor of 1.5 - solely by exchanging glucose for sucrose (or, perhaps, glucose for fructose by way of sucrose). See M. Winitz, D. A. Seed-man, & J. Graff, Am. J. Clin. Nutrition 23, p 525-545 (1970). This work, however, does not mean that sucrose always causes high cholesterol. A complete diet has numerous chemicals - the absolute amounts and ratios of which may affect this result.

In another experiment, when we were studying cancer as a function of diet in mice (See "Suppression of Squamous Cell Carcinoma in Hairless Mice by Dietary Nutrient Variation'' by A. B. Robinson, A. Hunsberger, and F. C. Westall in Mechanisms of Ageing and Development 76, pp 210-214 (1994)), we found that replacement of 20% of the ordinary mouse diet by sucrose (approximately the percentage eaten on average by Americans) reduced the growth rate of cancer by about 20%. This reduction corresponded, however, to the reduction in cancer growth rate also observed when protein intake was reduced by 20% by other means. The sucrose simply replaced some of the protein. Protein is positively correlated to the rate of growth of cancer. A person with cancer should try not to feed the cancer an enriched diet.

Thousands of experiments have been performed on human health and sucrose. Some of these have been interpreted to mean that high sucrose intake raises the probability of heart disease, cancer, mental instability, tooth decay, and numerous other maladies. Other experimenters claim that high sucrose is harmless - that the observed ill effects are caused by accompanying fat intake or other factors. Almost all of the work on both sides of this issue is correlational in nature. Always remember, however, that correlation does not prove causality.

I do not feed sugar to the children because I do not want them to be a part of the currently ongoing grand experiment on high sucrose intake that almost the entire American population is performing on itself. My opinion is that this large arbitrary change in nutrition is more likely to be harmful than helpful and that the mounting evidence against sucrose will eventually include definitive experiments.

I have not, however, ever been able to completely control the addiction to sucrose that I developed as a child. Sugar is definitely addicting, as most adults with a "sweet tooth'' should realize. I occasionally smuggle sucrose-enriched items into my office, and friends also bring this contraband to me. One time, several years ago, I noticed that some of my cookies were disappearing. I questioned the children - thinking that one of them was developing a sweet tooth.

Finally, my oldest son explained the disappearance. He had been gradually removing my cookies and burning them in the stove. He was doing this, he said, because the children had observed that I was more irritable when eating sugar. I experimented with this and found that they were entirely correct. Since then, I have eaten much less sugar.

Even when people try to control their intake of a substance like sucrose, misinformation often proves self-defeating. The enviro industry has promoted a widespread misbelief that "natural'' is always good and "synthetic'' is always bad. They divide chemicals into "natural chemicals'' and "synthetic chemicals'' - a distinction that is entirely without rational meaning. Every material thing that we see around us including our own body is entirely constructed from chemicals of essentially natural origin. Some people eat lots of honey. They think that "natural'' honey is O.K., but "refined'' sugar is not. Honey is, however, just another source of sugars. Aside from the remote possibility that trace substances of special value are provided by honey, there is little difference. Eating honey to avoid sugar is nonsense. Eating artificial sweeteners like aspartame may also be harmful. Habitual use of any substance exposes the user to potential hazards. An ancient saying advises, "Everything in moderation, nothing in excess.'' This applies to sucrose.



 • Sweet and Dangerous
 • SUCROSE
 • UNITS OF MEASURE
 • A RADIATION RENAISSANCE
 • BURNING BOOKS
 • STARK RAVING MAD
 • GOOD READING
Vol. 23, No. 8

Newsletter: Access to Energy Newsletter Archive
Volume: Issues
Issue/No.: Vol. 23, No. 8

Date: April 01, 1996 02:52 PM
Title: Sweet and Dangerous

Copyright © 2004 - Access to Energy Newsletter Archive
All rights reserved.