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

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#401

Post by DougWebb » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 9:07 PM UTC

mxfh wrote: post #89

DougWebb wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many of the "simple ingredients" that people used 100 years ago aren't really available anymore, at least not in the US. That would somewhat true even with traditional breeding and cultivation, but over the past 100 years we've greatly improved our understanding of how breeding works, the rate that we can modify plants and animals, and with GMOs we now have a lot of direct control over the outcome. We just don't have…

"simple ingredients" ... like the coke in Coca Cola?

People downvoted you, but that's not a bad example. Cocaine is an early (modern) example of the food industry taking a natural product that's been used forever, coca leaves, and processing it to produce a much more dangerous food additive.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#402

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 9:07 PM UTC

will_brown wrote: post #348

bad_user wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>As a consequence we digest fruits differently compared with processed sugar, as the absorption of fructose when eating fruits is slowed down. When sugar is introduced to the body the liver begins to store/process the sugar. So it doesn't matter whether the sugar is from say coke (high fructose corn syrup) or an Apple. What happens when the liver can't store/process the amount of sugar you ingest is the body triggers…

[deleted]

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#403

Post by Question1101 » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 9:07 PM UTC

So food with sugar but also a decent amount of fiber is fine? Like vegetables, certain fruit and whole grain bread?

What should the fiber:sugar ratio be? Broccoli has 1.7g sugar and 2.6 fiber per 100g. Bananas have 12g sugar and 2.6g of fiber. I guess you should avoid food that goes below 1:1?

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#404

Post by agumonkey » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 9:08 PM UTC

Normal_gaussian wrote: post #205

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?

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.

I couldn't say this more. I had to cut everything[1] except raw food (meat, carrots, tomatos, salad) and it's true that within a few days you start to feel the sugar in these even in small forms. You also recognize how sugary processed food is, and how it affect your mind.

In all honesty since I was able to eat anything again, I surrendered to a junk food from time to time. I know how to keep it small; but I have to admit how hard is it when your body allows it.

[1] my brain / heart / veins reacted wrong to any fat, sugar, too much salt.. so I was highly driven into avoiding them. That made the need for will power irrelevant at the time. A bonus.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#405

Post by xurukefi » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 9:08 PM UTC

Practicality wrote: post #366

xurukefi wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I would define caloric density as the ratio of calories to weight. Refined sugar has a caloric density of 3.87 (387 kcal per 100gr), which is quite high. Most vegetables and fruits will probably have a caloric density <= 1. But I would also classify something like chicken breast (1.65) or turkey meat (1.89) as "low" in terms of caloric density. But it's not really about setting a threshold. It's more about being aware of how many calories you actually get per gram of food. It can make quite a big difference.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#406

Post by bonoboTP » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 9:08 PM UTC

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…

Here's a rather detailed lecture on the biochemistry (and history and everything) about sugar (and why the sugar in fruit is not problematic).

"Sugar: The Bitter Truth" by Robert H. Lustig https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#407

Post by dredmorbius » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 9:09 PM UTC

Cyph0n wrote: post #292

dredmorbius wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compromised health tends to make effective responses to hazardous environmental conditions more difficult. Heart disease can affect strength, balance, coordination, mental function, and any number of other responses, much as a cold or flu or pnemonia can. You might care to review the recent video footage of a notable candidate visibly collapsing whilst being aided into a waiting van for transport, as a consequence of…

> Think systemically, please. Especially if you're in tech. Which is why I would follow Occam's Razor in this scenario instead of using a convoluted theory to explain why someone slipped on ice. "Simple is better than complex." [1] [1]: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0020/

I'm not claiming either that:

1. The direct cause of Robert Atkins' fallin on ice was heart disease.

2. That his falling on ice is proof of heart disease.

Rather, I'm explaining how, as one of several precipitating factors, heart disease might be a factor in the question posed: "I don't get it: heart disease causes people to slip on ice?"

I'm suggesting that a multifactor risk analysis be considered.

It's the same multi-factor logic you might follow in answering questions of other disasters. Say: What caused the disaster of the RMS Titanic? What caused the Hindenberg disaster? What cause the Fukushima or Chernobyl disasters? What lead to the Bhopal disaster.

Looking only at the precipitating or triggering cause misses many other opportunities for mitigation or avoidance. The Titanic would have been better served with more lifeboats, 24/7 manned radios, regular lifeboat drills, the originally-scheduled first officer not having (inadvertently) pocketed the key to the bridge's binoculars case, heeding ice warnings, less hubris on the part of passengers, owners, and regulatory boards.

Old, sick people are more likely to slip and fall, and the hazards of such falls can be greater than for young, fit, healthy people.

To amend to your Zen of Python list: make things as simple as possible, but no simpler.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#408

Post by WalterBright » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 9:11 PM UTC

cm2012 wrote: post #309

at-fates-hands wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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/p…

My father decided to lose his potbelly in the early 1980s at the recommendation of his doctor, who sent him to a nutritionist. The nutritionist advised him and gave him a diet plan.

6 months later, he returned to the nutritionist having lost the pot, and the nutritionist was shocked, as nobody had ever followed her diet plan before. He maintained the weight loss for the next 30 years. At one point he was even able to squeeze into his WW2 uniform.

He said it was a constant struggle. But it clearly is possible.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#409

Post by switch007 » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 9:12 PM UTC

BigThrowaway88 wrote: post #194

tiglionabbit wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still use toothpaste, but I've found that using a sonicare toothbrush made a huge improvement in preventing cavities. Also flossing is important.

The benefits of flossing are not backed by data. Seems it too is a myth manufactured by industry: The FDA had to remove the recommendation from daily hygiene guidelines, as law requires them to be backed by legit science. That said, I still do it. Makes my mouth "feel" cleaner". http://bigstory.ap.org/article/f7e66079d9ba4b4985d7af350619a...

The cited references studied cavities, plaque, gingivitis and gum disease. I see two other benefits in flossing: combating halitosis and comfort (meat stuck between molars for me is extremely irritating).

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#410

Post by dredmorbius » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 9:13 PM UTC

sbov wrote: post #334

dredmorbius wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compromised health tends to make effective responses to hazardous environmental conditions more difficult. Heart disease can affect strength, balance, coordination, mental function, and any number of other responses, much as a cold or flu or pnemonia can. You might care to review the recent video footage of a notable candidate visibly collapsing whilst being aided into a waiting van for transport, as a consequence of…

If he had heart disease, it would make him more prone to slipping on ice. But because he slipped on ice (which perfectly healthy people do all the fucking time), does not mean he had heart disease, or was even in any other of the hundreds of conditions (some of which might speak to his health, others which might not such as being distracted by something) that might have made him more prone to slipping on ice. So basi…

I'm not arguing the fall is proof of heart disease. That's a misreading of my comment.

Atkins is reported to have suffered cardiomyopathy -- a virally-induced form of heart disease -- by Dr. Stuart Trager, chairman of the Atkins Physicians Council:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/11/nyregion/just-what-killed-...

I'm somewhat familar with the particulars of the story and debate over Atkins' perceived or claimed health or disease, and the disagreements over both arguments. I'm not taking a particular side.

But (as I've just commented to another response to my parent remarks above): yes, sick, frail, diseased, elderly people are more prone to falls than those who are well, strong, healthly, and young. And those falls can be fatal.

Hence: heart disease can be a contributing factor to slipping on ice (or the resultant injuries and outcome).