Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Is Sugar Killing Us?

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 274 posts

Re: Is Sugar Killing Us?

#191

Post by cyphar »

cholantesh wrote: post #107
greywolve wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should always google the opposite view points too, and not just consider the main stream opinion on things. There are forums of people that take the opposite viewpoint, and do very well too. It's best to be open minded. We don't have everything figured out yet.

There are forums of people that take the viewpoint that the world is a disc and that the media is run by shapeshifting lizards, too. That doesn't mean they deserve to be taken seriously.

You really skipped several steps between "people who think that excess sugar is bad for you" and "flat-earthers".

Re: Is Sugar Killing Us?

#192

Post by cyphar »

croon wrote: post #158
greywolve wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sugar is just an empty calorie, there's plenty of studies that also show that it has no real net negative effect. The problem is when your diet consists primarily of empty calories, then obviously you are going to have health problems, from lack of nutrients. If your diet is nutrient rich, a bit of extra sugar will not do anything bad.

Sorry, but you are the one that tripped the final wire for me: What exactly is an "empty calorie"? What metric is it low on? It has calories. What is it empty of?

"Nutrients" (according to the parent). The hypothesis being that diabetes is caused by lack of nutrients. But this is clearly false because impoverished countries don't have disproportionately high amounts of diabetes. Not to mention that AFAIK the jury is out on sugar causing diabetes.

Re: Is Sugar Killing Us?

#193

Post by pier25 »

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…

I've switched to a low carb / high protein / high fat diet and it's great. I'm eating lots of food and losing weight along the way. Each Saturday is cheat day and I eat anything I want.

Breaking the sugar / carbs dependency was really difficult for the first weeks but now I'm "fat adapted" as they call it.

I've been doing this diet for a year or so and broken it a few times for weeks at a time. Getting back was super easy and I didn't gain much weight. In 2016 I've lost more than 20 kilos, or about 6 belt notches. I even had to buy a new smaller belt.

If you want to know more about this look for the Atkins diet, 4 hour body diet, keto diet, etc. Those are all variations on the same idea of reducing or eliminating carbs from your diet.

Re: Is Sugar Killing Us?

#194

Post by overgard »

mgarfias wrote: post #43

Recently diagnosed diabetic here. Yes, I'm fat, but no excessively so. When I tell people I'm diabetic they're confused as I don't look the type. What I can say is that I can see the effects of cortisol (stress) on my fasting glucose levels. When my ex does something that causes strife, my glucose levels will be 20-30 pts higher for the next few days. In general, I ate fairly decently, and didn't consume mass amounts…

Stress definitely matters, but honestly you're probably just not eating right (not your fault, most diet advice is rubbish). Type-2 diabetes is mostly about insulin resistance, and you can become insulin resistant without necessarily being fat just by eating things that provoke a strong insulin response. All foods have an insulin response, but generally speaking, from high to low: sugar, refined carbohydrates, unrefined carbohydrates, protein, fat. If you limit things that have a high insulin response you'll probably improve!

Re: Is Sugar Killing Us?

#195

Post by JamesBarney »

overgard wrote: post #185
sametmax wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

I don't think there exists any evidence that high fructose corn syrup is much worse than sucrose. They are pretty close to the same thing.

HFCS is 45-58% glucose, and 42-55% fructose, and sugar is 50% glucose and 50% fructose. There is one more bond in sugar, but enzymes in your gut break that bond apart very quickly.

Re: Is Sugar Killing Us?

#196

Post by calvano915 »

overgard wrote: post #184
calvano915 wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 peo…

I disagree that the vast majority of people are following the dietary guidelines (they aren't just AMDRs) I base my assertions from. However, unless you/I present evidence for either case, it's a non-starter.

You're ignoring the complexities of insulin/components of a healthy diet/physical activity regarding carbohydrates. Technically, you could just eat only protein and survive. Doesn't mean this is the best advice and without many complications.

Of course carbs have higher insulin response as insulin regulates blood sugar uptake. Fats dont produce sugar, therefore insulin is unrelated. And many, many things cause weight gain, including fat intake for some.

Current guidelines allow for up to 35% of total kcals to be fats, with minimal/no risks. This encourages plenty of consumption of fats for energy. Perhaps if we continue our extremely sedentary ways then this will be raised higher in the future.

Re: Is Sugar Killing Us?

#197

Post by overgard »

calvano915 wrote: post #190
overgard wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 n…

Ketone bodies can be used by the brain. It prefers glucose, but you don't absolutely need it.

Lets say for a second you're right and you need glucose, though. 65% is a really high number, and we basically know exactly what it leads to (obesity).

Re: Is Sugar Killing Us?

#198

Post by JamesBarney »

overgard wrote: post #188
calvano915 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are plenty of healthy diets recommended by leading nutritionists and doctors that aren't the food pyramid. And bringing this up as a straw-man doesn't seem to further the discussion.

There are lots of very healthy diets with much more long term data behind them like the Mediterranean diet.

Re: Is Sugar Killing Us?

#199

Post by overgard »

JamesBarney wrote: post #195
overgard wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

I don't think there exists any evidence that high fructose corn syrup is much worse than sucrose. They are pretty close to the same thing. HFCS is 45-58% glucose, and 42-55% fructose, and sugar is 50% glucose and 50% fructose. There is one more bond in sugar, but enzymes in your gut break that bond apart very quickly.

Well, I'm not exactly saying your should eat a bunch of sucrose either, so I might have overstepped by saying it's MUCH worse. But I do think the evidence points to fructose not being good for you, and it's certainly not better than other sugars.

Re: Is Sugar Killing Us?

#200

Post by overgard »

JamesBarney wrote: post #198
overgard wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are plenty of healthy diets recommended by leading nutritionists and doctors that aren't the food pyramid. And bringing this up as a straw-man doesn't seem to further the discussion. There are lots of very healthy diets with much more long term data behind them like the Mediterranean diet.

The food pyramid is literally taught to every child in the united states, and, uh, we're kind of a fat nation. I think it's totally fair to call it out, it's not a straw-man, the government is literally forcing bad advice on people that's making them fat.
Post reply on HN