Is Sugar Killing Us? • Hacker News Board

Re: Is Sugar Killing Us?

#181

Post by overgard » Mon, Dec 12, 2016, 7:12 PM UTC

PepeGomez wrote: post #176

overgard wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we both agree that complex carbs are better than refined ones, and there are foods that are somewhat heavy in carbohydrates that are still good for you (kale, for instance). I'm super skeptical that 45-65% of diet being carbohydrates is healthy though. Unlike proteins and fats carbohydrates don't have much nutritional value other than being useful for creating glucose. Since your body can synthesize glucose a…

"the body can synthesize glucose" is a horribly misleading statement. The body can create glucose only by destroying protein and the amount it can create is limited by the buildup of toxic waste the process leaves behind. It's absolutely not the same thing as the body synthesizing vitamin A from carotene. You will be much better off eating carbohydrates, and 45% may be still too little.

I've read a book[1] -- by an actual doctor -- saying the exact opposite. If you think about it from an evolutionary standpoint, our ancestors would have had many times when food accessibility was scarce and they would have needed to maintain their strength through a long fast. An animal that burned muscle/protein over fat is an animal that wouldn't have survived long, that would be a terrible evolutionary disadvantage. The design of our body isn't stupid -- we store fat for a reason, so that we can burn it in times when food is scarce. Burning fat for energy is both normal and totally healthy.

From a personal standpoint, I barely eat any carbs and I've lost zero strength despite dropping 25 pounds. Apparently the diet that has made me thinner and increased my energy and mental clarity is the "dangerous" one, and the diet that has made everyone obese is "healthy" and "balanced".

[1] The Obesity Code by Dr. Jason Fung

Re: Is Sugar Killing Us?

#182

Post by calvano915 » Mon, Dec 12, 2016, 7:13 PM UTC

VLM wrote: post #140

cyeb wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been told my whole life that wheat (or whole-grained and fibrous foods in general) is healthy -- can you elaborate some more?

Fiber seems quite healthy. Something like broccoli is good for you. I don't think there's any serious disagreement with that. By playing enough games with legal serving size, which has no relationship with observed consumption, you can end up with a standard serving of broccoli having twice the fiber as a standard serving of wheat as found in bread, for example. Generally speaking it was very unusual for your ancesto…

Not a huge fan of grains, but in moderation they are perfectly fine. They are used to fatten up livestock but I highly doubt those livestock are being fed an appropriate distribution of macros (carbs, pro, fats) to maintain their health. Seems more like they are fed primarily grains in the weeks before slaughter.

Re: Is Sugar Killing Us?

#183

Post by maneesh » Mon, Dec 12, 2016, 7:19 PM UTC

randomdata wrote: post #55

iopq wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not true, some people can eat a lot of cheese. http://www.irkitated.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/eat-bloc... Things are not as simple as "don't eat sugar"

To be fair, cheese usually contains sugar.

lactose itself IS a sugar. That is what the -ose suffix is.

Re: Is Sugar Killing Us?

#184

Post by overgard » Mon, Dec 12, 2016, 7:21 PM UTC

calvano915 wrote: post #179

overgard wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we both agree that complex carbs are better than refined ones, and there are foods that are somewhat heavy in carbohydrates that are still good for you (kale, for instance). I'm super skeptical that 45-65% of diet being carbohydrates is healthy though. Unlike proteins and fats carbohydrates don't have much nutritional value other than being useful for creating glucose. Since your body can synthesize glucose a…

A large percentage of our dietary need is strictly for energy (via glucose). Carbohydrates are most efficient over fats or protein to fulfill this need, among other needs like fiber intake. Complex ones work best, not only for sustained energy but other benefits as well. Yes we have needs for micronutrients, which are acquired from all of the macros. If your diet is truly varied, balanced, and adequate (in all three…

Ok but, the only reason you would care about getting energy super efficiently/quickly is if you're an athlete. Also while glucose is certainly easier to burn, I've seen evidence that ketones are actually a better source of energy. Since we have an obesity epidemic, and the vast majority of (fat) people are on the diet you're proposing, I would suggest that energy efficiency is not exactly a high priority for most people. If we know that carbohydrates will cause weight gain (not just in humans, but in animals too -- there's a reason why they feed cattle grain and not grass), and we know that the biggest health problem we have right now is obesity, suggesting that people should eat a lot of carbohydrates seems like terrible advice.

And if you're going to suggest that the solution there is to decrease caloric intake, I also think that's bad advice. We know, from type 1 diabetes, that your body doesn't store fat if insulin isn't present. Certain foods have a much stronger insulin response than others, and not surprisingly carbohydrates have a much stronger insulin response than fats. IE, the notion that all calories are equal is not supportable by the scientific evidence. So if the culprit is insulin response, it would make much more sense to adjust what you eat and when you eat it, instead of measuring a number (calories) that isn't that useful anyway.

Re: Is Sugar Killing Us?

#185

Post by overgard » Mon, Dec 12, 2016, 7:41 PM UTC

sametmax wrote: post #178

gtrubetskoy wrote: post #106

What's interesting is that most of the population of this planet does not even realize that glucose is not the only source of energy and that we can be powered entirely by beta-hydroxybutyrate (which comes from fats); our carbohydrate requirement is zero because our body can synthesize all the glucose it needs. Here is a pretty good and scientific talk about what is happening (warning > 1 hour long): https://www.yout…

Yes we evolve from a common ancestor with the monkey, which used to eat mainly fruit, hence sugar.

Fruit tends to be healthy because the sugar (fructose) is wrapped in protein and fiber. In other words, it's very very distilled. That's the reason why eating an orange is a lot healthier than drinking orange juice. But we do know that fructose is VERY bad for you (high fructose corn syrup is much worse than sucrose alone).

Re: Is Sugar Killing Us?

#186

Post by dogma1138 » Mon, Dec 12, 2016, 7:44 PM UTC

iopq wrote: post #96

dogma1138 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Processed cheese like that block of cheese in the meme contains quite a bit of sugar it's added to make it "taste better".

They also don't age it properly, they usually only age it for 18 months or less to realize the return on investment sooner.

thats a give for mass produced cheese and other things like wine, they add "flavoring" instead of aging it properly...

Low fat cheese is also quite bad if you want to avoid sugar / carbs since adding / leaving in the carbs is pretty much the only way to produce a low fat cheese while keeping the same texture (you can increase the proteins but it will make it very stringy and or hard).

Re: Is Sugar Killing Us?

#187

Post by blamonet » Mon, Dec 12, 2016, 7:45 PM UTC

cyeb wrote: post #88

mads wrote: post #45

I firmly believe that sugar not only makes us fat, but also has an effect on the psychological state of certain people (e.g. people with anxiety problems). In my own experience, cutting out sugar (from anything else but fruit) and wheat from my diet has made a big difference.

I've been told my whole life that wheat (or whole-grained and fibrous foods in general) is healthy -- can you elaborate some more?

I've been reading a book called "Grain of Truth." The author defends wheat and blames its industrial processing on its ill effects on the human digestive system. The removal of bran, germ and other vitamins in the process leave the starchy leftovers that are what nutritionists seem to demonize.

Personally I still probably wouldn't eat breads or wheat often, I'll consider it a treat every now and then.

Re: Is Sugar Killing Us?

#188

Post by overgard » Mon, Dec 12, 2016, 7:46 PM UTC

calvano915 wrote: post #132

spilk wrote: post #124

Article is paywalled, but anecdotally, last year I inched past that magic A1C reading where the doctor tells you you are Type 2 Diabetic. I switched to a low-carb/high-fat diet ( https://reddit.com/r/keto ) and fairly rapidly lost 30 pounds while eating things like avocados, eggs, cheese, butter, coconut oil and bacon. Several months of this diet and my A1C has dipped back to almost-normal, not even "pre-diabetic" le…

While keto seems promising in the short term, there isn't much data to validate whether it would be best for "most people". There is a definite concern long term with organ failure associated with ketoacidosis.

Whereas, the "standard" USDA diet has created an obesity epidemic. That is also a definite concern. I would take the diet with insufficient evidence over the diet that has years of evidence in provably not working.

Re: Is Sugar Killing Us?

#189

Post by overgard » Mon, Dec 12, 2016, 7:50 PM UTC

leshow wrote: post #156

spilk wrote: post #124

Article is paywalled, but anecdotally, last year I inched past that magic A1C reading where the doctor tells you you are Type 2 Diabetic. I switched to a low-carb/high-fat diet ( https://reddit.com/r/keto ) and fairly rapidly lost 30 pounds while eating things like avocados, eggs, cheese, butter, coconut oil and bacon. Several months of this diet and my A1C has dipped back to almost-normal, not even "pre-diabetic" le…

almost eliminating one of three macro nutrients probably led you to consume far fewer calories. the reduction is calories is what causes weight loss, this is not a magic effect of consuming less sugar. your body will not lose weight without a reduction in caloric intake, that you successfully lost weight is proof that your new diet was a caloric deficit. i'm glad you had such success, i just wanted to point out to ot…

Calorie cutting is generally useless. Here's a link explaining: http://www.drfranklipman.com/q-dr-jason-fung-book-obesity-co...

I'd read the whole thing, but the first couple paragraphs set the scene:

Obesity is often considered a problem of excessive calories. This caloric obsession has been indoctrinated into all of us since we were children. Too many calories in, too few calories out, or some combination is what we believe leads to weight gain and obesity. If it were indeed true that excess calories leads to weight gain, then the solution is simple: Reduce calories eaten. This has formed the standard dietary advice of the last 50 years. And it has failed spectacularly. Obesity rates have skyrocketed upward despite continual exhortations to cut calories. So, the proof is in the pudding. This advice does not work.

The other major strategy has been to increase exercise. Total calorie expenditure is not simply exercise, but includes basal metabolism. However, basal metabolism is not under conscious control, so it is assumed to be stable. In fact, the basal metabolic rate may increase or decrease up to 40% depending upon many factors, but one major one is caloric intake. But here once again, this advice has failed us.

Exercise comprises a very small proportion of our daily calorie expenditure. Let us assume basal metabolism of 2,000 calories per day. Walking for 45 minutes might burn 100–150 calories. If you’ve ever watched the calorie counter on your treadmill, you’ve probably already noticed how few calories are actually burned. This means that 95% of caloric expenditure is not related to exercise.

Re: Is Sugar Killing Us?

#190

Post by calvano915 » Mon, Dec 12, 2016, 7:51 PM UTC

overgard wrote: post #181

PepeGomez wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"the body can synthesize glucose" is a horribly misleading statement. The body can create glucose only by destroying protein and the amount it can create is limited by the buildup of toxic waste the process leaves behind. It's absolutely not the same thing as the body synthesizing vitamin A from carotene. You will be much better off eating carbohydrates, and 45% may be still too little.

I've read a book[1] -- by an actual doctor -- saying the exact opposite. If you think about it from an evolutionary standpoint, our ancestors would have had many times when food accessibility was scarce and they would have needed to maintain their strength through a long fast. An animal that burned muscle/protein over fat is an animal that wouldn't have survived long, that would be a terrible evolutionary disadvantag…

Fats do not become glucose (with the exception of the glycerol from triglycerides...a minute amount of the total kcals from one trig) but they do become energy. The majority of energy is in fatty acids which have no pathway to glucose.

For example, it is believed that when we sleep our energy comes from fats. We are not doing anything exerting, so the process of (fat catabolism -> energy) >= energy needs. The brain needs glucose however, so it gets it from glycogen catabolism or protein catabolism (gluconeogenesis).

Edit: For some reason I cannot reply to the comment below. The recommendation is 45-65% based upon individual need. I've mentioned elsewhere in this thread that the brain can use ketone bodies.

I disagree that glucose = obesity as you seem to see it. Many, many things (nutrition, PA, stress, hormone issues, etc) are related to obesity.

A lot of what you emphasize is related to the lack of physical activity that the population no longer gets. If we truly want to solve obesity, it takes adjustments to diet and consistent purposeful physical activity. There's a lot that can be done with nutrition, but continuing our highly sedentary ways will always have consequences for health that nutrition alone will not completely solve.