The Sugar Conspiracy • Hacker News Board

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#261

Post by takno » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 5:26 PM UTC

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,…

Fish fingers are nutritionally pretty good - low calorie, high protein, and freezing is a good way to preserve food without adding things you have to ask questions about. The cheaper ones also tend to use more sustainable fish, and mechanical recovery maximises yield from a scarce resource.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#262

Post by mikeash » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 5:28 PM UTC

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,…

Do you seek out pre-domestication forms of fruits and vegetables, or do millennia of genetic engineering through selective breeding not count as "tinkering with it"?

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#263

Post by sirtastic » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 5:30 PM UTC

chillingeffect wrote: post #227

sirtastic wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't always work. Many people, myself included can fail to lose weight on a restricted calorie diet. I spent 12 months eating below 1200 while working out religiously (4-6 days a week with 30sh mins of cardio followed by 45sh mins of weight lifting). In the beginning I lost weight and fast. At 5'9 I went from 240 down to 148 lbs in 7 months. At 148 I still had excess fat on my body and no matter how hard I wo…

How tall are you? What's your build? Yours sounds like a pretty damn successful story, congrats! Calorie in vs. calorie out is a simplistic way of looking at it. It is certainly true for a first-order approach, though. There is much more to it, such as timing, consumption of fiber with sugar, metabolism, etc. etc. However, the most important factor which should be taken on first for the largest immediate changes is c…

5'9, I would say mesomorphic build with maybe a lean towards endo (I can put on muscle mass easily). Definitely a good success story, 70+ lbs in 7 months aint easy! I've tried a great deal of things. Uping fiber, zero carbohydrates (most effective at weight loss), fasting, intermittent fasting (also very effective with zero/low carb).

Can't say how much I have at the moment. Definitely in an upswing since I've been trying to bulk a little. I has this incredible ability to store water (most likely do to fat deposits) and look fluffy. If I zero out my carbs I will piss 20x that day and at 180 lbs the fat will look exactly the same as it did when I was at 148 lbs. Once I look at some bread my body will hold onto everything I drink and I'll fluff right up.

I've read that the last 10% will take all the effort of the first 90% and then some. I tried as I could to power through it and I can honestly say whatever is keep that last 10% is stronger than I am. When you starve for several weeks straight and lose nothing it's hard not to be defeated. I've considered for several years now going under the knife to win it but the prohibitive cost has kept me away from that and the desire to not be defeated by my body.

As I mentioned I've cycled weight lifting / cardio / diet dozens of times over the last few years to keep my body guessing without success.

Supplements: fish oil, multi-vit, whey, creatine, and sometimes fiber.

By not normal I mean old brown adipose or subcutaneous fat with very poor circulation which inhibits the bodies ability to flush hormones through it. This is the fat I've had for 20sh years (was overweight as a child) and I believe the body has practically forgotten about it so to speak.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#264

Post by ScottBurson » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 5:33 PM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #154

wutbrodo wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

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

Michael Pollan, who promoted (and possibly introduced) that slogan in his book In Defense of Food, goes on to explain that "Eat food" means more specifically "don't eat anything your great-grandmother wouldn't recognize as food" (p. 148). In short, he agrees exactly with Jack Lalanne: avoid processed foods.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#265

Post by inglondon » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 5:38 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…

Tha simplest and best advice I've read was in an article called 'We should all eat more DNA' [http://blog.oup.com/2016/01/we-should-all-eat-more-dna/].

It follows one simple guideline 'Avoid anything that lacks DNA.'.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#266

Post by pigpaws » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 5:40 PM UTC

tkyjonathan wrote: post #125

pigpaws wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2010/01/13/ajcn.2009...

The problem with that study is that it is observational and was set up to fail. Metabolic ward and interventional studies still show that if you eat more saturated fats, your cholesterol increases. For example, if you add 30g of butter to your diet every day, your cholesterol will go up. Sorry for breaking it to you.

I never said it wouldn't "go up" - but that butter may do more good than harm.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12716665

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2619783

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20071648

"CONCLUSIONS: A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD. More data are needed to elucidate whether CVD risks are likely to be influenced by the specific nutrients used to replace saturated fat."

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#267

Post by mikeash » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 5:42 PM UTC

funkyy wrote: post #194

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.

That simplest rule ever isn't unpopular because it's "tricky," it's unpopular because hunger is one of our most fundamental motivators, and it's extremely difficult to consistently overcome it. It's on the same level as advocating abstinence as a method of birth control. Sure, it works great if you can do it, but expecting people to actually stick to it, or calling them names when they don't, is ridiculous.

Weight loss is hard because you need to figure out some motivator which can outweigh the drive to eat, or you need to figure out a way to satisfy the drive to eat without actually eating lots of calories. It seems to me that fancy advice like "more protein, less sugar" or "avoid processed food" just boils down to this second one; these are foods which fill you up more for any given number of calories.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#268

Post by collyw » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 5:50 PM UTC

torgoguys wrote: post #176

leonroy wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 understand your sentiment. I'm pushing back against it being expressed in terms that promote a naturalistic fallacy. Why? Various reasons, but one is because the naturalistic fallacy is actively harmful, not just as it applies to food. >This isn't about 'weird' foods like raw milk, or taking things to the nth-degree. It's just common sense advice that humans seldom make a food healthier by tinkering with it. As clo…

When you process your own food, you have full control over it and what goes into it.

I have no idea what they are putting into commercially processed foods, how long they are cooked for at what temperature. (Well I have an idea of what goes into chicken nuggets having watched Jamie Oliver https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKSoiDtdi9s).

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#269

Post by pigpaws » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 5:51 PM UTC

tkyjonathan wrote: post #130

pigpaws wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2716748/ http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v67/n8/full/ejcn2013116a....

Ketogenic diets increase all-cause mortality http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20820038 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22850317 http://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/fulltext/S1550-4131(15)0... and make you gain weight http://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-study-finds...

not compared to a high carb/sugar based diet as we can plainly see in everyday life.

Re: 20820038 - Keto is low carb, moderate protein. it doesn't really matter where you get the protein from.

Re: 22850371 - Again, Ketogenic is not HIGH protein diet as eating too much protein is just turned into sugar which defeats the whole purpose of eating keto... so yes, if you eat a lot of fat, and a lot of sugar, you will die sooner.

re: Cell.com - it measured whether or not these people went into ketosis for 6 whole days, when it takes upwards of 3 months to become keto-adapted. It takes the average person (not the morbidly obese person) 3-5 days just to get into ketosis, let alone keto-adapted.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#270

Post by sirtastic » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 5:56 PM UTC

Goronmon wrote: post #256

sirtastic wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't always work. Many people, myself included can fail to lose weight on a restricted calorie diet. I spent 12 months eating below 1200 while working out religiously (4-6 days a week with 30sh mins of cardio followed by 45sh mins of weight lifting). In the beginning I lost weight and fast. At 5'9 I went from 240 down to 148 lbs in 7 months. At 148 I still had excess fat on my body and no matter how hard I wo…

This doesn't always work. Many people, myself included can fail to lose weight on a restricted calorie diet. I spent 12 months eating below 1200 while working out religiously (4-6 days a week with 30sh mins of cardio followed by 45sh mins of weight lifting). In the beginning I lost weight and fast. At 5'9 I went from 240 down to 148 lbs in 7 months. You just described an example showing that a restricted calorie diet…

Not saying it isn't effective, just only that it doesn't work in some cases. It's a fallacy to say it's simply calories in vs out. As I said in my post, I lost weight but then I stopped losing weight and still haven't lost a large amount of weight using that method.