Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 623 posts

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#91

Post by logicallee »

brandon272 wrote: post #36
logicallee wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is almost certainly wrong. (That nothing can be blamed.) I can't eat much sugar for medical reasons, so that means that entire aisles are basically unavailable to me. things like cereals, cookies, cakes, lots of delicious stuff. But there is something or someone (or some process or some state of affairs) to blame here. Because check it out: stevia is delicious, and with splenda and all sorts of other zero-calori…

Coca Cola has a stevia version that seems to be very niche. I rarely see it, nor have I tried it. But I wonder why it hasn't been pushed more, especially in a market where your product is increasingly demonized because of the 30 - 40g of sugar each serving contains.

my Coke example was actually the fact that Diet Coke has existed for decades, and it and Coke Zero are available everywhere. They taste fine. I don't care about a stevia version. I drink lots of diet coke or coke zero (don't have a very strong preference) and want to eat lots of artificially flavored oreos the same way. I can certainly do that: if I take twelve hours to read and track down ingredients and make them myself or something. these products are not made by nabisco, and oreo is just one example. it's the best-selling cookie in america and comes in all these ridiculous flavors:

http://torispilling.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/OREO-FLAV...

including literally "swedish goldfish" which is disgusting on its face, and also actually disgusting as reported here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/nottheonion/comments/4x4lgz/swedish...

and

https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/4xzdml/my_dad_eats_...

So it's just disgusting.

But if you google Stevia oreos (which wouldn't be disgusting) you get...home recipes to make them.

why? Why, in all of these flavors, including abominations such as swedish goldfish, does stevia not exist?

It doesn't add up. 100%, there's something, someone, some process, some state of affairs to blame here.. . .

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#92

Post by poopsintub »

timewarrior wrote: post #13

It took almost 50 years to starting to debunk health issues created by Sugar. It took decades to accept the health issues created by Lead and Asbestos. Sometime I wonder if chemicals from bottled water, radiation from Cellular/Wifi/Bluetooth pose health risks and we will find it out decades later.

Radar in the near future from every self driving car on the road concerns me more than the wifi.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#93

Post by [deleted] »

e40 wrote: post #74
Retric wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a lot of unknowns. Chances are it's not going to be Bluetooth, but some toothpaste additive, cellphone case sealant, or something else nobody really thought about that we are going to look back and cringe.

but some toothpaste additive About 9 months ago I stopped using toothpaste (my Dentist said it was fine) because I read the canker sores I had been getting for years and years were caused by an additive in tooth paste: Sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS). Sure enough, I have not had a single canker sore since I stopped using tooth paste!

[deleted]

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#94

Post by Cerium »

brockhaywood wrote: post #76
e40 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but some toothpaste additive About 9 months ago I stopped using toothpaste (my Dentist said it was fine) because I read the canker sores I had been getting for years and years were caused by an additive in tooth paste: Sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS). Sure enough, I have not had a single canker sore since I stopped using tooth paste!

So, what is the alternative you are using? Water and brushing? Or some organic toothpaste alternative?

I just use water and a toothbrush. It works well.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#95

Post by logicallee »

brianwawok wrote: post #85
brandon272 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Coca Cola has a stevia version that seems to be very niche. I rarely see it, nor have I tried it. But I wonder why it hasn't been pushed more, especially in a market where your product is increasingly demonized because of the 30 - 40g of sugar each serving contains.

Don't move from sugar to fake sugar. Move from sugar to other flavors. Using fake sugar is like a diet, and diets don't last. Lifestyle changes do. Like making every thing you eat not need to be sweet.

not true. you can drink diet coke or coke zero for decades and nothing bad will happen.

why do you want to tell me not to eat dessert foods like american cereals for breakfast, or oreos, in some artificially-flavored version. you're simply wrong that this would make my change in lifestyle "not last." I'm not even overweight.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#96

Post by balabaster »

ianamartin wrote: post #80

Of course this happened. Duh. It's still happening today. I'm not saying where because I don't know where. But if you do the simple math about how many people are working as scientists, it's not hard to figure out that there are companies who could benefit from positive scientific findings--no matter how wrong--and realize that some of what we're reading in original research was paid for and not really true. I wish p…

It doesn't help when most of the information you hear regarding nutrition has been to underwrite the profits of multi-billion dollar corporations that are only out for one thing: Your money... and they don't care what means they have to use to get it. For instance buying exclusive access to resources that you had free access to for pennies on the dollar so that you don't have access to it any more and then selling it to you for gross profits... and I don't mean that in a taxation sense of the word gross. I mean that it's quite literally disgusting.

I'm looking at you Nestle, but realistically, you're just one example of the systemic corruption and propaganda that is pervasive across the entire nutrition market.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#97

Post by MichaelGG »

brockhaywood wrote: post #76
e40 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but some toothpaste additive About 9 months ago I stopped using toothpaste (my Dentist said it was fine) because I read the canker sores I had been getting for years and years were caused by an additive in tooth paste: Sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS). Sure enough, I have not had a single canker sore since I stopped using tooth paste!

So, what is the alternative you are using? Water and brushing? Or some organic toothpaste alternative?

SLS is organic.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#98

Post by timewarrior »

DougWebb wrote: post #69
timewarrior wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed! But we cannot ignore potential visible risks while worrying about unknown risks. I use organic/natural exclusively. Try to model my life closed to simple ingredients people used more than 100 years back. I also diversify things I consume. Someone once posted on HN: His grandpa told him everything is poison, so use everything in moderation. I really liked this recommendation. However it is very difficult to pr…

Many of the "simple ingredients" that people used 100 years ago aren't really available anymore, at least not in the US. That would somewhat true even with traditional breeding and cultivation, but over the past 100 years we've greatly improved our understanding of how breeding works, the rate that we can modify plants and animals, and with GMOs we now have a lot of direct control over the outcome. We just don't have…

Agreed!

However it's still probably better to eat organic than something which doesn't even pretend to be safe. It's all relative in the end.

I hope one day I can control the sources and attributes of all the food that I eat. However till then I will try to do my best with my available time and money.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#99

Post by acconrad »

graham1776 wrote: post #25

My wife and I rewatch the obligatory Lustig lecture about once a month to re-anger ourselves at sugar. Nothing motivates like a bit of biochemistry mixed in with political intrigue. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

The problem is Lustig is on the far end of the spectrum on anti-sugar. No added sugars? Sure, I buy that. Labelling fructose as a poison simply because it is directly metabolized in the liver is stretch. I'm not going to worry that my kids are eating berries because of their fructose content.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#100

Post by akavlie »

e40 wrote: post #74
Retric wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a lot of unknowns. Chances are it's not going to be Bluetooth, but some toothpaste additive, cellphone case sealant, or something else nobody really thought about that we are going to look back and cringe.

but some toothpaste additive About 9 months ago I stopped using toothpaste (my Dentist said it was fine) because I read the canker sores I had been getting for years and years were caused by an additive in tooth paste: Sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS). Sure enough, I have not had a single canker sore since I stopped using tooth paste!

I use Sensodyne for the same reason — it's a widely available toothpaste that doesn't have SLS.
Post reply on HN