The Sugar Conspiracy • Hacker News Board

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#191

Post by nibs » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 3:28 PM UTC

masklinn wrote: post #152

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.

> wine is pressed grape juice allowed to ferment. That's more likely to get you awful vinegar than anything even remotely resembling wine.

How would one get wine from grapes without fermentation?

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#192

Post by CuriouslyC » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 3:29 PM UTC

jnbiche wrote: post #78

Phlow wrote: post #20

"Look at a graph of postwar obesity rates and it becomes clear that something changed after 1980. In the US, the line rises very gradually until, in the early 1980s, it takes off like an aeroplane." Not that I disagree with the premise of this article, but the graphs I can find show that there is a steep increase in the late 70's, not after the Dietary Guidelines were written in the early 80's.

> but the graphs I can find show that there is a steep increase in the late 70's, not after the Dietary Guidelines were written in the early 80's. But still, the upward trend follows the cultural meme that "fat is bad" that started propagating in the early 1970s. The dietary guidelines only formalized that bit of "scientific wisdom". (naturally, correlation does not equal causation, but it does often indicate a pheno…

Perhaps people thought science had "solved" how people get fat (eating fat) and ate more assuming if they avoided fat, they wouldn't get fat. "I can eat an entire box of snackwells and there's only 5 grams of fat!"

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#193

Post by npsimons » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 3:31 PM UTC

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…

> Jack Lalanne (American fitness guru) stated "If man made it, don't eat it".

He also said "if it tastes good, spit it out" which is just retarded, as there's plenty of things that taste good that are good for you (bananas, apples and broccoli jump immediately to my mind). I respect the man for his accomplishments, but those two quotes aren't among them.

> The lymphatic system which helps rid the body of waste substances is 'pumped' by respiration and physical activity.

This I've always "felt" to be true, as it seems to me that my allergies get better with exercise. That being said, you can't outrun your fork, and even if you're eating "healthy", if you eat too much, you will gain weight. I'm not saying you can never have a tasty treat again, just don't try to compensate for it via exercise. Work it into your daily calorie budget.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#194

Post by funkyy » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 3:33 PM UTC

asadkn wrote: post #190

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 Ara…

Very few public, true fitness instructors and dietitians are following the simplest rule ever - decrease calories to lose weight. This method is not that popular, its to tricky since it requires for person to calculate foods, which makes it unpopular for lazy. But it is absolutely the best method to lose weight fast, decrease calorie intake and create shortage.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#195

Post by joesmo » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 3:33 PM UTC

My take on this article is that nutrition science is not science, no one knows what the fuck they're talking about, and we're basically still in the 1920's with absolutely no real nutritional information or system (usually science in our society) to get there. Having lost someone very dear to me to "cholesterol" and knowing it was a lie at the time, let alone now, this makes me fuming angry. But I live in the US, where the primary driving factor for such misinformation is continuing to profit off of people's misery, so it's hardly surprising that profit has completely kicked science out of one of its most important subjects. Maybe when we stop letting companies profit off of misery and pain, we'll learn something, but I doubt that will ever happen.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#196

Post by rsync » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 3:38 PM UTC

CuriouslyC wrote: post #184

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…

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…

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

Cod liver oil comes to mind ...

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#197

Post by angersock » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 3:39 PM UTC

buserror wrote: post #86

cies wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With most 5:2 diets, you are not supposed to fast two consecutive days. Non the less 2:5 sounds cool; please come back to report your experience! :)

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…

This honestly sounds like some kind of eating disorder.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#198

Post by _greim_ » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 3:40 PM UTC

PepeGomez wrote: post #139

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.”

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…

Interesting, I've never heard this before. Any sources?

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#199

Post by maskull » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 3:41 PM UTC

exhilaration wrote: post #158

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.

Vegetable oils, having vegetable in the name, sound healthy but are like the HFCS of the oil world. They are cheap, heavily processed, and prone to rancidification.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#200

Post by CuriouslyC » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 3:41 PM UTC

teslabox wrote: post #2

The article is pretty good, but neglects to mention that there are more types of fatty acids than the saturated kind. Unsaturated fatty acids become more unstable as the level of unsaturation increases. The so-called "essential" fatty acids, the polyunsaturated oils, are the most unstable of all. Soybean oil is useful as biodiesel, and not much else.

That isn't exactly true. Most oils in nature are paired with anti-oxidant molecules that prevent rancidity (it wouldn't do for a plant's germ cell food source to go bad). The problem is that your typical soybean oil (or other common cooking oil) is removed from the plant matter by washing with a solvent like liquid CO2, which is then filtered and evaporated. The result is an oil that is almost pure lipid, with very little in the way of anti-oxidants.

If you were to get an expeller pressed, unfiltered soybean oil, it would be just fine.