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

281–290 of 623 posts

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#281

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

SilasX wrote: post #226
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.

I always assumed it would be the opposite: something that a lot of people already recognize as being dangerous, but which lacked concrete evidence demonstrating how dangerous it is. So my candidates for a future "omg we have to stop this" are: - bad posture at office jobs (probably mandated adjustable standing desks in the future) - stress from a long, high-traffic commute - insufficient sleep - per the article, high…

Wasn't there some news recently that sleep deficiency is positively correlated with heart disease?

Something like this http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/tiredness-and-fatigue/Pages/lack-...

There was also some news recently that working in a place that grinds coffee causes lung cancer http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/04/15/474325037/cof...

Probably if the sabre-toothed tiger gets you before the age of 35 you won't get cancer or heart disease. But if you live long enough and the cancer doesn't kill you the chemotherapy will.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#282

Post by kjdal2001 »

merpnderp wrote: post #142
djsumdog wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you ask people to this day, they'll say Atkins died of his own diet. That was actually a total lie run by Harpers magazine. They corrected the mistake in the following edition, but the damage had been done. Although there is little evidence to support it, the running conspiracy theory is that PR people in various arms of the food industry paid for that article. Edit: Adkins died because he slipped on a piece of ic…

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.

More likely its a complication of the fact that ice is slippery.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#283

Post by sleighboy »

Karunamon wrote: post #159
voidz wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I would not say that is dramatic or even meaningful. The findings are full of statements on how the the studies they considered were "of moderate quality, but of limited quantity". And they conclude with saying basically that they have no conclusion.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#284

Post by hx87 »

greglindahl wrote: post #258
hx87 wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is partly true: You can reduce particulates, but they're still bad in areas with a lot of less-emitting vehicles. Also, the technology that reduces particulates needs to be carefully maintained to continue working as well as it did the day the vehicle left the factory... and there's plenty of incentive to cheat, in order to save money.

With 2016 diesel technology, the only "less-emitting vehicles" are EVs and possibly CNG-powered vehicles. As for cheating, as long as the manufacturer does its job (by either eliminating EGR altogether or installing a catch can in the PCV system), there is little to no incentive to cheat on the operator's part. Urea is dirt cheap as long as you don't buy from the dealership.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#285

Post by biot »

hammock wrote: post #217
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…

The FDA proposed as early as 1978 to ban triclosan in consumer products.[1] The proposal was updated in 1994 but never finalized. "At each stage of the proposed and tentative rulemaking process, the FDA has acknowledged that based on available scientific evidence, triclosan and triclocarban are not safe and effective, or there are insufficient data to evaluate safety and effectiveness."[2] (There are a number of stud…

Thank you, I appreciate the links. So triclosan is:

  not (safe and effective) || insufficient data
From a cursory reading, I gather that it can/does cause harm during developmental years, making it unsuitable for children or pregnant/nursing mothers. However, I'm not sure how to evaluate the level of harm it introduces in something like toothpaste. Is it a similar level of harm as, say, aspirin or tea tree oil which are also known endocrine disruptors?

Note: I ask as I use Colgate Total myself and if harm >> benefits at the concentration levels found in toothpaste, then I have a vested interest in discontinuing its use. A doctor might advise a patient who has a genetic risk of heart disease to take small quantities of aspirin, just as a dentist might advise someone with a gingivitis risk to use triclosan-containing toothpaste -- in both cases, a determination of benefit:harm must be evaluated.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#286

Post by prewett »

dredmorbius wrote: post #255
kefka wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't know that elemental Arsenic (As) was made of chains of elemental carbons (C)... The more you know??

Incorrect. Arsenic is an element . Elemental arsenic, as with elemental carbon, or hydrogen, or any other element, is made of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Its chemical properties are defined largely by its valence electrons, and atomic mass. There is no more carbon in arsenic than there is sound in light. They are different things. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenic

Your parent poster was well aware of that, and also assumed his parent was aware of that as well. His post was a subtle version of "arsenic can't be 'organic' because cannot be composed of carbon chains because it is an element which is not carbon."

The advantage of his version (especially in spoken conversation) is that you can tell someone they are wrong, and typically if they have such a gross misunderstanding, it will go completely over their heads, and they won't realize that you are telling them they are wrong.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#287

Post by dredmorbius »

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.

There's a world of difference between something fresh off a plant and something ... not fresh out of a (chemical processing) plant, as most processed foods are.

Yes, ag breeding has created foods which are far removed from their ancestors. But get this: effectively none of the foods eaten by humans today existed in anything resembling their current form as little as 10,000 years ago.

Wheat ... was a wild grass occurring in the Mesopotamian valley. Corn was ... teosinte, a small, hard-kerneled Central American plant. Rice was a wild marsh grass found in the Yangtse river valley. Cattle, sheep, pigs, chickens, horses (probably initially hunted for meat, only later exploited for draught), were bred from ancestors only distantly similar to today's major breeds. Apples were wild fruit tree from Turkey which didn't breed true. Etc., etc.

There's an online "tree of life" showing the evolutionary history of plants and animals, and what was shocking to me was the recency of most of humans' major ag and animal foods -- they're literally younger than our species, by far.

That's not to take away entirely from your point. But humans have been relying for much the past few thousand years, and certainly centuries, on foods far removed from their origins.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#288

Post by nikmobi »

adrianggg wrote: post #273
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…

A really smart guy said to me once something like, “if you are smart and have money and you don't eat well then you are not smart”. I can't remember the exact quote but the sentiment really stuck with me. Look I'm no expert but I'm telling you the results are outrageous. Please do your own research as I only really have a school boy understanding of how this affects the body. My skin cleared up, my ailments all disap…

I really like this response and I do truly believe that cutting out or minimizing sugar is a truly beneficial thing.

But when I got to this:

> I can't even drink a soda, I spit it out as the most disgusting thing imaginable

I had a hard time taking the rest of your comment seriously. I can understand it being too sweet to your now adjusted taste buds, but calling it the most disgusting thing imaginable is just plain wrong.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#289

Post by quantumhobbit »

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.

Apparently you take longer to absorb the sugar from fruits. You don't get a blood sugar spike that triggers an insulin response like with table sugar.

The same can't be said for fruit juice. Maybe infusing the sugar into to celery somehow would be healthier than eating them separately.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#290

Post by tbomb »

lowbloodsugar wrote: post #263
SonicSoul wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I lol'd
Post reply on HN