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

281–290 of 362 posts

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#281

Post by maxerickson »

douche wrote: post #278
goda90 wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The connection to hypertension is pretty conclusive, at least for some portion of the population. Here's one article about it:

http://www.gbhealthwatch.com/Trait-Salt-Sensitivity.php

Late life heart disease probably hasn't been a major factor in our evolution, but it's easy to sketch out how a lifetime of dietary choices that encouraged high blood pressure would have some impact in the last years.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#282

Post by dsyph3r »

torgoguys wrote: post #110
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…

>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…

Fructose is not bad when its delivered with fiber. When you eat fruit, you are getting mostly fiber with a small portion of sugar. When you are eating refined sugars such as high fructose corn syrup you are getting very little or no fiber. The lack of fiber allows the sugar to be absorbed extremely quickly, which overloads your liver.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#283

Post by goda90 »

leonroy wrote: post #89
chinathrow wrote: post #36

"We replaced steak and sausages with pasta and rice, butter with margarine, eggs with muesli. But we still grew fatter" Check mueslis and the sugar most of them contains. It's _horrible_. I try buying a no sugar muesli once in a while - within regular european supermarkets, it's next to impossible!

Really? I find it in the UK (Tesco) quite readily. Tastes extremely bland though (like eating uncooked porridge oats) which might explain its unpopularity.

In the US I like Bob's Red Mill muesli. The only sugar is the naturally occurring sugar in the raisins and dates. To make it more interesting I sometimes mix it into a thick smoothie(made of only whole fruit and veggies and water/ice) and eat it with a spoon.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#284

Post by brashrat »

Floegipoky wrote: post #229
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,…

>> It's just common sense advice that humans seldom make a food healthier by tinkering with it While true, this isn't because humans are incapable of improving food. It's because the ways our species has been improving food recently have been driven by capitalism; we've been making it easier to grow and giving it more appealing taste so that it's easier to mass produce and sell. These qualities, especially the taste…

It's not driven by capitalism (any more than any transaction ever has been), it's driven by consumerism. Twinkies would not be manufactured or sold if people didn't like gobbling them up at the available price. Stop blaming corporations (which are just made up of people) and simply blame your fellow citizens for being a bunch of idiots.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#285

Post by heisenbit »

Throwing two things in a bucket and information is lost. This makes the topic so complex everyone talks about carbs but almost no one talks about that fructose and glucose are very different in very significant ways:

1) Natural prevalence: Glucose is more common 2) Digestion: Glucose is transported by different mechanisms from the gut to the bloodstream. The mechanisms for fructose are in some people significantly weaker 3) Regulation in the body: Glucose is regulated by insulin and handled by all cells. Fructose is left to the liver and contributes to blood triglycerides.

If intake, processing, regulation and resting places are different should there not always be two different discussions?

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#286

Post by reitanqild »

avnfish wrote: post #87
buserror wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm not informed on this topic - but isn't this dangerous? I mean, if your numbers are correct, an average adult loses 6% of their bodyweight doing this over 5 days. How does this affect your productivity and sleep?

I used to do it on and off for a year or more 15 years ago.

I did it just for fun but noticed significantly improved productivity during the week.

I too would drink juice in the morning and possibly juice or 2 sugarcubes at lunch but not always and no calories otherwise.

To ease into fasting I would start by skipping dinner. Skipping breakfast was then easy (for me at least) and the rest of the week was no problem.

Then during a boring week in the military I decided to test what I had heard that we have 80% left when we feel completely exhausted. So after a couple of days of my "normal" fasting (IIRC) I skipped even my breakfast juice and continued without. Later that day I went to the gym and started lifting weights. 15 minutes into that I was completely drained and I was shaking for hours afterwards (again IIRC). That was my last time. :-/

I want to try again, but with a family it is way harder (and that experience kind of scared me.)

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#287

Post by Cshelton »

Here is what worked for me to lose fat (weight), but not muscle.

It really is simple.

- Reduce carbs/sugar intake to around ~100 grams/day, this varies slightly per person. Just reducing bread/grain intake alone is a TON. Grains are turned into glucose, same as sugar, it's effectively the same thing. This also means getting rid of all sweats, processed food. They are just bad for you whether you are overweight or not...don't do it. Occasional is fine.

- Drink water. Often times when you are hungry, you're dehydrated. If you drink soda or something else, do the "diet" version at least. Diet Coke, Miller Lite, etc.

- Portions. Most restaurants in the U.S. server portions that are way too big. Eat half your plate, then wait 10 - 15 min while having a conversation with others or whatever, do something else. Take your mind off food. I bet after 15 min, you won't be that hungry anymore. That super tired feeling you get after a big meal...yeah, you should never have that. That means you overate.

- Get your heart rate up for at least 10 min a day. Try to do an hour, but sometimes that's not practical with limited time, etc. Even just doing jumping jacks for 10 min will do the trick...Just do it. It's crazy how many people will go a day...a week..or more without out ever getting their heart rate above 100 bpm... That's terribly bad for you.

Forget all the fads or popular, trending stuff out there... They try to sell you on quick fixes. Weight loss is not a quick fix. Instead of viewing it as trying to lose weight, just look at it like trying to live a healthy life style. Don't obsess checking the scale everyday or counting calories. Take a picture of yourself in underwear once a week in the mirror. Every month, not any smaller intervals, check your 4 pictures from that month and see how far you've come. This should drive you more.

That's it, you'll be healthy in no time.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#288

Post by reitanqild »

angersock wrote: post #197
buserror wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Or hacker news :-)

In this case: body/mind hacking.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#289

Post by maxerickson »

pitchka wrote: post #276
scott_s wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Eggs aren't all that high calorie. 3 eggs swimming in added cooking fat (2 tablespoons of butter) would be about 450 calories and would constitute a significant portion for all but the heartiest eaters.

There is of course no need to bath them in fat, 1 egg has ~80-90 calories, they are mostly water.

They are certainly higher in calories than vegetables, but if you consider the typical diet, they are not towards the high end of calorie density.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#290

Post by tdkl »

ZeroFries wrote: post #246
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 is going to be an unpopular opinion, but you don't even need to track calories. Just have a mindful sense when you eat, slow down, and ask "do I need to eat this? Will it make me healthier and stronger?" before most meals, and try to answer "yes" 90% of the time you actually eat.

This is like playing darts blindfolded.
Post reply on HN