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

21–30 of 230 posts

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

#21

Post by gerardnll »

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…

When we say "sugar is bad" we refer to the 'simple sugars' found in ultraprocessed foods, not the slow absorption ones.

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

#22

Post by [deleted] »

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?

[deleted]

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

#23

Post by starpilot »

keymone wrote: post #14
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 li…

Why did we evolve to enjoy the taste of sugar?

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

#24

Post by RaceRealist »

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…

This is just baseless dogma.

The most nutritious and healthiest foods you can eat are organ meats of ruminants, particularly liver, but also brain and kidney. You can live indefinitely on pemmican, which consists of nothing but muscle and animal fat. A lean person would last no longer than a year, probably much less, on fruits alone.

Frankenfruits, i.e. modern cultivars, which bear little to no resemblance to their naturally-occuring predecessors, have a relative dearth of nutrients. They are as artificial as bread, chocolate, or cookies, and likely just as harmful.

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

#25

Post by stinos »

keymone wrote: post #14
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 li…

sugar is never good for you

Sources? I mean, I always thought just like with most things out there, in moderation it's not harmfull. But you are saying any amount is not good? Also by that logic fruit is also bad because it does contain a certain amount ('not a lot') of sugar, no? tldr; I don't completely get the point you are making due to possibly incorrect definitions (what types of sugar?) and seemingly contradicting/overly generalizing statements.

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

#27

Post by coldtea »

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?

For starters, because you can much more quickly and easily eat "300 calories of table sugar" (e.g. by drinking sodas or some sweet) than 300 calories of watermelon.

Second, because 300 calories of watermelon will come with all kinds of vitamins (including C and A), and lots of water.

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

#28

Post by soneca »

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…

Fruits are artificially high in naturally-occurring sugars. Fruits we have today are all fruits of artificial selection of the most sweet.

Fruits arent that good because of this.

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

#29

Post by keymone »

starpilot wrote: post #23
keymone wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 li…

Why did we evolve to enjoy the taste of sugar?

i don't think it is a right question. it's like asking why did we evolve to get high on morphine?

sure, there definitely are evolutionary benefits to being able to taste sugar and like it, as that will help you to spot nutrients, but this has little to do with the way we industrialized sugar production and consumption in last 200 years. rice, wheat and potatoes are not even sweet but in some countries those are primary sources of glucose.

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

#30

Post by gerardnll »

starpilot wrote: post #23
keymone wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 li…

Why did we evolve to enjoy the taste of sugar?

Because you take sweet ultraprocessed food since your a baby. Then, children don't like veggies.
Post reply on HN