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

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#181

Post by hx87 » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 6:07 PM UTC

greglindahl wrote: post #90

hx87 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Diesel /is/ greener when you consider only CO2 emissions and energy efficiency, although turbocharged direct injection engines narrow that gap significantly. If this were the '70s though, I'd much rather have a fleet of diesel cars running around than ones with cabureted gasoline engines.

What about all the people who die from diesel particulates? Failing to consider that is exactly the mistake Europe is still making.

Particulates are easy to deal with using current technology--burn lean, burn hot (and inject lots of urea to get rid of all the NOx that this regime creates), and stick on a filter on the tailpipe to get rid of the stuff that does get created. The main problem is that diesel engines last forever, and a lot of old engines that don't meet requirements are still on the road.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#182

Post by adrianggg » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 6:08 PM UTC

I rarely say anything is black and white in this world but sugar is in my opinion. Without any doubt in my mind.

Recently in the last 3 months I gave up sugar, hard core, it's hard but the benefits are out of this world.

I was healthy and active. I ate healthy, or so I thought. Boy was I wrong and mis informed.

I had heard theories so I decided to check them out. I went all out to avoid sugar for a couple of weeks just to see. It was amazing.

I have lost 20 pounds that I didn't think was possible, I think better, I sleep better and I eat way less. I have way more energy, like I drank 5 cups of coffee all the time. I don't fade in the afternoon.

Those of you looking for a way to get more energy and focus at work, especially those working long hours in startups. I encourage you to go all out to reduce sugar intake to as little as possible. Of course eat whole fruits those are ok.

Best thing I have ever done in my life.

There's a saying "those on high sugar diets don't know what it feels like to be sugar free." It feels amazing. Try it. At least once in your life. You won't go back .

sorry that was long :-)

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#183

Post by balabaster » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 6:09 PM UTC

e40 wrote: post #84

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.

Follow the money and you will find the motive for what you're being told. That is definitely true, but way beyond the scope of almost everyone that is targeted by the things that should be questioned.

> way beyond the scope of almost everyone that is targeted by the things that should be questioned

and this is both why the lobbyists are successful and shouldn't be trusted

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#184

Post by PieterH » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 6:12 PM UTC

vecinu wrote: post #177

forgotpwtomain wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sugar does have some nutritional value, and is a hallmark of primate diet. Tobacco is an addictive insecticide that won't even get you high. This statement reflects a glaring ignorance of both scale and science. First of all, sugar is a hallmark of a primate diet only in complex not in simple forms, which is not the kind being referred to here. By nutritional value do you mean has calories? So does Vodka. And what…

Does this not include sugar found in foods? Are those considered complex? Is eating natural sugar found in fruits as bad as eating refined/processed sugar?

There are many different kinds of sugars. It's worth understanding. Fructose is what harms you. Glucose is harmless. Sucrose is fructose plus a glucose. Lactose is harmless as long as you can digest it. Maltose is harmless. Etc.

Fruits contain varying amounts of fructose. Wild berries, not so much. An apple or grape, rather a lot. Apple juice, considerably more.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#185

Post by codeddesign » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 6:13 PM UTC

Cyph0n wrote: post #173

merpnderp wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be completely fair, he slipped on the ice likely as a complication from heart disease. His doctors swear that his arteries and heart were the healthiest they'd seen for someone that age except for the infected portion.

I don't get it: heart disease causes people to slip on ice?

No, his body was fighting the heart disease but with the slip on the ice his body was not able to recover from both at the same time. In other words, he was an old man and with the new injury his body was not able to recover.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#186

Post by minsight » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 6:13 PM UTC

gohrt wrote: post #147

daxorid wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you be that sanguine about your kids tossing back a shot of vodka every day? If you take Lustig's analysis of fructose's effect on the liver at face value, you should treat them the same.

One drink of alcohol per day is generally regarded as quite healthy.

Alcohol is a carcinogen. Every drink you have increases your chances of getting cancer.

http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/al...

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#187

Post by hx87 » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 6:14 PM UTC

I wonder if this has anything to do with my observation that it's ridiculously hard to find whole fat yogurt, especially whole fat Greek yogurt (!), in most grocery stores in the Boston area. Only specialist and high-end stores such as Whole Foods keep them in stock, whereas the proles get stuck with the sweetened, low-fat versions that contain up to 30 grams of sugar per serving.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#188

Post by barkbro » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 6:14 PM UTC

SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #29

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.

For instance, For a long time diesel has promoted in Europe as greener than petrol. This is soon to change, because: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/27/diesel-engine-fum...

Diesel engines produces less CO2 by being slightly more efficient.

Pretrol engines produce less nitrogen oxides and particulate matter.

What's "greener" is just a matter of your definition of it.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#189

Post by logfromblammo » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 6:16 PM UTC

logicallee wrote: post #28

fastoptimizer wrote: post #4

When in fact nothing can be blamed but our overconsumption of almost everything but vegetables and fruits. I eat about 70% from my calories in carbs (some are refined), but it's just 2500kcal calories per day. I'm pretty sure the fact that average US citizen eats 3500kcal daily has more to do with anything than what particular ingredient one eats. edit: some irrational unscientific and anegdotal statements require me…

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…

As an experiment, I would try saturating the cereal with water and fermenting with Saccharomyces and Acetobacter to get the sugars out.

I have a hunch that it would taste absolutely horrible, though. I'm not sure there would be enough stevia in the world to bring it back to palatable.

Personally, I would probably prefer to just eat some chicken eggs if I wanted protein for breakfast. That's 160 kcal/100g, with 1g sugar and 13g of protein--as 100% complete protein. And eggs are about $5/kg or less in the US.

I'm not even certain why anybody health-conscious would ever bother with boxed cereals at all, for exactly the reason parent points out--sugar. If I wanted complex carbs in my breakfast, I'd boil a potato, cool it overnight, and heat it back up with the eggs in the morning. No flakes or nuggets are necessary. No sweeteners are necessary. If desired, ketchup is plenty sweet enough for that potato.

But crap.... why can't they make ketchup with stevia, or just unsweetened ketchup? It's back to the same problem. If you can't eat sugar, the American grocery store is mostly a colorful wasteland of foods you just can't touch.

Munchies, munchies, everywhere, and all the cupboards creak; Munchies, munchies, everywhere, nor any speck to eat.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#190

Post by caw » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 6:17 PM UTC

jmcgough wrote: post #149

dxbydt wrote: post #126

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 $1…

There isn't a significant health benefit to using honey over refined sugars. Sugar is sugar.

Sugar is sugar, but honey is interesting in the flavors and aromas it can provide outside of your standard white sugar.

Just to add if anyone is interested in honey as a sweetener - What dxbydt was saying with honey being ~$8/lb is a good price for identifiable flower honey. Wholesale is roughly $4-5/lb, depending on varietal.

There's a significant range in flavors and aromas depending on what type of flower produced the bulk of the honey. Don't need to avoid anything on colors, it's primarily based on what type of flower is used to produce the honey. Try a sampler, most apiaries/honey specialty shops will sell you a small container of each varietal they have. Avoid heat treated honeys, heating the honey to have it pass through a filter will get rid of a lot of the aroma. You'll see a lot of "raw, unfiltered" at specialty shops.

If you're interested, you can ferment meads with a minimum of ~1.5 pounds per gallon, depending on how strong you want the resulting beverage.