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

301–310 of 623 posts

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#301

Post by enraged_camel »

mary_fortran wrote: post #279
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…

If you had 20 pounds to lose, you weren't healthy. You were fooling yourself. Healthy people aren't carrying around 20 extra pounds of fat.

He said he lost 20 pounds, not 20 pounds of fat.

The interesting thing about sugar is that it also causes your body to retain a lot of water. Same with salt.

So losing 20 pounds in a short time is totally possible for someone who is tall.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#302

Post by jimmaswell »

mary_fortran wrote: post #279
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…

If you had 20 pounds to lose, you weren't healthy. You were fooling yourself. Healthy people aren't carrying around 20 extra pounds of fat.

For an average height, the span between the lowest non-over-or-underweight weight and the highest is a lot more than 20 pounds, and being a bit into the overweight range doesn't automatically make you unhealthy either.

chart: http://www.vertex42.com/ExcelTemplates/Images/body-mass-inde...

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#303

Post by [deleted] »

mary_fortran wrote: post #279
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…

If you had 20 pounds to lose, you weren't healthy. You were fooling yourself. Healthy people aren't carrying around 20 extra pounds of fat.

[deleted]

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#304

Post by enraged_camel »

M_Grey wrote: post #193
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.

You can even use some salt, or baking soda if you feel like you need a "deeper clean" or the like.

Yep, this is in fact how the nobility did it back in the day!

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#305

Post by ntaenta »

mary_fortran wrote: post #279
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…

If you had 20 pounds to lose, you weren't healthy. You were fooling yourself. Healthy people aren't carrying around 20 extra pounds of fat.

That's not quite correct. The CDC recommends a body fat percentage between 18% to 25%, and it's generally acknowledged that athletes can drop down to around 5%-6% without adverse effects. So, given those numbers, most healthy adults are carrying at least 20 pounds that they could safely lose.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#306

Post by dexterdog »

at-fates-hands wrote: post #276
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…

>> lifelong damage to their health. It's only lifelong damage if you don't change your diet and lifestyle. The world is filled with people who were morbidly obese and have made the changes necessary to reverse the damage and live far more healthy lives now. The way you put it, it sounds like an irreversible course akin to a death sentence, which it most certainly is not.

Anyone who has been morbidly obese has permanent damage as a result. It is certainly better to right the ship, but some damage does not go away.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#307

Post by Ensorceled »

mary_fortran wrote: post #279
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…

If you had 20 pounds to lose, you weren't healthy. You were fooling yourself. Healthy people aren't carrying around 20 extra pounds of fat.

> You were fooling yourself.

I think that's the entire point of his story.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#308

Post by jimmaswell »

dredmorbius wrote: post #234
kmonsen wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what did you actually eat? It seems like sugar is everywhere these days.

Not OP, but: * Avoid processed anything. Most especially soft/fizzy drinks, baked goods, candy, fruit drinks, jams, jellies, syrups, most processed cereals. * Eat fresh vegetables, some fruit, legumes. Whole grains for breakfast (rolled or steel-cut oats). Meat, eggs, and dairy if they're in your diet. * Check breads and other products for added sugar, in all forms: sugar, molasses (often added to "rye" breads as col…

What does it precisely mean for a food to be "processed"? "Processed" in general just means "went through some kind of process", which covers pretty much anything (if a local farmer collects their apples in a bin and moves them across the field that's a process) but in relation to food it has a negative connotation, so it must be specific processes the food was involved in that are unwanted? What about these processes inherently make the food more sugary or otherwise unhealthy?

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#309

Post by cm2012 »

at-fates-hands wrote: post #276
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…

>> lifelong damage to their health. It's only lifelong damage if you don't change your diet and lifestyle. The world is filled with people who were morbidly obese and have made the changes necessary to reverse the damage and live far more healthy lives now. The way you put it, it sounds like an irreversible course akin to a death sentence, which it most certainly is not.

That is a myth. Every legitimate long term study of non surgical weight loss shows that it doesn't happen for the vast, vast majority of people.

1) ["In controlled settings, participants who remain in weight loss programs usually lose approximately 10% of their weight. However, one third to two thirds of the weight is regained within 1 year, and almost all is regained within 5 years. "](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1580453)

2) Giant meta study of long term weight loss: ["Five years after completing structured weight-loss programs, the average individual maintained a weight loss of >3% of initial body weight."](http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/74/5/579.full)

3) Less Scientific: [Weight Watcher's Failure - "about two out of a thousand Weight Watchers participants who reached goal weight stayed there for more than five years."](https://fatfu.wordpress.com/2008/01/24/weight-watchers/)

4) [The reason why it's impossible seems to be that although calories in http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/magazine/tara-parker-pope-...) This is borne out by the above data.

5) [The only thing that does seem to work in the long term is gastric surgery.](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1421028/)

Moreover, you won't find any reputable study on the web where the average person lost 10%+ of their body weight and kept it off for five years. Not even one.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#310

Post by hammock »

biot wrote: post #285
hammock wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

Wow now I'm wondering about tea tree oil which I use myself. Have any links you can share?
Post reply on HN