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

51–60 of 230 posts

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

#51

Post by keymone »

Arn_Thor wrote: post #45
starpilot wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why did we evolve to enjoy the taste of sugar?

We enjoy the taste of sweetness because it tends in nature to indicate that the thing we're eating contains a lot of energy, such as fruits and sweet vegetables. And we underestimate how finely attuned this sense is. Chew on wheat for a little bit and it will begin to taste sweet as the starch breaks down in your mouth and turns into sugar. Sugar is ridiculously sweet. Anyone who's laid off sweets for a few weeks or…

> it will begin to taste sweet as the starch breaks down in your mouth and turns into sugar

are you sure about this? wheat doesn't have any fructose, and it's the fructose in sugar that gives it sweetness. glucose is taste-neutral.

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

#52

Post by shlant »

keymone wrote: post #31
stinos wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 contradic…

> Sources? https://www.google.de/search?q=sugar+insulin+resistance+pubm... > in moderation it's not harmfull define "in moderation".

please don't provide such lazy sources for your broad generalizations. I would challenge you to provide a study that used WHOLE fruit as the variable (not fruit juice or sugar alone) and showed it had a negative effect on insulin response.

In an effort to do as I say, here are some studies/articles showing the opposite:

1. http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/jou...

2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3836143/

3. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3978819/

4. http://www.berkeleywellness.com/healthy-eating/food/article/...

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

#53

Post by keymone »

shlant wrote: post #52
keymone wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sources? https://www.google.de/search?q=sugar+insulin+resistance+pubm... > in moderation it's not harmfull define "in moderation".

please don't provide such lazy sources for your broad generalizations. I would challenge you to provide a study that used WHOLE fruit as the variable (not fruit juice or sugar alone) and showed it had a negative effect on insulin response. In an effort to do as I say, here are some studies/articles showing the opposite: 1. http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/jou... 2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov…

what is your point? fruits are infinitely better than sugar. fruits still contain sugar, which is why it is recommended not to drink too much fruit juice.

what specifically are you contesting about the claim that sugar causes insulin spikes?

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

#54

Post by esailija »

gerardnll wrote: post #30
starpilot wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Plain vegetables are not palatable because they have very little nutritional value, like saw dust. If you were as rewarded for eating vegetables as you are for foods with actual nutritional value you would quickly be malnourished. If you ate a vegetable only meal you wouldn't even absorb the fat soluble vitamins from them because they don't have any fat.

In the wild where the immediate pressure is on getting enough calories and macronutrients while lack of micronutrients only cause problems in the long term, any human wasting energy collecting and digesting food that doesn't have calories and macronutrients (vegetables) would be quickly weeded out.

Look at the nutritional information of any vegetable for yourself. Fruits, nuts, legumes, grains, potatoes etc all come with the fiber, vitamins and minerals that misinformed people think can only come from vegetables while also being loaded with calories, protein and essential fatty acids all which are pretty much completely lacking in vegetables.

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

#55

Post by Rainymood »

Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.

Personally, I conjured up the following hypothesis and think it might be somewhat correct. Note that I am not a biologist/nutritionist (I'm an applied mathematician) so bear with me. What I claim is the following:

> The less some kind of food wants to be eaten, the healthier it is.

For example, fruit wants to be eaten (hence its sweet) to reproduce and spread it seeds. Verdict? Not so healthy. Offal, however, is significantly harder to acquire (you'd have to kill a beast, which is a group task). Verdict? Extremely healthy.

I'd love to have some comments on my theory from more knowledgeable people.

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

#56

Post by Valmar »

ec109685 wrote: post #47
pharrington wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need carbohydrates for energy. Glucose is the primary source of energy for almost every food consuming organism. Too much sugar is harmful, yes, but don't say things that aren't true.

You don’t need to consume carbohydrates for energy. You can live off of fat and protein.

The Eskimos traditional diet is a good example of this. Their diet also includes organ meats, so they got all of their vitamins and minerals in good amounts.

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

#57

Post by Valmar »

gerardnll wrote: post #21
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.

Fructose is unhealthy... but glucose is healthy. How they are metabolized is key. :)

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

#58

Post by Valmar »

sgift wrote: post #38
alecco wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> extracted coconut oil is as bad as butter So, it's great as there's no evidence that butter is bad.

I wonder... how common was heart disease before saturated fats were demonized, and ultra-processed plant oils were pushed as the "healthier" alternative? What about after?

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

#59

Post by shlant »

pharrington wrote: post #42
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 high in naturally-occurring sugars and they are among the healthiest things you can eat. Can you be precise about what you mean by this, or at least qualify this statement? Modern fruit obviously pushes the definition of "natural" to it's absolute limits, but more importantly, it's at least deeply unintuitive that something that consists mostly of fructose, a little fiber, trace metals, the rare vitamin,…

Yet another poster on HN, just echoing the platitudes of keto/paleo...

> Modern fruit obviously pushes the definition of "natural" to it's absolute limits

Modern fruit is not much different nutritionally from wild fruit[1]. Sure, some ancient fruit like bananas were pretty inedible, but that is a far cry from what keto/paleo dogma suggests. As an anecdote, I am living in Borneo right now, and we can go out into the jungles of some of the most untouched land in the world and find the sweetest fruits we have ever tasted.

> it's at least deeply unintuitive that something that consists mostly of fructose, a little fiber, trace metals, the rare vitamin

I think by "deeply unintuitive" you mean "when compared to my beliefs". Fruit is some of the most nutritionally dense and healthy foods you can eat (I don't think I need to source this, but will if you refuse to yourself). HIGH in fibre, vitamins, phytonutrients, antioxidants, enzymes etc.

> and next to no protein or fat could be considered healthy.

And here again you reveal your beliefs/dogma. The MACROnutrient content of a food tells you nothing about how healthy it is.

1. https://deniseminger.com/2011/05/31/wild-and-ancient-fruit/

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

#60

Post by shlant »

soneca wrote: post #28
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.

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

Source? Here is some information to the contrary:

https://deniseminger.com/2011/05/31/wild-and-ancient-fruit/

Post reply on HN