How bad is sugar for babies

No sugar for babies in the first year of life?

Dear Maria,

I don't want to offend you, but the book you cited contains a lot of false claims and Bruker's theses have now been scientifically refuted.
For example, it is not clear to me when exactly in the sugar breakdown process (whereby sugar is actually not actually broken down, but rather absorbed and biochemically used) these 5 vitamins are "used up". Strictly speaking, factory sugar consists of glucose and fructose, both of which are used by the body to generate energy through an- and aerobic glycolysis. Some enzymes in these processes have some of the vitamins you mentioned as a prosthetic group.
The fact is that enzymes are catalysts and are not used up (and the prosthetic group is at most changed and then regenerated), so it is relatively irrelevant for the vitamins in the enzymes how often they are needed.
And since no vitamins are directly consumed by the sugar metabolism, it is also not "necessary" to take them in together with sugar. (Of course, for other reasons, it is always a good thing to take vitamins)
In addition, every carbohydrate is ultimately used through glycolysis, so should one avoid all carbohydrates (even a lot of "natural" carbohydrates do not contain these B vitamins)?
I would also like to say that almost every nutrient needs certain enzymes in order to be used. Biotin, for example, is NOT important for the breakdown of sugar, but among other things for the body's own sugar build-up and the digestion of certain amino acids and thus the protein metabolism. Pantothenic acid, for example, is essential for fatty acid metabolism. Nicotinic acid is an incredibly central and important vitamin that is absolutely necessary for cellular energy production in the citric acid cycle and respiratory chain, practically the final part of every nutrient used.
So you need these vitamins no matter what you eat. Of course it is nice if the food you eat contains these vitamins, but sugar in particular does not "consume" these vitamins and is therefore not a "predator", you don't need these vitamins to break down more or less than to break down others Substances and since hardly anyone is "pure" sugar, the probability is relatively high to take in vitamins through other food components. Not all natural foods contain all of the essential vitamins. Take, for example, rice, a very healthy food. Rice contains the amino acid leucine, but not the vitamin biotin, which is needed to break down leucine.

I consider the theses against factory sugar very daring. Yes, sugar is not healthy. Yes, it pure, without any other nutritional components, only gives the body energy, but nothing else. BUT it doesn't really take anything away from the body either. It doesn't deplete you of vitamins (as I said, the vitamins are not "used up", but are still there afterwards). Of course, it's nice to eat food that is not only sweet, but also provides valuable nutritional components. But it CAN also be a rice biscuit WITH factory sugar (rice for the vitamins, sugar for the taste).
We all agree that fruit is healthier and that sugar is not exactly a valuable component of food. But the dose makes the poison ... And personally, I think it always depends on the ingredients. Ultimately, the cell does not care where exactly the glucose comes from, but what is important is what else you take with you (and I would like to avoid chemical dyes and preservatives as much as possible).

For me, the arguments of the sugar opponents often seem very sensational and somewhat dogmatic. Bruker's book is undoubtedly well written and engaging, but the content is simply unproven or misleading propaganda.
I hope you don't hold it against me for saying this so clearly!

P.S. Honey does not contain, for example, thiamine (formerly aneurine) or biotin ...