The Sugar Conspiracy • Hacker News Board

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#271

Post by pil4rin » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 5:58 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…

Maintaining a reduced calorie diet seems to be the issue, most people cannot do this.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#272

Post by sametmax » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 6:01 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,…

Yes, you are overthinking it. The statment clearly wasn't to be followed blindly, but just a reminder that processed food is generally the least quality food you can get.

It's like trying to fight an add tag line with logic, it just doesn't make sense. We all know "number one in stuff" is not to be taken as is.

Still, if you do avoid industrialy processed food, you usually see your health improved tremendously.

TL;DR: don't be that guy : https://encrypted.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source...

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#273

Post by goda90 » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 6:04 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,…

On the other hand, what evidence supports the need to avoid "mildly spoiled food"? We could do with a bit of healthy skepticism over the seriousness of spoiling, expiration dates, defects, refrigeration, or molds and bacteria in our food. We'd probably save more food and maybe cut back on excessive sugar and salt intake(common preservatives) if we had a better understanding of what can and can't be eaten raw, rotten, and less than perfect.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#274

Post by pitchka » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 6:05 PM UTC

Synaesthesia wrote: post #203

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…

There's been lots of evidence of the harm caused by sugar in many other studies, and mentioned in this article, besides the ones Lustig did, which I think, confirms he was right.

No, there has been no evidence.

Yes, consuming high amounts of fructose on a daily basis has some serious side effects. Consuming the same amount of glucose doesn't.

This just means that the amount of fructose intake should be moderated.

Seems to be that the majority of this community believes there are concept such as healthy food, unhealthy food, superfood etc. These concepts are scientifically non-existent.

There's such a thing, scientifically, as an unhealthy diet and healthy diet.

Sugar can be a part of a healthy diet. So can hamburgers, so can everything else.

There's been bunch of evidence for UK and Australia (where fructose intake decreased over the years) but they still got fatter and fatter.

Sugar tax is idiotic.

Lustig: Sugar makes people obese.

Reality: Carbs, fat and sugar makes people obese.

American population started eating ridiculously huge amounts of food. They'll get fat no matter what they eat if the caloric intake is 3700kcal per day.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#275

Post by sirtastic » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 6:06 PM UTC

pil4rin wrote: post #271

Goronmon wrote: post #256

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. You just described an example showing that a restricted calorie diet…

Maintaining a reduced calorie diet seems to be the issue, most people cannot do this.

Wrong. I maintained ~1200 calorie life style for several extended periods after losing my initial weight in an effort to get rid of the last 10sh lbs of fat with no success. If its simply calories in vs out then I would have succeeded several times over. It's not simply in vs out in some cases which is what I'm trying to point out and what Goronmon has failed to understand.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#276

Post by pitchka » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 6:10 PM UTC

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…

There is no evidence. This whole thread is filled with misinformation and anecdotal evidence. The article lays its foundation on Lustig claims while his Bitter Truth talk had outright wrong claims.

There have been studies pointing out fruits even help decrease symptoms of diabetes.

http://nutritionj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1475-28...

The conclusion of the randomized study above was that the intake of fruit should not be restricted, despite the fear that sugar makes you die.

http://www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/19711408038.html;jsession...

This one has a mainly fruit diet for its participants. 2500kcal of fruits per day. No one had any serious side effects.

These "not man-made", paleo, keto, low-carb and other diets are all fads. All of them. They promote an unhealthy relationship with food. Not unhealthy as in philosophy but unhealthy scientifically (orthorexia + the humongous evidence that food is not poison).

It's a much higher chance that the American population is extremely orthorexic and that they avoid fruits and veggies thinking that pesticides and sugar will kill them. This unhealthy relationship results in overeating highly caloric foods like meat, dairy, eggs, drinks etc.

I highly recommend

In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto

http://www.amazon.com/Defence-Food-Nutrition-Pleasures-Eatin...

The Gluten Lie

http://www.amazon.com/Gluten-Lie-Other-Myths-About/dp/194139...

for anyone thinking they have an unhealthy relationship with food that could cause them to have an unhealthy diet.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#277

Post by SpaceCadetJones » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 6:17 PM UTC

sirtastic wrote: post #205

funkyy wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

Are you sure it wasn't a mental issue? How were you measuring fat? 5'9 and 148lb isn't close to being overweight. I'm just under 140lb at 5'9 and I'm quite thin. It looks like I have some around my stomach due to poor posture, but that's it.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#278

Post by douche » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 6:20 PM UTC

goda90 wrote: post #273

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,…

On the other hand, what evidence supports the need to avoid "mildly spoiled food"? We could do with a bit of healthy skepticism over the seriousness of spoiling, expiration dates, defects, refrigeration, or molds and bacteria in our food. We'd probably save more food and maybe cut back on excessive sugar and salt intake(common preservatives) if we had a better understanding of what can and can't be eaten raw, rotten,…

The conception that salt is bad for us is, I think, ludicrous. Most of us are not eating even a smidgeon of the amount of salt that our ancestors would have eaten, when nearly all meats and fish not eaten immediately after slaughter were preserved literally caked in salt or brines.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#279

Post by goda90 » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 6:24 PM UTC

basicplus2 wrote: post #88

the healthy diet.. lots of vegetables, fatty meats, rice for carbs, and no addded sugars, and nothing you see in bakeries ( ie no breads etc) and virtually no pasta.

Beans and lentils for carbs. They are high fiber, high protein and cheap. Only downside is the gas(with beans anyway. lentils aren't too bad in that regard)

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#280

Post by ssalazar » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 6:26 PM UTC

mohaine wrote: post #252

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…

You are skipping the fact that most meat and produce products for sale ARE man made was well. Cows as they currently exist never roamed the wilds. Most fruit and veggies are so different form the wild forms that we wouldn't even identify them as the same fruit. Not saying these are not better for you then Fruit Loops, but it good to keep some prospective as how man made or man "designed" ALL our food is.

> You are skipping the fact that most meat and produce products for sale ARE man made was well.

Did a man (or machine) literally put it together with two hands? This is the distinction being made.