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

261–270 of 623 posts

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#261

Post by easuter »

frozenport wrote: post #144
PieterH wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My mother (1973, Edinburgh) bought "Pure, White, and Deadly," and we all read it. I was ten or so. Yudkin attacked white flour, white (processed) fat, and above all white sugar. It made perfect sense to us all, and cutting back on sugar became a slow, yet consistent part of our lifestyle. We never ate that much anyhow. I stopped eating sugar entirely at 15. I still recall the book's cover. Edit: it took me a lot long…

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.

As a former smoker, you are absolutely wrong. Tobacco will give you a kick, as nicotine is a stimulant.

I'd describe it as being similar to caffeine, it makes you more alert. Of course there are downsides that everyone knows about.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#262

Post by Frondo »

BigThrowaway88 wrote: post #200
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.

Turns out the benefits of flossing are not backed by research. Largely manufactured by industry: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/f7e66079d9ba4b4985d7af350619a...

Heh, anecdotally, I used to get a couple cavities a year, pretty consistently, never flossed. I started flossing religiously a few years ago, and after a week of spitting blood out in the sink afterward, I got used to it. Haven't had one since.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#263

Post by lowbloodsugar »

SonicSoul wrote: post #246
Normal_gaussian wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sugar that occurs naturally in foods are often complex. Complex sugars are larger molecules that can be broken into simple sugars (lactose, fructose, glucose). There is actually very little sugar in fruit, and they are full of vitamins and minerals which are good for you. If you cut artificial (added sugar) foods from your diet you will likely find that other foods taste sweeter as your taste becomes more sensitive.

> There is actually very little sugar in fruit that's incorrect. in fact drinking a glass of orange juice is similar to drinking a coke. just because its fructose does not mean it's any better for you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Yes, let me go and pick a glass of orange juice from my glass of orange juice tree.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#264

Post by LordHumungous »

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.

Well I don't agree that modern fruit is "unnaturally" sweet. If anything, the fruits you get in supermarkets today are watery and bland compared to locally grown stuff. Compare a strawberry bought at a farmer's market to one you buy at a grocery store, for instance.

Obviously it's possible to overdo anything, but fruit gives you a whole assortment of fiber and nutrients that you don't get from processed sugar. In moderation it's extremely healthy.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#265

Post by andy_ppp »

ThrustVectoring wrote: post #129
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.

Some people wonder if one of our cells have a process to check the DNA runs an electric current through the molecule. There is a possibility that electromagnetic fields could distrupt this. This might obviously be bollocks but to say it's only heat output is also wrong...

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#266

Post by crpatino »

abainbridge wrote: post #224
adrianggg wrote: post #182

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 ju…

> Of course eat whole fruits those are ok. Why's that any different from eating say table sugar + celery? I just had a slice of a lovely honey dew melon. It was like drinking sugar syrup. I'm pretty sure it was bad for me. Surely the advice should be to not eat too many sugary fruits either, especially not the modern breeds that are much sweeter than more traditional varieties.

> Why's that any different from eating say table sugar + celery?

In principle it's not, except perhaps for a glass of water. Most sweet fruits tend to have much more moisture than celery.

An unstated assumption that may come with your question is that just like eating fruit is equivalent to eating sugar + celery, it would also be the same to eat sugar, then celery. This is not the case. The fiber and water in the fruit make for phisical barriers that slow down digestive enzimes from reaching the sugar molecules in it. This makes for a steadier release of energy over a longer period of time; the exact opposite of the well known 'sugar rush' phenomenon. [1]

Then there is the issue that most people, left to their own devices, will eat too much of sugar and too little of the other two.

[1] I don't have the appropriate literature at hand, but this was explained to me by a really close person who's been a Diabetes-I survivor for 21 years and counting. His report is that foodstuffs with identical glycemic indexes do cause different, noticeable physiologic responses based on the amount of fiber in them.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#267

Post by dredmorbius »

nightski wrote: post #247
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…

100 years back life expectancy was significantly worse. There are countless things in nature that can out right kill you. Your approach seems pretty ridiculous. (I did not down vote you however).

Little of that life expectancy had to do specifically with worse nutritional quality of food. Access to food, nutritional understanding, and food spoilage, yes.

Much had to do with a lack of awareness of germ theory, with waste disposal -- both human and trash -- with pollution of water supplies, and with poor or limited public health measures against community-propogating infectious disease.

The highest mortality rates were among infants and children, which did a great deal to reduce total life expectency at birth, but had compartively far less an effect on adolescent and adult life expectency.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html

At birth, in 1850, white male life expectency was 38.3 (additional years of life), but 48.0 at age 10, and 40.1 at age 20.

In 2011, the comparable values are 76.3, 66.9, and 57.2.

The increase was initially rapid -- by 1929-31, rates had reached 59.12, 54.96, and 46.02, respectively.

While there's been some improvement in later years of life, it's been far less. If you survived to age 50 in 1850, you had a life expectency less than 10 years shorter than in 2011.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#268

Post by aiyodev »

The scientific consensus is that weight gain is caused by saturated fat. Anybody who disagrees with the consensus is anti-science and a fat-denier. Any scientists who disagree with the consensus must have being paid off by Big Fat.

Even Crisco agrees that their products are the cause of Global Fattening and is working on alternatives to oil. Companies that produce saturated fat products should have to buy Fat Credits and fat skeptics should be thrown in prison!

But what about all the actual scientific evidence that a low-carbohydrate high-saturated fat diet results in weight loss? Well, I never said that weight gain causes weight gain or a Global Fattening. What I said was it causes "Body Change".

Body Change means eating saturated fat will make you become deathly skinny or morbidly obese or grow a tail or get cancer or contract herpes or go blind or a million other medical problems.

Basically, if something is wrong with your body, it's because of Body Change. Child falls off jungle gym and breaks its leg: Body Change. Man dies of heart attack in China: Body Change. Conjoined twins: Body Change. Down's Syndrome: Body Change. Hot flashes: Body Change. Wet dream: Body Change. Body change hides under your bed at night waiting to murder you with saturated fats.

Some people say that Body Change is idiotic and unscientific! I guess they believe bodies never change. What morons!

/s

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#269

Post by bad_user »

PieterH wrote: post #184
vecinu wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is reductionist thinking, the same kind of thinking that led to the low-fat fad, which unfortunately lasted decades.

Fruits don't deliver just fructose, the also deliver nutrients, vitamins, antioxidants and fiber. As a consequence we digest fruits differently compared with processed sugar, as the absorption of fructose when eating fruits is slowed down.

And our taste buds love sugar because our bodies crave for fruits, to fuel our big brains. We would have never developed this trait if naturally occurring sugar would harm us.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#270

Post by dredmorbius »

koolba wrote: post #221
adrianggg wrote: post #182

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 ju…

> I rarely say anything is black and white in this world but sugar is in my opinion. Without any doubt in my mind. I think you're missing the word "bad" between "is in".

It can be written either way. The "bad" is implied as written. Your suggestion would be clearer.
Post reply on HN