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

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#151

Post by gohrt » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 5:42 PM UTC

martinko wrote: post #134

LordHumungous wrote: post #127

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…

Low carb and keto is consistent with a vergatable, plant and especially nut diet. > Whole fruits What are whole fruits and why do you feel fruits of any kind are healthy? The levels of sugars in them are unnatural - neither oranges nor apples have historically been as sweet as they are now.

Whole fruits are pieces of fruit from a tree, that you bit into, as opposed to fruits that have been chemically mechanically/processed to extract some molecules (sugar) and discard others (especially the pulp/fiber)

Modern meat is also unnnatural, engineered by the agriculture industry.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#152

Post by biot » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 5:43 PM UTC

tlb wrote: post #141

biot wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"Effective in preventing X" doesn't mean it doesn't cause harm Y.

Sure, but if that were the case one should provide evidence of these harms instead of making statements that contradict what the FDA's own site claims.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#153

Post by nnain » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 5:44 PM UTC

What if this backlash against Sugar is as extreme as the initial marketing? What if 50 years on, people come back to say, "the generation that endlessly promoted tasteless food and took away the sweetness". Is there a proper study on the effect of eating a sweet chocolate everytime you feel like it, to some kind of happiness? Everyone just sees to be treating this as a magical wand... while still irrationally giving in to a lot of other hyped up food.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#154

Post by tlb » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 5:45 PM UTC

open_book wrote: post #117

balabaster wrote: post #70

Follow the money and you will find the motive for what you're being told. There is a reason you're being told what you are and don't believe that it's for your own good. These industries and agencies don't care about what's good for you, they are self serving and only care about what's good for them. You're just the vessel supplying the cash they're after.

I wonder that sometimes about seat belt laws and stop smoking campaigns. Is it the insurance companies that lobbied for and promote these ideas, or is it some altruistic group that actually cares about my well being instead of profits?

Seat belts and many other automotive safety improvements were driven by insurance companies. That's a fortunate case of incentives being aligned.

It's surprising that health insurers aren't more vocal about sugar. Diabetes and obesity are expensive for them.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#155

Post by sliverstorm » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 5:45 PM UTC

abainbridge wrote: post #66

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'…

Yeah. But humans haven't had fresh fruit available all year round until recently. Similarly, there was never a wide range of foods available. I'm not sure we've got enough evidence to say that changing our diet to include lots of fruit and a wide variety of foods is safe. The encouragement to do this is coming from large governing bodies. I'm off to eat nothing but turnips for a year and get scurvy :-)

The original solution was simply preservation. Drying, canning, pickling, etc.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#156

Post by jtmarmon » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 5:46 PM UTC

abainbridge wrote: post #66

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'…

Yeah. But humans haven't had fresh fruit available all year round until recently. Similarly, there was never a wide range of foods available. I'm not sure we've got enough evidence to say that changing our diet to include lots of fruit and a wide variety of foods is safe. The encouragement to do this is coming from large governing bodies. I'm off to eat nothing but turnips for a year and get scurvy :-)

not to mention most fruits have been selectively bred/genetically engineered to have much higher sugar content than they did when we evolved to eat them seasonally

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#157

Post by gohrt » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 5:46 PM UTC

xurukefi wrote: post #102

kentor wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then the question is why do they eat 3500kcal? The hypothesis is that sugar does not make people feel full whereas fat does, so they eat more. A calorie is not a calorie.

I didn't check the science, but I'm pretty confident that "feeling full" is a matter of volume and not of calories. At least in my personal experience a really dumb and easy way to lose fat without feeling hungry was to eat food with a low calorie density.

Not just volume, but the biochemical process of digestion. For example, food that takes longer to digest has more volume for longer time in your body. There are also complex interactions of chemical secretions to regulate chemistry in digestion.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#158

Post by imglorp » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 5:46 PM UTC

PKop wrote: post #81

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!

Don't leave us hanging... what was your substitute?

A pinch of baking soda will have the same abrasives.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#159

Post by Karunamon » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 5:46 PM UTC

voidz wrote: post #145

e40 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing. The toothpastes without SLS made me gag. My dentist said using no toothpaste was fine. My Sonicare toothbrush and flossing does the job just fine, and the floride in the water handles the rest.

Fluoride isn't exactly healthy either though, is it?

The dose makes the poison - there's a pretty dramatic correlation between low level fluoridation like the kind that's added to water and oral health, with not much at all linking it to health issues.

http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluorid.htm

http://www.nature.com/bdj/journal/v192/n9/full/4801410a.html

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#160

Post by gohrt » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 5:46 PM UTC

redwards510 wrote: post #30

jbb555 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that fruits have an issue too. The fruit we get today has been bred to contain a lot more sugar than they did originally. I'm not convinced that lots of fruit all the time is as good for you as it ought to be.

I agree. People always spam the "eat fruits and veggies" meme but come on, what is in fruit? Sugar and some fiber, maybe some vitamins. You are still just eating useless sugar. Let's not delude ourselves that fruits somehow contribute to fulfilling daily macros in a significant way. I consider them a treat, not a staple.

The problem is that people say "eat fruits and veggies" but what they hear is "eat [sugary] fruits"