How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat • Hacker News Board

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#121

Post by timewarrior » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 5:25 PM UTC

MichaelGG wrote: post #109

timewarrior wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Completely agreed. I have been avoiding using anti-bacterial soaps for years, because something didn't add up. I am perfectly happy washing my hands with water before meal. Sometimes if I feel that my hands are really greasy/dirty I would use a natural ingredient based soap. I have friends who would chide me for that. And now FDA bans sale of many anti-bacterial soaps: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/03/science/fda-ba…

"didn't add up" is a very different reason than the FDA reasoning. Indeed, it's not that anti bacterial is directly bad, but the second order effects of weakened immunity and "superbugs". It's not being correct if you act suspicious about everything, then something has a negative effect you weren't aware of.

Sorry, didn't go in details of why it didn't add up for me. Agree with your point.

I was reading sometime back that our gut has good bacteria and initially when people didn't understand them there was a phase when some people were using antibiotics to kill their gut bacteria. Today, Most people agree on the benefits of good bacteria in our gut. Around 2010 I was reading an article about other good bacteria which also resides on our skin and then I decided to stop using anti-bacterial. I make sure that I was my hands thoroughly with water and use soap if required.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#122

Post by hammock » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 5:26 PM UTC

redwards510 wrote: post #18

The documentary "Fed Up" is about sugar and was the first time I was made aware there is no daily RDA % for sugar on nutrition labels. They just have the grams. They lobbied very hard to make it that way, because having "4700%" for a daily RDA wouldn't look very good!

The WHO recommends a 50g daily limit of sugar (the FDA's RDA for total carbs is 300g). A single 16oz Coke will put you over the limit. Even as someone who eats relatively clean, it's hard for me to stay under 50g over the course of an entire day.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#123

Post by balabaster » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 5:26 PM UTC

DougWebb wrote: post #87

balabaster wrote: post #43

and this folks is why I have trust issues... Scientists paid off by industry to make people look the other way, who then become head of some Governmental departments and agencies advising the world on whatever it was they were paid off for or have a conflict of interest in and the door keeps revolving... It's a wonder we believe anything at all after the amount of lies and propaganda we're fed only to find out it's f…

As far as the actual food sales, most of the money winds up in the same small set of hands regardless of which fad is currently popular. They'll resist trends that switch from high-margin to low-margin foods, but only until they've figured out how to alter the low-margin food to make it high-margin. The secondary money-grab is from the food-fad industry. All of the books, all of the websites, all of the memberships,…

The longer I live, the more I value the lessons I learned from my Grandparents:

- Don't listen to the shit you hear in the media, it's all self serving. Do your own research, that way it serves your need, not anyone elses.

- Stay out of the centre aisles at the grocery store. Buy simple ingredients. Make it yourself. If you can't grow it yourself or kill it, you probably shouldn't be eating it.

- Do the research, buy it once, buy it right. Quality will always beat quantity in the long run. Buy something you can repair yourself over something replaceable.

> if we all decided to wear the same SciFi-like jumpsuits all of the time because it's really the best thing to wear, the fashion industry would be destroyed

A few of us got stuck at a moment in time and never really updated... a decent pair of hard wearing jeans and an endless supply of decent t-shirts that last more than a few months of continuous wear and a decent pair of solid, dependable boots. You may be able to tell that the fashion industry doesn't make a whole ton of money out of me. Don't care, lol.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#124

Post by jahewson » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 5:27 PM UTC

timewarrior wrote: post #41

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.

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…

> simple ingredients people used more than 100 years back

Back when they used (natural) lead as a sweetener? :P

Seriously though, 100 years is probably not long enough ago if you're looking for "good" food. White bread was all the rage. Jello+, mayonnaise, and marshmallows were standard ingredients in "salads". Anything which actually looked like a natural food item was pretty much shunned, unless you were poor. The Edwardian focus on efficiency and cleanliness above flavor paved the way culturally for the industrial food of the 1950s.

+ They actually used sheets of gelatin to make their "Jello" as the powdered stuff hadn't been invented yet.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#125

Post by gtrubetskoy » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 5:27 PM UTC

muzster wrote: post #8

RIP: British Scientist John Yudkin - The man who tried to warn us about the perils of sugar.. Source(s) : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/wellbeing/diet/10634081... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yudkin Edit: Lest we not forget his arch-enemy Ancel Keys

Along with Robert Atkins. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Atkins_(nutritionist)

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#126

Post by dxbydt » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 5:27 PM UTC

Honey is a strange alternative to sugar. For the past 2 decades, I have used honey as the sole sweetener, though the rest of the family continues to patronize sugar :( The trouble with honey is that it's seriously pricey, and the community is a something of a cult - you have to know a lot of the terminology, otherwise you'll walk out with sugar-water. I take an empty 1 gallon jar to the honey store in Sac, and pay $100 to fill her up. I have experimented a lot with the cocktail over the years. Generally, avoid anything"American" ie. sweet light colored honey. Go for the raw unfiltered darkest thickest broth you can find. They have gigantic jars of various colors, so I sample from the darkest ones. Then add a few grams of propolis and a few scoops of nectar and a few combs. Top it off with manuka and part with $100. Lasts 3 months. It tastes weird and too thick and gooey, but it's an amazing product. All the debris floating around on it is supposedly packed with enzymes etc.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#127

Post by LordHumungous » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 5:28 PM UTC

On the other hand, I think the low carb/keto people have taken the pendulum too far in the other direction. A lot of research seems to suggest that a plant based diet heavy on whole fruits, vegetables, grains, and nuts is healthier than one consisting of animal fats and protein. It makes sense when you look at the diets of the healthiest people on Earth. Just because excess processed sugar is bad for you doe not mean all carbs are unhealthy.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#128

Post by Eric_WVGG » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 5:29 PM UTC

jly wrote: post #20

I think after the last few years of these kinds of things coming out, the takeaway is pretty simple: be fairly sceptical of 'advice' coming out of large governing bodies and instead just be sensible. Don't eat too much food. Limit processed foods. Eat lots of fruit and vegetables. Eat a large variety of foods. Be active. These rudimentary guidelines are clearly difficult for a lot of people to follow, but I think it'…

“be fairly sceptical of 'advice' coming out of large governing bodies and instead just be sensible”

That's terrible advice. "Common sense" is what happens when popularly accepted ideas escape proper scientific scrutiny, and that's exactly how we wound up here.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#129

Post by ThrustVectoring » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 5:31 PM UTC

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.

Cellular, wifi, and bluetooth radiation poses zero risk. You can stand inside the path of a microwave communication dish and receive many orders of magnitude more radiation, and what it'll do is make you warm. That's it. Soviet soldiers used to do that in Siberia to keep themselves warm, and the only risk is the dish outputting too much power and cooking you instead.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#130

Post by biot » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 5:31 PM UTC

hammock wrote: post #55

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.

You can count flurochemicals as one. Ubiquitous in the water supply. No good way for water treatment nor the human body to remove them. Proven harm. Not much discussion today. Also re toothpaste additive: Colgate Total still uses triclosan, which has been removed from pretty much every other product already and declared harmful by the FDA.

Your comment sounds like the FDA declared triclosan in Colgate Total to be harmful. That is not true: http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm205999.ht...

"For some consumer products, there is evidence that triclosan provides a benefit. In 1997, FDA reviewed extensive effectiveness data on triclosan in Colgate Total toothpaste. The evidence showed that triclosan in that product was effective in preventing gingivitis."