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

301–310 of 362 posts

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#301

Post by anexprogrammer »

chillacy wrote: post #297
anexprogrammer wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will take butter every time over margarine and other spreads. Simply on the grounds of how they are made. One is a food, the others entirely chemical processes. Nearly all the butter is bad is funded by the spread industry.

Margarine's production is more complex but it doesn't seem too wild: http://www.madehow.com/Volume-2/Butter-and-Margarine.html Either way the milk is coming from a cow pumped full of hormones and antibiotics.

Ah, perhaps. Neither are allowed in the EU. Hormones not allowed at all, and milk disposed of until antibiotics no longer register in milk after treatment.

Fairly recently UK was prosecuted for not checking antibiotic levels adequately.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#302

Post by Tharkun »

hyperchase wrote: post #220
leonroy wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a world of difference between a 'package' of meat and a corn dog. I love eating meat, I see no need to 'hunt' for the thing. In the same way I love apples, I'm not going to grow an Apple tree in my yard and only eat apples from that. To be honest there's a big problem with seeing exercise as a 'punishment'. I enjoy exercising just as much as I enjoy a cold glass of beer (before or after) and to be frank my ad…

That wasn't my point. My point is your distinction between "man-made" and "not-man-made" food is completely arbitrary and based on your personal preferences.

Your point is nitpickery. You know perfectly well what OP means when he refers to processed food as man made food. No one would misunderstand it. What you consider to be an arbitrary distinction (which in itself is an arbjtrary distinction), is in this case rather clearly defined.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#303

Post by rhinoceraptor »

torgoguys wrote: post #146
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…

I replied to a sibling with what I meant to reply to yours. See there. One quick thing I would add is, "NO" nature would not keep making them. It is only our direct action that props up these artificially selected species (q.v., hybrids that require us to actively produce them, or your favorite variety of apple which is a clone of some great-grandparent tree or the fact that these crops would not compete well with ot…

But you would agree that there's a qualitative difference between a Snicker's bar and a banana, right?

Sure, the banana is a selectively bred, sterile monocrop but the candy is made of 20 ingredients, resembling nothing found in nature in composition and nutrition.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#304

Post by rhinoceraptor »

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.

It's an obvious, but entirely uninteresting fact.

It's like telling poor people the way to escape poverty is to make more money than they spend.

Of course that is true, but they would be more interested in how to do it, not what to do.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#305

Post by Goronmon »

sirtastic wrote: post #275
pil4rin wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

You'll never find a diet/exercise/plan that allows one to achieve indefinite weight lose.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#306

Post by cname »

Cshelton wrote: post #287

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…

Hasn't it been shown that artificial sweeteners can mess with your blood sugar level and may be just as bad for you as sugar? It seems like it would be best to wean yourself from the craving for sweets.

http://www.webmd.com/diet/20140917/artificial-sweeteners-blo...

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#308

Post by quickben »

vixen99 wrote: post #63
dantiberian wrote: post #31

I think it's pretty likely that in 10-20 years, the sugar companies of today will be seen in the same light as the tobacco companies of yesterday.

There is no comparability at all. Smoking generates and tobacco contains - known toxic agents. Sucrose (ordinary sugar but also corn syrup) is entirely non-toxic, it being a di-saccharide containing glucose (essential for life though where you get it from is another question) and fructose, found in almost all fruits & adequately metabolized by the liver if provided in small amounts. Too much is disastrous - that's ag…

That's not true. If what you are saying was true, late stage diabetics wouldn't lose their legs.

Sugar is toxic to nerves and your body has to heal after every spike.

Yes, it's usually down to us, just so many of 'us' are on the payroll of various lobby groups so most of every popular internet forum is heavily spinned instead of providing info.

Your post seems very biased.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#309

Post by logfromblammo »

nibs wrote: post #191
masklinn wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Saccharomyces yeast turns sugars into ethanol. Acetobacter bacteria turns ethanol into acetic acid.

It's all about controlling the cultures you use for the fermentation.

That's why home-brewers have to be so careful about sterilizing their fermentation vessels and boiling their liquids. You absolutely, positively do not want the wrong microbe getting into your booze. If it's a wild one, it could end up synthesizing any number of organic chemicals that can negatively affect the final product.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#310

Post by ValentineC »

fasteo wrote: post #217
kdamken wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't mind me asking, what disease did you get?

Mitochondrial myopathy. Simply put, I do not produce enough energy to keep my body up and running. There are many possible causes; in my case, it is a single large scale deletion in my mitochondrial DNA. Symptoms are varied. In my case: extremely weak eye muscles (I have both ptosis and diplopia), intermittent fatigue, mild aerobic exercise intolerance and hot intolerance. From a scale of 1 to 10, being 10 the worst,…

    mild aerobic exercise intolerance
What happens when you perform aerobic exercises?
Post reply on HN