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

111–120 of 362 posts

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#111

Post by mistermann »

latch wrote: post #55
snird wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't have a strong opinion on this, but if you really believe that as an absolute, how do you balance the harm to society? For tobacco, harm being costs for increased health care, health impacts on non-smokers, and frankly the simple impact it has on the happiness of those subjected to your freedom.

> costs for increased health care

Smokers are net over-contributors in most countries, cigarette taxes vastly exceed health care costs, in no small part to shorter lifespans of smokers and often quick deaths.

> health impacts on non-smokers

Maybe if you work in a smoking bar/restaurant (which is your choice) or live with someone who smokes inside.

> the simple impact it has on the happiness of those subjected to your freedom

I'll worry about that when society starts extending the same courtesy.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#112

Post by tunap »

blubb-fish wrote: post #82

30 years ago people had to be proactive and smart enough to gain information. Now people have to be proactive and smart enough to distinguish between sound and unfounded (aka bullshit) information. From that point of view not that much changed really.

No real difference between a "Dark Age" where info is cloistered for the few and a blindingly "Light Age" where the signal is buried in noise of conflicting interests.

The beauty of this puzzle for most people can be solved with a modicum of info, simple maths and listening to their body. Treating indigestion, constipation and other irritants with magic pills only masks the symptoms of bigger problems, most of which can be cured by diet & physical activity. Of course, as always, YMMV.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#113

Post by facepalm »

latch wrote: post #55
snird wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't have a strong opinion on this, but if you really believe that as an absolute, how do you balance the harm to society? For tobacco, harm being costs for increased health care, health impacts on non-smokers, and frankly the simple impact it has on the happiness of those subjected to your freedom.

So let's get rid of cars and make risky sports illegal.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#114

Post by scott_s »

neotek wrote: post #99
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…

Even the fruits and vegetables from centuries ago were "man-made". The wild versions are mostly inedible. What we eat is the result of millennia of breeding and cultivation. There is no bright and shining line between "natural" and "man made" for most of our food. Ever since we started practicing and depending on agriculture, all of our food is, to some degree, "man made".

By the way, I am unaware of any evidence that fruit should be eaten in moderation.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#115

Post by jzwinck »

wtbob wrote: post #106
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…

> My only (dietary) vices are coffee and the odd glass of wine (both very much man made). I don't think I'd consider either of those man-made in the sense of being heavily processed: coffee is simply roasted coffee beans with hot water poured over, and wine is pressed grape juice allowed to ferment.

If wine is just grapes, it must be vegan-compatible, right? But it isn't!

Not only is wine sometimes made with products like nuts and milk, it can even be made using fish guts!

https://www.organicwine.com.au/what-makes-a-wine-vegan

A French wine maker told me this. I had no idea...these "extras" are not on the label.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#116

Post by scott_s »

tomaskazemekas wrote: post #67

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/

That sounds like a typical fad diet. What differentiates it, and what evidence do they have for their claims?

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#117

Post by wutbrodo »

torgoguys wrote: post #110
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…

>If man made it, don't eat it That's way too simple. It's a kind of naturalistic fallacy as applied to food. If you think your produce area is where you should be getting your calories (not disagreeing), it fails the "if man made it, don't eat it" test spectacularly. Basically everything you see there has been shaped by man. A (stunning) example: one species of plant, brassica oleracea, has been selectively (i.e., ar…

It's simple because it's a heuristic. I'm pretty comfortable with my nutrition, but when friends ask me to summarize it it's very difficult for me because I've spent an unholy amount of time researching it. Things like Pollan's famous quote or "avoid man-made things" are targeted at the 99% of people who aren't as obsessive about it as I was at one pt, but still very much want to eat healthy. It has its false positives and negatives obviously, but it has a pretty great trade off between correctness and complexity.

If you consider it as a heuristic instead of taking it literally, your objection about artificial selection of produce is also more or less irrelevant. Man had a hand in shaping those plants' current genome, but if we disappeared tomorrow nature would keep making (most of) them. It's still easy to distinguish from, say, donuts and still useful as a heuristic.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#118

Post by neotek »

latch wrote: post #55
snird wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't have a strong opinion on this, but if you really believe that as an absolute, how do you balance the harm to society? For tobacco, harm being costs for increased health care, health impacts on non-smokers, and frankly the simple impact it has on the happiness of those subjected to your freedom.

Where does that argument end, though?

Can we ban motorcycles because they regularly disturb my otherwise quiet street and frequently kill their riders, many of whom ride their bikes at irresponsible speeds that put other road users in danger?

Or how about alcohol, which kills many more people each year than all illegal drugs combined, which causes many people to drive drunk which puts innocent people in danger, or which causes some people to get violent and start fights in the street? I doubt there's a single pub in Australia that doesn't host at least one drunk fight a week, and dozens of young people have been killed in punch-ups with other young people who had one too many and think they're invincible.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#119

Post by 55555 »

torgoguys wrote: post #110
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…

>If man made it, don't eat it That's way too simple. It's a kind of naturalistic fallacy as applied to food. If you think your produce area is where you should be getting your calories (not disagreeing), it fails the "if man made it, don't eat it" test spectacularly. Basically everything you see there has been shaped by man. A (stunning) example: one species of plant, brassica oleracea, has been selectively (i.e., ar…

Leonroy may believe, as i do, that consuming fructose is less/not bad when its in a natural dose and taken with its natural cofactors. Fruit normally contains fiber too.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#120

Post by 55555 »

scott_s wrote: post #114
neotek wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Even the fruits and vegetables from centuries ago were "man-made". The wild versions are mostly inedible. What we eat is the result of millennia of breeding and cultivation. There is no bright and shining line between "natural" and "man made" for most of our food. Ever since we started practicing and depending on agriculture, all of our food is, to some degree, "man made". By the way, I am unaware of any evidence tha…

I tend to agree even though it goes against a common paleo claim. Just go to a deserted tropical island and you'll find mangos and coconuts seemingly every bit as sweet as those which have been bred for their sweetness.
Post reply on HN