Live data from Hacker News

How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

nytimes.com

601–610 of 623 posts

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#601

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?

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…

Of course you should care about your spouse. But you're ultimately not in control of them as you would be with a dog or a child. They control their own actions. You should totally discuss it with them! Even if it hurts their feelings sometimes.

But if I'm pondering getting dessert and my SO says, "Hmm, let me think on if I'll allow it" I'd think he was an arse.

And as far as sexism, if anyone said that they'd be an arse.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#602

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…

I wonder if the tolerance, and then the love, of highly sweet things is acquired. And mostly probably, it is acquired when one is a child. I have met and worked with many East Asians and Europeans who came to American in their 20's or older. Almost everyone of them thought American pastry and deserts are unbearably sweet. Most of them shun from soda drinks and other "food" containing high amounts of sugar. If they dr…

> And mostly probably, it is acquired when one is a child.

Most likely acquired when one is a suckling. Milk is kinda sweet and the first thing a mammalian baby tastes. All further taste preferences are then largely acculturation.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#603

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Animals are comprised of a huge amount of water and some other stuff. I think even meat is something like 80-90% water. But people don't usually say "man I'm thirsty, someone bring me a ribeye!" When cells are made up so primarily by water saying "oh but this fiber is a trivial percentage" is very misleading. If all sugar is in the water which is contained in cells which are bound up by fiber then the fiber could mak…

> I think even meat is something like 80-90% water.

For fresh (not processed like hams etc), ~50ish% is usually a safe bet.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#604
post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Whole fruits are pieces of fruit from a tree, that you bit into, as opposed to fruits that have been chemically mechanically/processed to extract some molecules (sugar) and discard others (especially the pulp/fiber) Modern meat is also unnnatural, engineered by the agriculture industry.

> Modern meat is also unnnatural, engineered by the agriculture industry.

Doesn't matter, because we digest and absorb plant matter only extremely inefficiently compared to all true herbivores and animal omnivores --- no matter how much more palatable we engineered/bred those plants to be; and we digest meat nearly as efficiently as any of the truest carnivores in the wild --- again, no matter how far removed by now our agricultural breeds are from their original ancestor stoneage species.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#605

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tried arguing the dangers of concentrated fruit sweeteners not so long ago. There was some debate about whether candy prices were too low.. But the truth is folks get much more sugar from supposedly "healthy" items in the form of fruit juice and concentrates. It is in the bread most folks eat (and sometimes whole grain bread is higher to make it more palletable), they put it in savory foods, and fruit juices and pe…

I've been suspecting that another problem is modern roller mills break up the carbohydrate granules in wheat. It means making 'whole wheat flour' by adding back the bran after milling doesn't give you the same thing as more traditional course ground wheat flour. The difference is when the carbohydrate granules are intact it takes much longer for the carbohydrates to hydrolyze and be absorbed in the gut. Rolled four b…

[serious] Is there a reasonable way to eat actual whole grain bread? Every kind I've tried is the worst thing imaginable to attempt to eat...it's a real nightmare. I choke down a half a slice and then have to cleanse my pallet with an entire pizza.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#606

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been suspecting that another problem is modern roller mills break up the carbohydrate granules in wheat. It means making 'whole wheat flour' by adding back the bran after milling doesn't give you the same thing as more traditional course ground wheat flour. The difference is when the carbohydrate granules are intact it takes much longer for the carbohydrates to hydrolyze and be absorbed in the gut. Rolled four b…

[serious] Is there a reasonable way to eat actual whole grain bread? Every kind I've tried is the worst thing imaginable to attempt to eat...it's a real nightmare. I choke down a half a slice and then have to cleanse my pallet with an entire pizza.

1) You get used to it. Eventually you can come to prefer cheap whole grain bread vs cheap white bread.

2) Try non-wheat breads like dark rye. Dense dark ryes like a good seeded deli rye or even a cheap pumpernickel remain moist and chewy without the added sugar, which is why wheat breads tend to have HFCS or honey added. Note that lots of mass market rye breads contain wheat flour, so be careful about making assumptions and generalizing based on a few samples here or there. With wheat flour it will become stale quicker, and there'll be a less complex flavor profile.

3) Try higher quality breads. Note that higher cost does not necessarily imply higher quality, though that's more often true than not at supermarkets. Basically, the point is to get more flavor with minimal cost in carbs and calories. So a sprouted wheat or bread with nuts might help.

4) Maybe you're just a picky eater, which is a real thing. If all you like are, e.g., pizza and french fries and similar foods from childhood, and especially if things like the _texture_ of other common foods are offensive, it might be a psychological thing. Most people have psychological barriers to eating and enjoying different foods. It took me years to learn to tolerate Japanese cuisine--I could eat sashimi, no problem, but the flavors of sushi and Japanese cuisine in general were off-putting, much more so than other cuisines, even ones that weren't to my tastes. With _effort_ I learned to enjoy some of it. A simpler example is ginger--I hated ginger until I didn't. But some people are at the extreme end of the scale and it's much more difficult to learn to enjoy something even with effort. In retrospect, I've probably known several legitimately picky eaters. It's not uncommon AFAIU and it's fair to dial back expectations if that's the case. Indeed, foods with more complex flavors and textures as I recommended above might be overstimulating for picky eaters.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#607
post #551

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think eating a few bowls of rice per day (usually combined with a lot of veggies and some meat) is something that has been done in Asia for a long time, why would it be related to a recent increase in diabetes?

There is more than one kind of rice and some are more healthy than others. White rice used to be reserved for the rich, now it's mainstream all-day food for all, but it is rather poor in nutrients. Also Asia (i assume you mean ready Asia) does know other foods than rice, think various noodles, soups, etc.

As opposed to what other kinds of rice? As far as I know, brown rice is not any worse or better for you, despite popular belief. It's like the difference between HFCS and table sugar. There's a technical difference (e.g. a little more hull with brown rice, or 5% more fructose with HFCS) but it's not really significant in the context of a normal diet.

If you mean different types of wild rice, okay, maybe. But I don't think wild rice was ever a staple in Asia. At least, not in the past few millennia.

Diabetes is likely rising for the same reason it's rising in every other wealthy region.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#608

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whole rice is not as much a problem as polished white rice. You could eat unpolished rice, like brown rice, red rice, etc., depending on what's available locally, that have all the fiber and other nutrients intact. This will also help fill your stomach with lesser quantity than polished white rice because of the fiber that's in them. If you have access to other grains, like quinoa, millets, amaranth, you could use th…

Rice, in general, has a pretty high glycemic index. From: http://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-conditions/glycem... Glycemic index of Brown Rice is 68, White Rice is 73, Coca Cola, in comparison, is only 63. But, what makes white rice so really horrible, is not just the glycemic index, but the glycemic load - the net-impact on blood sugar. It's off the charts huge for a typical 150 gram serving of white rice at…

That's because the Coke is 55% fructose. And most of that 500ml is water, with less than 50 grams of sugar in each can. In other words, there's less than 45 grams of glucose in two cans of Coke.

Fructose won't spike your blood sugar, but it's bad for other reasons, and so I wouldn't necessarily say that two cans of Coke is better than a cup rice.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#609

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…

"The sugar industry has a lot to answer for." I don't get this argument. What do you expect the sugar industry to do, argue for consuming less sugar? It is not the industry's obligation to care for your nutritional well-being. It is the obligation of parents and teachers to be informed and teach kids what good food is. That starts with stopping to watch commercials. Avoiding processed foods in the grocery store and c…

  "Just switch off television to get back common sense."
I'm pretty sure myths and old wives tales existed long before television. At worst television allows myths and untruths to travel faster and more pervasively. But I think generally we're better off with television, especially in a society that values not just individual responsibility but shared responsibility wherein media outlets and commercial interests don't have complete liberty to spout non-sense, like they did 100 years ago. Compared to most under-developed countries the U.S. values more of the latter than you would think. And so major media outlets generally, and television outlets in particular, are much more reliable and truthful than in many other places.

For that reason the internet is probably a net regression in advanced societies. Perhaps people need to watch more television.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#610

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I am sorry to inform you that we don't completely understand anything at all. We barely understand the world and universe around us. To say that we completely understand anything is a fallacy. Also with the scientific method, nothing is set in stone as fact. Anything can change our understand at anytime.

What behavior of light have we observed that the standard model doesn't accurately model? Where is the standard model inaccurate regarding light?
Post reply on HN