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

181–190 of 362 posts

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#181

Post by colordrops »

leonroy wrote: post #148
torgoguys wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

I think some folk here are misinterpreting my original post (perhaps I wasn't clear enough). Neither I, nor I imagine Jack Lalanne were advocating we return to hunter gatherer foraging. Whilst Jack Lalanne's quote 'if man made it don't eat it' is simplistic it's basically saying go for the steak or the bag of salad leaves rather than the corn dog and powdered mash potato. This isn't about 'weird' foods like raw milk,…

I'm of the exact same dietary philosophy as yourself. I derived it through reading and experimentation before paleo was even a thing, as it appears Jack Lalanne did as well. Most people who attack a simple sensible diet like this are really just exposing their own insecurities and desire to not give up the crap they injest themselves.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#182

Post by leshow »

debacle wrote: post #162
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…

I see the "if you think fructose" is bad trope a lot, and I think it's dangerous. In a natural environment, the only real sources of fructose are either fiber-heavy (most fruits) or somewhat rare (honey, berries). Fructose is bad. It's certainly something that should be eaten in moderation. Your food is not being engineered to be better for you. It's being engineered to be cheaper and easier to produce and sell. Ther…

Fructose is not bad, no food is inherently bad. It's all a matter of degrees.

If you consume 10 cans of coke a day, and you're over your maintenance caloric intake by 1000 calories daily. guess what? you'll get fat and probably not be healthy. if you overconsume sweet potatoes by 1000 calories over your maintenance intake daily. guess what? you'll get fat and probably not be healthy.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#183

Post by leshow »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #91
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.

nothing is inherently unhealthy or bad for you.

let's have an example, lets say you eat a balanced diet, plenty of fibre, micronutrients, protein, fats, and you have 300 calories left for the day before you go over your maintenance intake. you decide to eat a mars bar. unhealthy? not at all.

another example, you don't eat enough fibre, because all you eat is pizza pockets. you drink coke instead of water, you go over your maintenance intake by 500 calories and decide to have a mars bar. unhealthy? yes. but it wasn't the specific food that was unhealthy.

unfortunately things aren't as simplistic as you want them to be, you have to look at things in the context of the diet.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#184

Post by CuriouslyC »

jawilson2 wrote: post #121
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 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…

There are highly processed food ingredients like whey protein and resistant corn starch, oat fiber, etc which have compelling health-promoting effects.

The problem is that people are ignorant with regards to the purpose and effects of various food additives/ingredients, so they just take the simplified stance "more ingredients = bad" rather than do a little research. As a heuristic it might be fairly functional (you can still eat unhealthily without processed foods though), but it means you're going to spend a lot of time preparing food and you're missing out on the opportunity for engineered superfoods.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#185

Post by wl »

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.

If you're vegan for moral reasons, isinglass is a problem. If not, the isinglass falls out and isn't actually present in the finished wine in a significant quantity.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#186

Post by CuriouslyC »

debacle wrote: post #162
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…

I see the "if you think fructose" is bad trope a lot, and I think it's dangerous. In a natural environment, the only real sources of fructose are either fiber-heavy (most fruits) or somewhat rare (honey, berries). Fructose is bad. It's certainly something that should be eaten in moderation. Your food is not being engineered to be better for you. It's being engineered to be cheaper and easier to produce and sell. Ther…

Fructose is NOT inherently bad. When liver glycogen stores are depleted, fructose has no negative health effects. The problem is when you are eating in a calorie surplus, and the only way for the liver to deal with that fructose is via de-novo lipogenesis.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#187

Post by gdubs »

geoka9 wrote: post #107
glaberficken wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A very very powerful thing that most of us forget when we start reading all the conflicting evidence about carbs / sugar / fat: You can experiment on yourself for free! Obviously this won't prove how everyone's body works. But it will teach you something very powerful about how your own body works. Go off sugar for 3 months, make your mind and do it, and note the changes in your organism. Or go off carbs totally for…

Disclaimer: I'm not an expert on this, just describing my own experience (which may be subjective/biased/completely misinterpreted by me). If you're mostly sedentary in a first-world country, going off sugar/carbs-dominated diet brings your insulin sensitivity to its natural levels (which, very probably, it hasn't been since the moment you started eating adult food). For me this had the amazing effect of becoming mor…

I recently did this as well and my experience has been the same. Did it mainly to manage my energy levels better. Now less reliant on caffeine and less prone to energy swings. Also in much better shape.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#188

Post by nibs »

leshow wrote: post #182
debacle wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see the "if you think fructose" is bad trope a lot, and I think it's dangerous. In a natural environment, the only real sources of fructose are either fiber-heavy (most fruits) or somewhat rare (honey, berries). Fructose is bad. It's certainly something that should be eaten in moderation. Your food is not being engineered to be better for you. It's being engineered to be cheaper and easier to produce and sell. Ther…

Fructose is not bad, no food is inherently bad. It's all a matter of degrees. If you consume 10 cans of coke a day, and you're over your maintenance caloric intake by 1000 calories daily. guess what? you'll get fat and probably not be healthy. if you overconsume sweet potatoes by 1000 calories over your maintenance intake daily. guess what? you'll get fat and probably not be healthy.

Fructose is actually bad but that isn't the whole story. Fructose is only bad when consumed at a poor ratio relative to glucose. If you are eating 1:1 fructose/glucose, you can properly digest and use the energy from both. If you are too skewed towards fructose, it is less likely your small intestine will successfully digest the fructose, and it will make it to your large intestine and cause IBS, inflammation, hormonal disruption, etc. Reference low FODMAP diet and frustose malabsorbtion if you want to read into it.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#189

Post by PepeGomez »

hammock wrote: post #170
PepeGomez wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no evidence for what Lustig says. He produced one mediocre paper after multiple attempts. That's it. It's not science. It's just an attempt to distract from the real issue. It started with pet food. Attempts at making plant based foods for dogs and cats initially failed, becuase the animals didn't want to eat these unnatural diets. But a solution was found: the so called "palatants". When they were added to…

Fascinated by your response, including the history. I'm assuming you are referring to MSG and similar chemicals. What are your sources?

I mean tetrasodium pyrophosphate and similar chemicals. But there may be many more that can cause such effects.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#190

Post by asadkn »

It's typical how most people really want to immediately buy into the simple fixes and religiously believe them without knowing why it worked. Overweight? Must be the fructose (recently) / carbs (a while back) / fats (further back). Same old story. Somebody makes rounds in media and makes a lot of money after publishing a book with something "new" - a simple fix.

Fortunately we have people like Lyle McDonald, Alan Aragon, Guyenet out there talking some sanity. Unfortunately, they never make it to mainstream media.

Some Resources:

http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/index.php/free-cont...

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2016/01/testing-insuli...

https://medium.com/@lylemcdonald/highly-processed-carbohydra... (A comment by Lyle on the rhetoric posted by Ludwig)

Post reply on HN