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

261–270 of 274 posts

Re: Is Sugar Killing Us?

#261

Post by overgard »

croon wrote: post #255
overgard wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, a "calorie" is just a measurement of energy produced when something is burned. Like, really, that's it. Proteins have specific uses, and some of them can't be produced by your body, so that would be an example of a "non-empty" calorie. Same thing with lipids. Carbohydrates are, essentially, sugar. (Once they're broken down). Obviously you can use them for energy, and they're useful in that regard, but once you ha…

Your answer is informative, so I can't fault you for that, but I already know this. I asked because "empty calories" is (almost) always uttered in the same breath as either 1) no real information or 2) comparing to other carbohydrates. I do however take issue with this: > but once you have "enough" carbohydrates to fuel whatever activity you're doing adding more just causes your body to convert them into fat. So, tha…

Well sure, eating too much of any nutrient is not great. Think of it this way, if you just ate a bag of sugar everyday you'd have energy but be malnourished. Hence why theyre empty.

Re: Is Sugar Killing Us?

#262

Post by taeric »

overgard wrote: post #261
croon wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your answer is informative, so I can't fault you for that, but I already know this. I asked because "empty calories" is (almost) always uttered in the same breath as either 1) no real information or 2) comparing to other carbohydrates. I do however take issue with this: > but once you have "enough" carbohydrates to fuel whatever activity you're doing adding more just causes your body to convert them into fat. So, tha…

Well sure, eating too much of any nutrient is not great. Think of it this way, if you just ate a bag of sugar everyday you'd have energy but be malnourished. Hence why theyre empty.

I believe it is quite literally a contraction from the saying "empty of nutritional content." (If this helps.)

Re: Is Sugar Killing Us?

#263

Post by stevep98 »

Periodic wrote: post #161
jerf wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"caffeine (withdrawal symptoms)," Do you mean that the caffeine itself doesn't bother you (above its expected effect), but that the withdrawal is pretty rough? I'm curious, because I also have celiac, and I've also ended up dropping caffeine because it was getting to be too much of a pain to manage it whenever I had to do without for some reason (travel mostly). I've noticed I have no grace with it; if I drink a 20oz…

Caffeine is known to have withdrawal symptoms. Those headaches, for me in the face and forehead, seem to be a common symptom. As I went through my 20s I experimented with abandoning coffee a few times. I had developed the habit in college and I wanted to ensure that I was continuing to drink coffee for the benefits and not simply because I was addicted to it. This meant that I did handful of experiments with not drin…

I had horrible heacahes from ~16-19 years old... I never made the connection until a professor in college mentioned 'caffeine withdrawal headache', and it totally clicked. And I switched to decaf for the next 15 years. Totally paranoid about waitresses filling my coffee cup up with the wrong pot.

However, a couple of years ago, I noticed that I can actually drink caffeine without getting any withdrawal problems at all, making me think it was all in my head...

Re: Is Sugar Killing Us?

#264

Post by mastazi »

dandelion_lover wrote: post #259
mastazi wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a paper but at least it's a reference to a paper from a reputable source. Now the problem is I couldn't find the part where it says eat 1kg of butter per day. So how does this counter the parent comment?

I see no reasoning about 1 kg of butter anywhere in the parent comment. The source I provided proofs that most people eat much more sugar than it is advised/healthy and indeed should drastically decrease their sugar consumption. Of course you should not stop eating any sugar. You need 24-36 gramms/day [0]. What you should stop consuming is added sugar. Your food will contain enough sugar anyway. [0] https://www.hsph.…

My comment did not state that it's OK to consume added sugar though. I was criticising the "once you cut sugar, anything else is OK" approach, which has been popularised by media in recent times and has no scientific validity whatsoever.

Re: Is Sugar Killing Us?

#265

Post by croon »

overgard wrote: post #261
croon wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your answer is informative, so I can't fault you for that, but I already know this. I asked because "empty calories" is (almost) always uttered in the same breath as either 1) no real information or 2) comparing to other carbohydrates. I do however take issue with this: > but once you have "enough" carbohydrates to fuel whatever activity you're doing adding more just causes your body to convert them into fat. So, tha…

Well sure, eating too much of any nutrient is not great. Think of it this way, if you just ate a bag of sugar everyday you'd have energy but be malnourished. Hence why theyre empty.

The same would be true with eating a bag of rice. Is rice empty calories?

I'll say it again: Talking about "empty calories" is in my experience always when masking a lack of real nutritional knowledge. Because when I hear it it's always comparing one sugar with another carb (eg flour), or sometimes even better comparing sugar with honey, as if that is any better.

If what you mean by "empty calories" is foods with only carbs and no proteins or fats, then I agree it could be a useful term. If you mean something else I'd like to know more about your reasoning.

Re: Is Sugar Killing Us?

#266

Post by croon »

taeric wrote: post #262
overgard wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well sure, eating too much of any nutrient is not great. Think of it this way, if you just ate a bag of sugar everyday you'd have energy but be malnourished. Hence why theyre empty.

I believe it is quite literally a contraction from the saying "empty of nutritional content." (If this helps.)

From Wikipedia: "A nutrient is a component in foods that an organism uses to survive and grow. "

I'd say the primary for survival is energy. Sugars (carbs) are very high on that. There are of course secondary nutrients like eg amino acids in protein that are very important.

What is in your opinion "nutritional content"?

Re: Is Sugar Killing Us?

#267

Post by taeric »

croon wrote: post #266
taeric wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe it is quite literally a contraction from the saying "empty of nutritional content." (If this helps.)

From Wikipedia: "A nutrient is a component in foods that an organism uses to survive and grow. " I'd say the primary for survival is energy. Sugars (carbs) are very high on that. There are of course secondary nutrients like eg amino acids in protein that are very important. What is in your opinion "nutritional content"?

My opinion ultimately doesn't matter on this. I was just speaking to the saying.

That said, it is trivial to find primary items for survival if we just discuss things you would die without. Consider, water has zero calories, but you would die without it.

Re: Is Sugar Killing Us?

#268

Post by croon »

taeric wrote: post #267
croon wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From Wikipedia: "A nutrient is a component in foods that an organism uses to survive and grow. " I'd say the primary for survival is energy. Sugars (carbs) are very high on that. There are of course secondary nutrients like eg amino acids in protein that are very important. What is in your opinion "nutritional content"?

My opinion ultimately doesn't matter on this. I was just speaking to the saying. That said, it is trivial to find primary items for survival if we just discuss things you would die without. Consider, water has zero calories, but you would die without it.

But your interpretation of nutrients do color your interpretation of "empty calories". Unless proven otherwise, I'll stand by that it's a useless phrase distracting from the conversation of nutrition.

Re: Is Sugar Killing Us?

#269

Post by taeric »

croon wrote: post #268
taeric wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My opinion ultimately doesn't matter on this. I was just speaking to the saying. That said, it is trivial to find primary items for survival if we just discuss things you would die without. Consider, water has zero calories, but you would die without it.

But your interpretation of nutrients do color your interpretation of "empty calories". Unless proven otherwise, I'll stand by that it's a useless phrase distracting from the conversation of nutrition.

It is a shortening of "empty [of nutrient providing] calories." This is pretty straight forward. If you were to eat nothing but sugar every day, you would die. Same as if you drank water, which is "empty of caloric or nutritional" content.

Are they worthless? No. They do provide caloric value. But they do not provide any nutritional value. This isn't even really at debate, is it?

Re: Is Sugar Killing Us?

#270

Post by webkike »

mastazi wrote: post #222
webkike wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not actually true, depending on your definition of "doing good". If you eliminate carbohydrates and eat a high protein/fat diet you are more than likely to lose weight.

High protein, maybe, hi fat, not really sure. Sources?

Assuming you eliminate all carbohydrates: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketogenic_diet
Post reply on HN