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

471–480 of 623 posts

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#471

Post by darkxanthos »

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…

+1 to this. I recently just started toying with the idea of going sugar free and ketogenic... so I started trying foods without many carbs but wasn't even committed to it. All of a sudden I noticed I had lost 5-7 pounds in 3-4 weeks. So I got excited and kept it up... I'm not losing weight at the same rate but now about 2-3 months in and I'm down about 25 pounds. It's ridiculous.

I haven't noticed the energy or clarity improvements in myself and my wife hasn't seen that in me either. That may be due to sleep as I'm going to school full-time, training for the Chicago Marathon, and working full-time. Given all that maybe it's just great that I can function. :)

Either way! The changes have been amazing and dramatic. My biggest problem now is that I need to buy a whole new wardrobe but I can't yet because I think I still have another 15 pounds I'll blow through by Christmas. I finally feel in control of my weight and it's the best.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#472

Post by stevenwiles »

Jemmeh wrote: post #452
stevenwiles wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Let me make sure I understand your logic:

If you had a girlfriend/boyfriend who drank gasoline and ate glass and small, powerful magnets every day, you would not lift a finger or speak a word attempting to stop them? Because they are "not a dog, feeding themselves"?

Might I suggest you have a critical lack of empathy if you lack the desire to help people?

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#473

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

Let's not forget how WW2 propaganda shifted blame to sugar. Where the fictional notion of a "sugar high" was invented to connote an illicit character that will get your children that much closer to the reefer madness. All to manipulate the public into conserving sugar needed for the war effort.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#474

Post by boodm »

dredmorbius wrote: post #412
boodm wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

A reputable nutritional guide (and I've listed several, though there are many others) will be far more reliable and complete than me. Please refer to them. If you care to share your findings, report them back to the discussion.

I've found some data on the subject prior, and I find that it doesn't contain sugar, but acts like sugar, but then that's nullified if you eat it with a fiber, etc. It's more than "what does this book say".

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#475

Post by tiglionabbit »

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.

There's something to be said about eating whole foods rather than eating their refined components individually. Something about the reactions that occur when things are consumed in the form your body expects, together, rather than purified and separated. Some things we call "antioxidants" have the opposite effect when purified and eaten separately from the foods the occur in.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#476

Post by Retra »

BigThrowaway88 wrote: post #200
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.

Turns out the benefits of flossing are not backed by research. Largely manufactured by industry: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/f7e66079d9ba4b4985d7af350619a...

Just because nobody bothered to research it doesn't mean it isn't true.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#477

Post by boodm »

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…

You're missing the easy one, caffeine.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#478

Post by hnbroseph »

dredmorbius wrote: post #219
Cyph0n wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't get it: heart disease causes people to slip on ice?

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

systemically, or systematically?

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#480

Post by whamlastxmas »

ntaenta wrote: post #365
whamlastxmas wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

WebMD is the buzzfeed of medical knowledge.

I suspect you're not actually at 7-10% body fat, that is ridiculously low. Like just skin and muscle, nothing else. It is physically impossible for most people to go below 7% without some serious drug abuse or eating disorder. Google image search "7% body fat" and see for yourself.

Post reply on HN