Talk:Sugar

Willful and Deliberate Deception in reported Data

The footnote states "The carbohydrate figure is calculated in the USDA database and does not always correspond to the sum of the sugars, the starch, and the dietary fiber."

The problem with this is that the data still doesnt add up and is stilltherefore clearly erroneous, completely desyroying all reasonable credibillity of all the data in the table.

I would submit that if it doesnt add up the whole table should be outright removed from wikipedia in any event becauswle it clearly, by admission of the footnote, isn't factual data in any event regardless of the claimed source, unless there is a reasonable explanation as to exactly why the data is miscalculated in the table as to show that the miscalculation was not reasonably avoidable and was not intended by any party to be a willful and deliberate deception. Otherwise, I would be in favor of removing the entire table as clearly false data as to maintain a factual article and ensure strict WP:NPOV adherance. 2600:8804:6F0F:6D00:10C4:EC80:B6EF:5F7E (talk) 18:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Allergy

Is there a way to add potential allergies from sugar? I have hives whenever I go above 75 grams of sugar content per day FyoCascade (talk) 05:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

The section about health effects of sugar is missing a lot of details; it doesn't even mention the effects of sugar on the immune system. Jarble (talk) 22:48, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

This is most probably not a reaction to sugar but a reaction to something else that is with the sugar, given that even table sugar has other things in it such that chemically isolated pure sugar is hard to come by outside the lab, and is what would be needed to establish that the reaction is to sugar and nothing else.2600:8804:6F0F:6D00:10C4:EC80:B6EF:5F7E (talk) 18:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Sugar and CVD

Has the connection of sugar and CVD been discussed here before? I just came across this based on this study.

Here is a not too old editorial discussing the issue. The AHA cautions to reduce sugar intake, while more up-to-date studies found much higher thresholds for sugar intake (~ sugar being less harmful).

I did not do rigorous research on this but only browsed through some pages.

I think the possibility of a connection is in many people‘s minds and it would therefore be a welcome addition if the article could sum up the current evidence (or lack thereof). CarlFromVienna (talk) 15:44, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

The study you cite there really doesnt mean anything other than maybe a positive correlation, which is not enough to demonstrate a cause and effect relationship within proper application of the scientific method. In general studies using a cohort design must be viewed as particularly suspect, meaning that this needs way more research before it is due to even be considered to appear on Wikipedia, if wikipedia is to have any reasonable credibillity whatsoever.. 2600:8804:6F0F:6D00:10C4:EC80:B6EF:5F7E (talk) 18:55, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Health effects --- needs a chapter on "fizzy pop" aka "soda water" effects

Sorry for being a "Randy in the bush", but I remeber a rumor how fizzy pop causes blood sugar to spike up and then drop even lower than it was before the fizzy pop intake.

Source: Bas Kast, "Nutirtional Compass" or something like that. Профе((ор кислых щей (talk) 13:11, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

That is a myth that has zero biological basis. While most soda has fructose in it (main ingredient is most usually high fructose corn syrup), which will cause a rapid rise in blood glucose, it does not result in lower levels than preadminstation levels after otherwise controling for other aspects of the diet. If it did, we wouldnt be able to use soda to treat diabetic hypoglycemia due to excess insulin. 2600:8804:6F0F:6D00:10C4:EC80:B6EF:5F7E (talk) 18:48, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

"Important part of the diet"

I could not verify that sugar is "an important part of the diet" using the FAO tool. Here is my selection:

• Regions = World
• Elements = Food supply (kcal/capital/day)
• Items = Sugar (Raw Equivalent)
• Years = 2020

Result: 197.63 kcal/pc/d

That's about 10% of daily calories based on a 2000 kcal diet. I think, this doesn't justify to state that sugar is an important part of the diet in many regions of the world.

However, sugar consumption as part of the western diet is way above recommended levels. This could be stated in the article, but is something completely different from what the article said before. CarlFromVienna (talk) 09:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Split proposal: sugar (product) vs. sugar (biochemistry)?

I know there's been some previous merging and splitting related to specific products like white sugar, but has anyone considered splitting off much of the chemistry into its own topic?

My thinking is that while there's a carbohydrate article, sugars are technically only a subset of carbohydrates. I know the article specifically says oligosaccharides aren't usually considered sugars, but I would think the actual biochemistry of sugars might be more adjacent to that than the other parts of this article, which are oriented more towards human use. Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:36, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

See Alcohol for one possible treatment. Certes (talk) 17:43, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

That's actually a perfect example of what I had in mind. I've noticed articles for other products / commodities don't always have the cleanest separation from their source, but this one stood out. Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:17, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

It would need to be Sugar and Sugar (biochemistry). I'm not convinced there's enough on the second to justify a split, but I might be wrong. The article is long, but not so long the need for a split is urgent. Johnbod (talk) 19:25, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

There's also precedent for that approach: Salt and Salt (chemistry). It's a question of whether the product is a primary topic. Certes (talk) 19:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with leaving the product the primary topic. I'm used to disambiguating most things by default, but that's just a habit, not a preference. I also agree article length isn't really an issue.

My rationale is more compositional, that even though all food sugars are obviously chemical sugars, they're different enough in aspect and audience to justify separate articles. Besides flowing better, distinct articles might be easier to categorize, infobox, and wikify, plus more focus might attract more future edits. Zar2gar1 (talk) 20:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:TITLEDAB has useful guidance on article titles. The base name ("Sugar" rather than "Sugar (whatever)") belongs to its primary topic if any, or to the disambiguation page if there is no primary topic. Certes (talk) 20:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

"No previous war in history"

The quote "No previous war in history has been fought so largely on sugar and so little on alcohol" that has been somewhat nonsensically anonymized here and referred to Chris Otter, actually origins from Edwin Emery Slosson's Creative Chemistry: Descriptive of Recent Achievements in the Chemical Industries (New York: Century, 1920), p. 175. (Otter renames Slosson into "Edward" and repeats it in the index, although the book reference is correct; he also calls Slosson a "journalist", ignoring the fact that Slosson was Wyoming state chemist who had a PhD in organic chemistry, and his "journalism" was postly just popular science. It might be best to name the author of the quote and replace the reference with the original source. --Ehitaja (talk) 18:53, 26 December 2023 (UTC)