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

Sugar industry withheld possible evidence of cancer link 50 years ago

pbs.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 329 posts

Re: Sugar industry withheld possible evidence of cancer link 50 years ago

#241

Post by KozmoNau7 »

chiefalchemist wrote: post #148
ams6110 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason is that in the 1970s and 80s people started freaking out about fat. Everyone from the FDA to USDA to family doctor was telling people fat was bad. So food producers started making fat-free versions of everything. Only problem is it tasted like shit. So what did they do? They added sugar. So now you have sugar added to everything from salad dressing to pasta sauce to bread and muffins. The latter probably h…

I just finished reading "Grain Brain" (as a follow up to "Wheat Belly" a couple yrs ago. GF aside, both books are - or should be - a wake up call. We're eating ourselves ill. So much so we don't even realize it.

Both books are filled with pseudoscience and unfounded speculation. As with any "avoid these specific foodstuffs!" diet, it is destined to fail, because we humans are imperfect, we will not be able to adhere to such diets in the long term, and we will do everything in our power to find loopholes and excuses.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/wheat-belly-arguments-are-based-on-sh...

The only diet* I've had any luck with is the No S Diet: No Snacks, No Sweets, No Seconds, Except (sometimes) on days that start with "S".

So while I agree that cutting out added sugars is a damn good idea, I very much disagree with the unfounded "all carbs and grains are BAD!" alarmism.

It's not perfect, it doesn't make huge promises and it's not going to make the weight magically disappear instantly or even over a period of weeks, it's a long-term thing. But it is straight-forward and (most importantly) relatively easy to adhere to, and it doesn't require massive amount of effort, like diets where you have to count every calorie and in-depth micromanage your nutrients. Of course there is plenty of room for cheating (you could eat a whole plate of chocolate and call it a "meal"), but that's a fault of all diets where you're not actively forced by someone else to adhere to the rules.

Short-term diets are stupid and counterproductive. We don't need diets or temporary crash weight loss, which just leads to yo-yoing. We need actual, lasting lifestyle changes to make sure the weight stays off and we stay healthy.

* http://nosdiet.com/

Re: Sugar industry withheld possible evidence of cancer link 50 years ago

#242

Post by [deleted] »

tigershark wrote: post #204
gregcrv wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was no fat to remove from pasta sauce. Maybe they also figured out that sugar was addictive and added it everywhere to sell even more food with sugar?

You need to add sugar to contrast tomato acidity, it has nothing to do with sugar addiction. And it has been like this since forever, not only from the '70s. Source: even my grandmother added a pinch of sugar when cooking pasta sauce.

[deleted]

Re: Sugar industry withheld possible evidence of cancer link 50 years ago

#243

Post by vanderZwan »

copperx wrote: post #188
AskewEgret wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nanoparticles. They irritate your lungs in ways that are very similar to asbestos irritation. And of course, it's your body's reaction to the irritation that kills you. Example: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acsnano.7b01873

So I'm assuming that includes zinc oxide sunscreen, which is touted as the "least harmful sunscreen" there is.

Well, that a cream, not dust. So is more of a skin issue, so then the question there is whether it penetrates the skin and turns out to do stuff to the tissue underneath.

I guess that the problem with a lot of these things is that we don't have good (enough?) predictive models for long-term damage.

Re: Sugar industry withheld possible evidence of cancer link 50 years ago

#244

Post by KozmoNau7 »

qwerty456127 wrote: post #25

The whole phenomenon of sugar and fructose being added to virtually everything is beyond comprehension. There are so many people, fat and slim, saying they don't want to be fat, yet eating foods with added sugar every day. Why not just replace all the added sugar with erythritol, for example? The whole situation with sugar reminds me of the situation with opium in early 19th century China

Added sugar is the insidious enemy. Forget the anti-grain alarmism and so on, if we can just cut the added sugar from our diets, that's a 80-90% solution that's actually achievable, compared to the insanity of trying to completely cut out all carbs.

We're hard-wired to be attracted to sweet and fatty foods, because those were important back when food was scarce and a calorie surplus was basically unheard of. Now that food is abundant (at least in the developed world) that same hard-wired attraction is a burden that we need to consciously challenge every day.

I'm a big fan of the No S Diet (http://nosdiet.com/ - no affiliation) because it's straight-forward, easy to adhere to and has worked for me. It also doesn't try to sell you anything, it just asks you to cut out added sugars, limit your meals to single servings and to not eat between meals.

Re: Sugar industry withheld possible evidence of cancer link 50 years ago

#245

Post by KozmoNau7 »

tigershark wrote: post #204
gregcrv wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was no fat to remove from pasta sauce. Maybe they also figured out that sugar was addictive and added it everywhere to sell even more food with sugar?

You need to add sugar to contrast tomato acidity, it has nothing to do with sugar addiction. And it has been like this since forever, not only from the '70s. Source: even my grandmother added a pinch of sugar when cooking pasta sauce.

That's actually a good guideline. Treat sugar as seasoning, to be used sparingly.

Re: Sugar industry withheld possible evidence of cancer link 50 years ago

#246

Post by bluewater »

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #106

I recently started the Whole 30 diet (paleo), and it's nearly impossible to avoid sugar, corn starch, and dextrose. Almost all fooeds seem to have one of those. Often for no reason: why put sugar in beans and bacon, or corn starch in turkey? The amount of money I'm spending on food jumped by 3x. It seems accurate to say that if you're poor, you're almost forced to eat sugar for economic reasons.

Just finished my whole30 and it is indeed eye opening what’s in seemingly normal food like you mention. While it was a difficult month I do think it was a worthwile endeavor. Good luck to you! P.S. check your spices, some of those even have added ingredients for shelf life, anti-clumping, color, etc

Re: Sugar industry withheld possible evidence of cancer link 50 years ago

#247

Post by richardknop »

pygy_ wrote: post #237
richardknop wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By focusing on healthy food with higher margin. That could cause people to eat less and be thinner and food companies would keep their revenues because margin would be higher (think free range eggs, chicken that lived outside in good conditions instead of horrible food factories where they are treated horribly).

I actually hope we get there :-) but it would mean that people would have to spend a higher share of their income on food. When it comes to stripping people of their cash, the competition is fierce, and we humans are usually not very good at long term thinking. Guilt- and shame-based marketing is not very effective (boasting health/societal benefits is indirectly guilt tripping people), less than hey look at this shi…

I mean government would need to subsidize food for poor people. Large parts of population today rely on cheap food (prepackaged meals or fast food) because they can't really afford higher quality more expensive food.

So government would need to subsidize healthy food similar to the way it is subsidizing green energy (electric cars for example). And probably tax fast food so that kind of business becomes unprofitable.

Re: Sugar industry withheld possible evidence of cancer link 50 years ago

#248

Post by KozmoNau7 »

zaarn wrote: post #219
crx087 wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sugar in bread is so nasty to me. I can't stand to eat it, yet it's in almost every loaf on the shelf at a supermarket with 50 types.

Even without sugar, bread contains a lot of carbohydrates that break down right into sugar just by coming into contact with the spit in your mouth. If you think that's not true, simply take a sugar-low bread (check the food label, don't just go for organic/whole-grain, those usually have more sugar) and taste it for a while in your mouth. You'll notice it starts to become sweeter in your mouth.

And that's actually not an issue. As you probably know, glucose is the fuel our bodies and brains run on, and while your body can break down proteins to glucose in a pinch, it's not actually healthy (despite what proponents of ketosis diets will tell you). It's especially hard on the kidneys.

As long as you stick to proper bread without the crazy added sugar, and preferably whole grain (actual whole grain, not just marketing "whole grain"), it's not an issue. Unless you try to subsist on literally only bread, of course.

Re: Sugar industry withheld possible evidence of cancer link 50 years ago

#249

Post by KozmoNau7 »

chiefalchemist wrote: post #150
whathaschanged wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If everything you are eating has sugar added, the item you eat without it will taste bitter and/or bland. Or the sugar made the bland (picked early etc) tomatoes used in the sauce more palateable.

Sodium gets paired with sugar to manipulate the tastebuds. Taste has become a hyper-surreal experience.

Most chicken sold is pumped up with water (because water is cheaper than chicken). To bind the water, they add a ton of salt. To counteract the salty taste, they add sugar. As a side effect, it makes skinless boneless chicken breasts less likely to dry out if you overcook them slightly.

The end result is that most people find the taste of non-pumped chicken unappealing, because they're simply used to the faked-up salt/sugar chicken.

Re: Sugar industry withheld possible evidence of cancer link 50 years ago

#250

Post by zaarn »

KozmoNau7 wrote: post #248
zaarn wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even without sugar, bread contains a lot of carbohydrates that break down right into sugar just by coming into contact with the spit in your mouth. If you think that's not true, simply take a sugar-low bread (check the food label, don't just go for organic/whole-grain, those usually have more sugar) and taste it for a while in your mouth. You'll notice it starts to become sweeter in your mouth.

And that's actually not an issue. As you probably know, glucose is the fuel our bodies and brains run on, and while your body can break down proteins to glucose in a pinch, it's not actually healthy (despite what proponents of ketosis diets will tell you). It's especially hard on the kidneys. As long as you stick to proper bread without the crazy added sugar, and preferably whole grain (actual whole grain, not just m…

I'm not talking about various proteins and rather about starch, which is a natural part of a good bread. The enzymes in your mouth and digestive system will break down starch to normal Glucose without a problem.
Post reply on HN