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

Was there ever really a “sugar conspiracy”?

science.sciencemag.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 230 posts

Re: Was there ever really a “sugar conspiracy”?

#11

Post by keymone »

Ancel Keys study which started the low fat craze was absolutely bad science. The way John Yudkin’s career was subverted is certainly evidence of conspiracy.

The article doesn’t make a good job of refuting those claims, especially considering quotes like this one:

> the sugar industry convened a panel of heart disease consultants, including a National Institutes of Health (NIH) scientist, which debated a possible “anti-Yudkin” effort because “although British scientists are critical of him and his flimsy data, he does have the interest of the press.”

Re: Was there ever really a “sugar conspiracy”?

#12

Post by RaceRealist »

A cursory examination and comparison of our anatomy to other mammals makes plain to any impartial observer that we, like other apex predators, are naturally hypercarnivores, if not obligate carnivores, but for reasons of pragmatism, this simply cannot be countenanced, for we cannot feed everyone on meat and animal fat.

Indeed, people practicing a carnivorous diet have found relief from all manner of reputedly incurable conditions and diseases, particularly autoimmune and metabolic disorders.

Re: Was there ever really a “sugar conspiracy”?

#14

Post by keymone »

montyf wrote: post #10

The statements "sugar is bad", "fat is bad", "fat is good" are all equally simplistic and misleading. Fruits are high in naturally-occurring sugars and they are among the healthiest things you can eat. Turns out that nutrition is a pretty complicated science, and there existing various political and special interests influencing the science doesn't help. It's 2018 and I don't think there's even remotely a scientific…

While it is tricky with fats, sugar is never good for you (unless some genetic disease where you die if you don’t consume sugar?).

Fruits are to various degrees beneficial but not in unlimited amounts. Fruits also don’t have a lot of sugar, see the watermelon comment in the other thread.

The problem with sugar is how easy it is in our diets to consume ridiculous amounts of it and how nobody understands that even a little of table sugar is already a ridiculous amount.

P.S. even bigger problem is that people don't understand that all the flours and starches are for all intents and purposes sugar, so it doesn't matter that you only have one teaspoon of sugar with your coffee if you consume it in large quantities in other forms.

Re: Was there ever really a “sugar conspiracy”?

#15

Post by montyf »

amriksohata wrote: post #2

Refined sugar and processed fatsare bad, naturally occuring fats like coconut oil have been lumped together with other fats as bad due to bad science

If you're in the US or Europe, you don't have access to fresh coconuts. The oil you buy comes from far away (do you even know from where?), was processed under God knows what conditions, likely melted and resolidified several times as it changed hands in transit, only to sit in a store for who knows how long and what corners they cut. And this is healthier than eating locally-produced oils that your body is more genetically disposed to eating -- how exactly?

Edit: don't want to rag on you too much, but modern healthy eating trends are saturated with all kinds of insanity.

Re: Was there ever really a “sugar conspiracy”?

#16

Post by endless1234 »

keymone wrote: post #9
ggg9990 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where is the evidence that “processing” or “refining” makes anything worse? In what way is 300 calories of table sugar worse for you than 300 calories of watermelon?

How about the fact that you have to eat a kilogram of watermelon to get 300cal but less than tenth of that with sugar?

So why is a kilogram of watermelon better than 75 grams of sugar?

Re: Was there ever really a “sugar conspiracy”?

#17

Post by John_KZ »

The industry maliciously amplifies our innate tendency to find a "one-fits-all" solution. The bogeyman used to be fat, now it's sugar. Soon, people will realize that getting 90% of your caloric intake from protein powders is bad, the industry will get ahold of the new trend, and they'll start going back to "healthy carbs" or something stupid like that, and people will forget the meat rush of the 2010s and move onto something else that's equally retarded.

Nutrition isn't a solved problem and it won't be for many decades. There's one piece of advice that holds for a long time, and that's to eat a diverse diet and exercise within reasonable extends. Interpretations vary, but giving up on fruit or grain and starch is obviously not part of it.

Re: Was there ever really a “sugar conspiracy”?

#18

Post by qyv »

alecco wrote: post #8
amriksohata wrote: post #2

Refined sugar and processed fatsare bad, naturally occuring fats like coconut oil have been lumped together with other fats as bad due to bad science

Actually, extracted coconut oil is as bad as butter. But whole coconut is good. Probably because of all the fiber it has.

The case against saturated fats is far from conclusive. Let alone coconut oil, with is mostly MCT's (medium chain triglycerides) as opposed to the more common LCT's (long chain triglycerides).

Re: Was there ever really a “sugar conspiracy”?

#19

Post by chepaslaaa »

endless1234 wrote: post #16
keymone wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about the fact that you have to eat a kilogram of watermelon to get 300cal but less than tenth of that with sugar?

So why is a kilogram of watermelon better than 75 grams of sugar?

water and fiber are great for you

Re: Was there ever really a “sugar conspiracy”?

#20

Post by chepaslaaa »

ggg9990 wrote: post #3
amriksohata wrote: post #2

Refined sugar and processed fatsare bad, naturally occuring fats like coconut oil have been lumped together with other fats as bad due to bad science

Where is the evidence that “processing” or “refining” makes anything worse? In what way is 300 calories of table sugar worse for you than 300 calories of watermelon?

The body has a much harder time digesting sugar (and other nutriments too) without fiber, the refining process removes the fiber from the plants that contain sugar.
Post reply on HN