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

361–370 of 623 posts

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#361

Post by PieterH »

JustSomeNobody wrote: post #322
guelo wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The word fructose comes from the word fruit, it literally means the sugar found in fruits. Most fruits have more fructose than other sugars. A banana has 14 grams of sugar, equivalent to 4 teaspoons of table sugar. If fructose is bad for you then fruits are bad for you, there's no way around it. You can argue that it's ok to eat fruit because it's balanced by the fiber and vitamins, but that's equivalent to saying th…

Yes, and no. If you drink straight apple juice, yes, that's bad for you. If, however, you eat an apple, that's good for you. The Apple has plenty of fiber that keeps the body from absorbing the fructose too quickly. Straight apple juice kicks your pancreas into high gear.

Apple flesh is 2.6% fibre.

Where does this myth come from that fruit is high in fibre? It simply is not true. Some fruits are. Wild fruits certainly are. Domesticated table fruit is not. Google "fibre content of apple" if you don't believe me.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#362

Post by grecy »

kmonsen wrote: post #213
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…

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

The easiest way to eat healthy is to only buy things in the supermarket that have one ingredient.

Pretty soon you'll notice you're only buying fruit, vegetables, pasta, rice, beans & non-processed meat.

Disclaimer: of course you could buy pure sugar or pure lard - so don't do that :)

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#363

Post by boodm »

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 do you think about white rice? Google lists white rice (1 cup, cooked) at 0.1g. Conversely, brown rice shows 0.7g for the same portion.

Are these simple sugars? Is this bad for me?

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#364

Post by wutbrodo »

DanTheManPR wrote: post #242
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…

I had no idea - I had dismissed the Atkins diet for years because I had heard that Atkins himself was morbidly obese and died from a heart attack (neither is true according to his Wikipedia article).

Chalk one up for the idea that it's usually not worth basing decisions on vaguely-heard rumors (especially in the age of Google).

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#365

Post by ntaenta »

whamlastxmas wrote: post #350
ntaenta wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oops, my mistake. I got confused by this table on the WebMD page below which does list 18-25% as an acceptable range for body fat percentage: http://www.webmd.com/diet/features/body-fat-measurement#2 So my original numbers were actually correct, but instead of the CDC it's the American Council on Exercise, whatever that is. The page before has the CDC recommendations on BMI. I was surprised too that 25% is considered…

Considering the American Council on Exercise pushes the "Health at Every Size(C)" bullshit I'd never take them seriously. I can't be bothered to go find real studies on the issue but I would have to guess they'd tell you there's an increased risk of health issues at 25% body fat.

Ah ok, I suppose I expected WebMD to rely on better sources of information. I stay around 7-10% body fat and feel good in that range -- the few times I've gone below that I felt lethargic and performed poorly in sports.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#366

Post by Practicality »

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.

What foods are you referring to as "low calorie density foods"? I can imagine that most vegetables fit this classification... but why would you state it this way unless you are referring to something else?

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#367

Post by grecy »

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.

>Cellular, wifi, and bluetooth radiation poses zero risk

Your confidence and shortsightedness are astounding.

Do you not see that ~40 years ago scientists were saying exactly the same thing, with exactly the same conviction about Asbestos, Lead, DDT, etc.

We don't know what we don't know, but at least we should admit it.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#368

Post by s_kilk »

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'm sold, it's no/low sugar from now on.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#369

Post by jbattle »

grecy wrote: post #347
nikmobi wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. Try the 'ol "Grandma Test" on it: If you had served your Grandma (or maybe great-Gramdma) with a glass of fizzy black liquid, that you poured out of a shiny metal container, do you think she would have drunk it? I mean, honestly, that would be like putting a glass of used eng…

People eat fermented shark meat and blue cheese neither of which 'seem like food to me'. I'm not sure the great grandma test is particularly useful other than to reinforce one's preexisting notions.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#370

Post by grecy »

pharrington wrote: post #139
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.

Fortunately we completely understand light; if you actually wonder about radio and want to bring it out of the realm of mystery potentially hiding dark magic, learn some basic quantum mechanics. As to what you ingest, learn how its made and understand the basic chemistry of the end product. No label gives insight into that, its just alot of research. Sure, systematic disinformation campaigns are real, but in 2016 tho…

> Fortunately we completely understand light

So is it a wave, or a particle?

Post reply on HN