Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Sugar Conspiracy

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 362 posts

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#91

Post by eli_gottlieb »

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…

>But the problem to me is when people think chocolate bar, cake, pizza or milk shake.. these are food items with 75% calories from fat.

Those are all junk food. Use sparingly. Try eating a piece of fruit instead.

I mean, FFS, I really like chocolate, but of course it's unhealthy. Salads and fish are healthy. Everyone knows that.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#92

Post by paulojreis »

2muchcoffeeman wrote: post #70
paulojreis wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yes, you're right. I think we're starting to see many reactions like "oh, it's just another diet fad" because exactly of what you describe, things being taken to extremes. Anyway, what I recommend - from what I gather by my little research here and here - is to limit, not abolish, added sugars.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#93

Post by niccaluim »

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.

There's absolutely nothing "free" about active addiction.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#94

Post by leonroy »

Jack Lalanne (American fitness guru) stated "If man made it, don't eat it". I recall reading that and scratching my head at the sheer number of food products that encompassed. I thought it a rather presumptuous statement.

Five years later and after many books and articles on nutrition I now fully agree with him. When I hit the grocery store I skip the middle aisles and head straight for the fish and meat counter or the fresh fruit and veg section.

My only (dietary) vices are coffee and the odd glass of wine (both very much man made).

I think that the human body has evolved to run on a certain fuel and of course we adapt but it takes time. Grains and milk are relatively recent to our diet (past 10000 years) so you will see some people who can and some who can't digest them. Sugar however and all the other myriad man made products on store shelves are even more recent and apart from as occasional treats should really be avoided.

As an aside one incredibly beneficial thing people can do for their health is exercise. The lymphatic system which helps rid the body of waste substances is 'pumped' by respiration and physical activity. If you want to eat that cupcake or enjoy that cold glass of beer be sure to exercise it off. It really is incredible how effective exercise can be at covering a multitude of dietary sins!

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#95

Post by kdamken »

notthegov wrote: post #81
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/

What is real food? I disagree strongly. Eating shouldn't make you tired. I could eat 2 1/3 pound greasy cheeseburgers with toppings but if I skip the buns, I feel like I ate nothing. There is something legitimate to intermittent fasting, ketogenic diets, avoiding refined carbs, avoiding bread etc. I have a serious disease that is thought to prevented by ketogenic diets. And I think there's an equal chance I got the d…

If you don't mind me asking, what disease did you get?

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#96

Post by DanBC »

minsight wrote: post #77
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…

> Lustig himself seems to have not figured out what the secret is to health and weightloss as he is obese to morbidly obese. I just googled images and videos of him, in case your statement had some validity. The Lustig I saw looked like an ordinary man. Not detectably obese and certainly not morbidly obese.

"obesity" is an objective label. It's difficult to look at a photo of people who are overweight (and he's clearly overweight in the photos I've seen) and call them obese or not obese. Especially for men who tend to have visceral fat.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#97

Post by anexprogrammer »

tkyjonathan wrote: post #13
Synaesthesia wrote: post #3

Very interesting how people can all subscribe to an orthodoxy for so long, ignoring evidence to the contrary. Max Planck: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

The problem is that the food industry has been pumping money into research while governments have withdrawn most of it. The whole "butter is good" article in the times was funded by the US dairy industry. Gov funded research still does not agree with it.

I will take butter every time over margarine and other spreads. Simply on the grounds of how they are made. One is a food, the others entirely chemical processes.

Nearly all the butter is bad is funded by the spread industry.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#98

Post by omurphyevans »

tkyjonathan wrote: post #53
thomaspurchas wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It may seem like an attack, but you can also consider it fair comment as he is an expert tell us that sugar causes weight gain, when he himself is obese for many years now. How can you both be an expert on weightloss and obese at the same time?

You're confusing knowledge and application of that knowledge in a personal situation.

A cosmologist may know all about the orbit of the planets but still say 'The sun rose this morning'.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#99

Post by neotek »

leonroy wrote: post #94

Jack Lalanne (American fitness guru) stated "If man made it, don't eat it". I recall reading that and scratching my head at the sheer number of food products that encompassed. I thought it a rather presumptuous statement. Five years later and after many books and articles on nutrition I now fully agree with him. When I hit the grocery store I skip the middle aisles and head straight for the fish and meat counter or t…

A fairly high percentage of the fruits and vegetables you're eating are man made, insofar as they've been genetically engineered through selective breeding to produce things more palatable to the average consumer. Fruit in particular should probably only be eaten in moderation like any other sugar-filled treat.

And exercise, while useful for building muscle mass and increasing your capacity for physical exertion, isn't particularly useful for covering up a poor diet - it would take more than two hours of jogging to burn off the calories in a small Big Mac meal from McDonalds, for example. If you want to lose weight, it's far, far more efficient to simply eat less.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#100

Post by rhinoceraptor »

avnfish wrote: post #87
buserror wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh I've been doing it for years! As soon as I notice the waistline expanding, or I feel like a bit of 'detox', I try to schedule myself on a week where the fridge isn't too full of nice and/or perishable things, and I have a good mean on sunday night. Then it's occasional fruit juice in the morning (bit of an energy boost) and coffee only until the friday. It's a lot easier than it sounds, the 'key' thing is preparat…

I'm not informed on this topic - but isn't this dangerous? I mean, if your numbers are correct, an average adult loses 6% of their bodyweight doing this over 5 days. How does this affect your productivity and sleep?

It's practically impossible that that is all body fat. 1kg is over 7000 calories.

The body is more than 50% water, so weight is highly variable based on water retention, and fasting causes the body to excrete a lot of water.

For one, no salt intake will cause you to lose water. Secondly, glycogen depletion also causes you to lose water. The metallic taste in the mouth is ketosis, proof of glycogen depletion.

Post reply on HN