The Sugar Conspiracy • Hacker News Board

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#151

Post by torgoguys » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 2:19 PM UTC

specialist wrote: post #131

torgoguys wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

Would "unprocessed food" stuffs mollify you? He's speaking, giving useful actionable advice, to a broad audience. But, please, continue to pedant. Sucrose = glucose + fructose. Glucose good, fructose bad. Fiber in fruit prevents uptake of fructose. Which is why orange is okay, orange juice bad. A pretty good example of Lalanne's messaging.

>Would "unprocessed food" stuffs mollify you?

No. See sibling responses. I'm not being pedantic, I'm trying to point out natural != good. Processing != bad either. Cooking is processing, and is a good thing, most of the time. I mentioned preservatives in a sibling reply, again generally a good thing. For example, the "no preservatives" crowd often have been very selective in the data they've looked at. That's all. Question assumptions about what's is and isn't bad for you. (And there is plenty of refinement and such that isn't good for you--don't get me wrong).

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#152

Post by masklinn » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 2:20 PM UTC

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.

> wine is pressed grape juice allowed to ferment.

That's more likely to get you awful vinegar than anything even remotely resembling wine.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#153

Post by RodericDay » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 2:20 PM UTC

jzwinck wrote: post #115

wtbob wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Alcohol producers have fought really really hard against nutrition labels on their products.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#154

Post by DanBC » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 2:21 PM UTC

wutbrodo wrote: post #117

torgoguys wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 positiv…

> It's simple because it's a heuristic.

Simplistic heuristics have failed hard before in nutrition, so why do we keep repeating the new ones?

The only one that makes any sense is "Eat food, not too much, and mostly fruit and veg".

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#155

Post by leonroy » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 2:21 PM UTC

55555 wrote: post #119

torgoguys wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Great documentary called Fed Up: http://fedupmovie.com/#/page/home

It basically posits that ALL sugar, from fructose, to organic brown sugar to high fructose corn syrup is broken down to the same basic molecule: glucose.

Even white rice, potatoes and bread break down similarly. It was sobering viewing and highly recommended. The 5:2 diet proponents also suggest the same thing from their research - that natural sugars are no better than unnatural sugars (at least according to the doc).

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#156

Post by specialist » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 2:24 PM UTC

torgoguys wrote: post #137

jawilson2 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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., artificially) bred to produce a wide range of different cultivars including, cauliflower, cabbage, kale, broccoli, kohlrabi, brussel sprouts, and more. NONE of these produce items are "natural." You're ov…

I'm not overthinking it. I gave that as an example of people not thinking about food. The heuristic, even applied as you would prefer, is a poor one. I don't buy into the philosophy at all. Quick example, my mother-in-law (who is into all kinds of weird "food woo" (she's a drink-raw-milk-only, avoid-adrenal-stressing-foods, etc. kind of person) once handed me a some sort of baked good--a bread perhaps--and mentioned,…

Then ignore (filter) the woo-woo au naturale fruit cakes. Every message gets distorted, perverted thru transmission. But sometimes there's some actual signal buried in all that noise.

Also, modern food production is not an unqualified great thing.

Too simplistically: We consumers are harmed when optimal food production techniques drive nutrition policy, vs human nutritional needs guiding food production.

Over use of HFCS, soya, whey, etc has caused a great deal of human disease. It's now an expensive public health issue.

What may cause you (intellectual) discomfort is when the woo-woos conflate health and environmental issues. Again, filters.

And please remember that everyone's just trying to move forward best as they can. My mother also imparts some terrible, well intentioned advice. But it's not like I'm going to fix her misunderstandings. I just try to guide best as I can and lead by example.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#157

Post by leonroy » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 2:25 PM UTC

slacka wrote: post #133

torgoguys wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

>If man made it, don't eat it I think a better heuristic, is "Just eat what your great-grandma ate". Or avoid the middle of the supermarket as much as possible. Simply eating more fat and less sugar/carbs, I have lost 10+ pounds and feel much better. These nutrition fads have done more harm than good. My mother switched from butter to Crisco when I was a kid, then she banned salt from the house, and bought (high suga…

> I think a better heuristic, is "Just eat what your great-grandma ate". Or avoid the middle of the supermarket as much as possible.

I like that!

I had some friends over for a small dinner party a few weeks back. One of them was helping me in the kitchen butter some sour dough bread. Mid-way through she stopped agog just staring. I looked to where her eyes were staring and realized she was shocked at how much butter I was smearing on each slice of bread.

I'm active and believe in eating a lot of natural fats, but I realized that even young adults subscribe to the demonization of saturated fat. (I might also be a little too inclined to eat butter and coconut oil - so moderation - as always is important if we're to not alienate everybody).

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#158

Post by exhilaration » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 2:26 PM UTC

st4ck3r wrote: post #144

It will take a solid 5 years minimum for the 'main stream dietitians' to start believing this and promoting it. My mom with all the information I have shared, still refuses to give up milk and thinks I may be reading too much into a 'FAD DIET' to say things like milk can be bad for health. Either she is too entrenched/doesn't care or I am not providing enough evidence or need to provide an alternative way of making h…

The article agrees with your mom:

We replaced steak and sausages with pasta and rice, butter with margarine and vegetable oils, eggs with muesli, and milk with low-fat milk or orange juice. But instead of becoming healthier, we grew fatter and sicker.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#159

Post by masklinn » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 2:28 PM UTC

jzwinck wrote: post #115

wtbob wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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

Wine is even made with people!

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#160

Post by GordonS » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 2:32 PM UTC

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

I don't believe this statement is true. Calories in pizzas are generally around 1:1 from carbs:fat[1]. Likewise with a typical (i.e. low cocoa solids) chocolate bar[2], milk[3], or cake[4].

Calories in a milkshake are likely to be from 2:1 carbs:fat, at best (milkshake generally equals milk, plus sugar, fruit and flavourings).

[1] http://corporate.dominos.co.uk/Media/Default/CSR/Nutritional... [2] http://www.tesco.com/groceries/product/details/?id=273968548 [3] http://www.tesco.com/groceries/product/details/?id=254656543 [4] http://www.tesco.com/groceries/product/details/?id=257617038