The Sugar Conspiracy • Hacker News Board

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#61

Post by chinathrow » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 11:36 AM UTC

snird wrote: post #46

chinathrow wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do hope so. But the tobacco companies are still around and are still selling their shit.

And they should be able to do so. We are free people (I hope). If one decide to buy tobacco, it's his own responsibility, and he should have the freedom to do so.

It is - in a perfect world where everyone is capable of looking after himself.

Why do you think we have regulations in healthcare etc? Because lots of folks can't decide if something is healthy or not.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#62

Post by fasteo » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 11:36 AM UTC

It is sad to see how we are going from fat phobia to carb phobia, repeating the same mistakes 50 years later.

I have genetic metabolic disease and I have thought about this many times. My conclusion is simple enough: Eat real food, ignore the macros, listen to your body and adapt your food intake accordingly. Paul Jaminet's diet [1] is the closest I have found to fit this idea.

[1] http://perfecthealthdiet.com/

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#63

Post by vixen99 » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 11:38 AM UTC

dantiberian wrote: post #31

I think it's pretty likely that in 10-20 years, the sugar companies of today will be seen in the same light as the tobacco companies of yesterday.

There is no comparability at all. Smoking generates and tobacco contains - known toxic agents. Sucrose (ordinary sugar but also corn syrup) is entirely non-toxic, it being a di-saccharide containing glucose (essential for life though where you get it from is another question) and fructose, found in almost all fruits & adequately metabolized by the liver if provided in small amounts. Too much is disastrous - that's agreed. But so is too much of any food.

No one is forced to buy over-sweetened foods clearly marked with the contents so why blame manufacturers for providing what people want? The food they sell is not toxic but certainly the proportions consumed can be and frequently are. Down to us not the manufacturer.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#64

Post by MicroBerto » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 11:40 AM UTC

fasteo wrote: post #62

It is sad to see how we are going from fat phobia to carb phobia, repeating the same mistakes 50 years later. I have genetic metabolic disease and I have thought about this many times. My conclusion is simple enough: Eat real food, ignore the macros, listen to your body and adapt your food intake accordingly. Paul Jaminet's diet [1] is the closest I have found to fit this idea. [1] http://perfecthealthdiet.com/

Macro tracking is the best way to fine tune your body composition and measure what actually works for you.

Collecting data is never a bad thing and is always worth doing.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#65

Post by tremon » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 11:42 AM UTC

coredog64 wrote: post #39

LCDninja wrote: post #34

A friend watched "That Sugar Film" and it had a profound effect - I'm told that it's very difficult to avoid sugar these days in processed food (especially in fat-free products). I was blown away to learn that even low fat milk from the supermarket contains sugar.

The lactose that's a component of milk, or added sucrose/HFCS? As I understand it, food manufacturers are going away from sugar a little. Sucralose provides a similar sweetness at no additional calories and with a longer shelf life.

Which is still the wrong way to go, I feel. We're now replacing the (newly introduced) refined sugars with even newer artificial sweeteners. I really don't look forward to hearing about them in another 40 years.

Stop sweetening. Period. There's a lot more to flavour than just sweet, and the sooner we can revive our taste for other flavours, the better our children will be.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#66

Post by tremon » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 11:44 AM UTC

thomaspurchas wrote: post #15

tkyjonathan wrote: post #10

I still dont agree that sugar is the problem. Lustig himself seems to have not figured out what the secret is to health and weightloss as he is obese to morbidly obese. Saturated fats still do cause heart disease, strokes, alzheimers.. anything where blood is blocked or doesnt reach the organ it needs to. If anything, processed sugars like HFCS which is extracted from corn by a chemical enzyme process, could be the c…

The irony of you starting your rebuttal with an ad hominem attack is pretty amusing. Expecially in reponse to an article that talks at length about others in nutritional science using ad hominem attacks as a primary form of defence against dissident arguments.

against dissident arguments

Against alternative explanations, I prefer. Dissident carries a negative connotation that is unwarranted here.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#67

Post by tomaskazemekas » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 11:45 AM UTC

One diet that reflects these findings and is tested personally is "5:2 fast diet, proposed by M. Mosley. This method really is effective in reducing the ill effects of modern food and lifestyle and is easy to turn into normal weekly behavior pattern. https://thefastdiet.co.uk/

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#68

Post by pigpaws » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 11:45 AM UTC

tkyjonathan wrote: post #52

sjwright wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Saturated fats still do cause heart disease, strokes, alzheimers.. All the studies claiming to make these links have been comprehensively debunked. And it's worth remembering that the vast, vast bulk of fats and cholesterol in your body are not dietary, they were produced inside your body from other macro-nutrients. And they are essential. Without them you would die. On a very basic level, blood flow gets blocked b…

Inflammation and plaque on your artery walls are two different things. Also, sources of saturated fats such as meat and dairy cause inflammation.

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2010/01/13/ajcn.2009...

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#69

Post by tim333 » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 11:51 AM UTC

>We no longer live in a world in which elites of accredited experts are able to dominate conversations about complex or contested matters.

Yay, go internet. The public opinions of the elites on complex contested matters often seem to degenerate into something like party politics.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#70

Post by 2muchcoffeeman » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 11:55 AM UTC

paulojreis wrote: post #28

Synaesthesia wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes that's true but there are still facts that can be established for nutrition or biology etc and I think his statement can still ring true for any type of science. They can all be victims to politics and other human failings. Although possibly more so for the less "hard" sciences as it's harder to prove an assertion. It's just amazing how the point that sugar causes obesity and other harms has been ridiculed for de…

Yeah, that's true. My nutritionist-wannabe facet is also mesmerized by this, and I can't avoid preaching this to everyone - try to limit added sugar as much as you can. Use artificial sweeteners if you really need; they may be problematic, yes, but sugar surely is!

> Use artificial sweeteners if you really need; they may be problematic, yes, but sugar surely is!

People have really weird relationships with food, often taking concepts to the extreme. Too much sugar is bad, so limit added sugar intake as much as possible and prefer artificial sweeteners to sugar.

Rather than sensibly moderating consumption we've gone from eating far too much of one thing, to trying to eat none of it, and indeed trying to replace it with something completely artificial. Not to sound like one of those "anything that's natural is better for you" people.

It's just a lateral move.