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

451–460 of 623 posts

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#451

Post by erkkie »

poooogles wrote: post #427
adrianggg wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>It's all SUGAR. I hit the wall because of sugar. I finally cracked the magic code, NO SUGAR. Can't say I agree with this part. If you're doing any kind of intensive cardio work sugars are essential if you want to keep doing it for any long period of time. The harder you're going the quicker you'll want to start eating carbs, be it in gels/fruit (Dates are fantastic for this). You might actually just have got better,…

You may wanna do some more research on this, it's not as black-and-white, plenty of endurance athletes starting to push less gels: http://lc-triathlete.com/science-behind-fat-adaptation/

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#452

Post by Jemmeh »

stevenwiles wrote: post #421
Osiris wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My wife is having kidney issues which she believes is associated with her nearly daily intake of Advil, but I had no idea that fructose was also a major potential factor in kidney disease. She consumes about 24 oz of soda per day, which is about 60% fructose. So it looks like it was a double-whammy, Advil + fructose has destroyed her kidney function.

Your wife drinks 2 cans of soda and takes Advil every single day? And you let her do this? Can I ask why you don't care about the well-being of your spouse?

She's a human being who feeds herself, not a dog.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#453

Post by will_brown »

fierycatnet wrote: post #345
Shivetya wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

well the lie has recently morphed into the laws slowing and prohibiting soda sales in schools and such all the while promoting juice which can be worse in many cases because people assume its healthy and you cannot over drink because of that

One time I was craving some juice or smoothie, so at the gas station I took one of those 'Naked' brands and glanced on the label, it had some ridiculous amount of carbs and sugar in it, more than 50g. Put it right back.

Not coincidentally Naked was sued in a class-action in 2012 for labeling issues ("misuse of health phrases") and of course they settled so there is no finding of liability on the claim.

Even the best juice possible (made fresh, raw, organic, and green-leafy vegetables) will be comparatively high in sugar. A 16oz juice requires somewhere in the amount of 4-6 lbs of vegetables and naturally no one would ever consume 4-6 lbs worth of vegetable sugars in one sitting much less 6x a day. With the store bought juices there are also likely fruits added which have even more sugar than green leafy veggies and they store bought juices likely aren't raw (i.e. pasteurized) killing many of the beneficial enzymes and nutrients.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#454

Post by bratsche »

Practicality wrote: post #376
cm2012 wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I lost 20% 10 years ago and haven't gained it back (295->225 lbs.). On the other hand I am still overweight and would like to lose more. I did it by just exercising an insane amount every day. (Like 6 hours of cardio+strength training every day) Most people just aren't going to do that. No diet I ever tried had any similar effect. It did do a complete reset of my metabolism to the new weight though. I kind of think i…

It's really hard for me to imagine spending that much time doing cardio+strength training every day.

I went to music school and I used to practice around 6-7 hours a day, every day. And even after switching to software I still practiced 3-4 hours every day for a long time. It was just part of my routine and I enjoyed it, but even despite those things I had to reduce my daily practice time just because I didn't have time to do my job, sleep, cook/eat, drive to work, handle regular stuff that comes up in life, and then practice for 6+ hours a day. I managed to keep 3-4 hours for awhile, but then it gradually kept getting lower and lower just because I was kind of getting worn out. These days I finally stopped and don't practice daily anymore at all. I still do practice every week, but definitely not daily.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#455

Post by Jemmeh »

cconroy wrote: post #209
jacobolus wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fructose is bad for you. A couple pieces of fruit every day is generally fine, because fruits are packed with fiber, but if you e.g. drink 3 glasses of fruit juice per day, that’s terrible for you. Even eating fruits isn’t the best though. Modern fruits are bred to be as large and sweet as possible.

Fructose is bad for you in isolation, but so is almost anything, but packaged in the fruit is a different story. Do you think eating 5 oranges is any different than drinking the juice of those 5 oranges? "Eating fruits is not best" is something that not only goes against science but common sense. Perhaps eating high amounts of fruits could be bad and but im not aware of a study confirming this (when the fruit is eate…

A large glass of OJ can contain 5 oranges and I can down it in 2 minutes and not feel full.

Eating 5 oranges would take me a while. I eat oranges a lot and usually after one it's taken a while so my body can register I'm full.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#456

Post by adrianN »

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.

If you where fat as a child, you'll have more fat cells than normal. Those cells stay with you basically forever. So while eating less food makes you lose weight, those extra fat cells will keep messing with your hormones.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18454136?otool=karolib&t...

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#457

Post by asbestas »

stevenwiles wrote: post #421
Osiris wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My wife is having kidney issues which she believes is associated with her nearly daily intake of Advil, but I had no idea that fructose was also a major potential factor in kidney disease. She consumes about 24 oz of soda per day, which is about 60% fructose. So it looks like it was a double-whammy, Advil + fructose has destroyed her kidney function.

Your wife drinks 2 cans of soda and takes Advil every single day? And you let her do this? Can I ask why you don't care about the well-being of your spouse?

I agree with you. I suspect people think you're being sexist? I am a woman and if my husband drank so much soda I would lay down the law.

I find it surprising and alarming in other people's relationships (in America, anyway -- I noticed this was very different when I lived abroad) how little each partner seems involved in the other's fitness and health. I've heard "oh, but they would get offended!" or something. Like yes, that's certainly true with friends and strangers. But you have a major stake in your spouse's health. It's you who will take care of them when they are sick, you who will pay their way if they cannot work.

I exercise with my husband, I eat well with my husband. We tell each other when we are getting extra pudge. I wouldn't have it any other way.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#458

Post by jcranmer »

grecy wrote: post #367
ThrustVectoring wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

All of those compounds interact via chemical pathways, and our knowledge of biochemistry is undoubtedly incomplete. However, we know the effect that EM spectrum has on molecules. At the wavelengths in question, it is not possible to break bonds. Thus the only plausible effects would be a result of different vibrational modes or the indirect effect of localized heating. That makes any risk from those technologies very low.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#459

Post by M_Grey »

enraged_camel wrote: post #304
M_Grey wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

IIRC, they used something like the Arabic 'miswak', a twig with a sort of shredded end. Is that about right?

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#460

Post by asbestas »

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.

>What are whole fruits and why do you feel fruits of any kind are healthy? The levels of sugars in them are unnatural.

I am slightly skeptical. Don't get me wrong, I'm 100% on the no added sugar train. But I regularly go and pick wild blackberries from a thicket that has been there for about 100 years and they are like pure sugar. Easily sweeter than any storebought berry.

Post reply on HN