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

61–70 of 230 posts

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

#61

Post by shlant »

keymone wrote: post #53
shlant wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It seems like you didn't read your own post.

> sugar is never good for you

Fruits contain sugar, fruits are very good for you. Does that answer "what is your point?" The OP of the thread said "Fruits are high in naturally-occurring sugars and they are among the healthiest things you can eat." That's what we are discussing.

> which is why it is recommended not to drink too much fruit juice.

Nobody is talking about fruit juice in this thread.

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

#62

Post by keymone »

shlant wrote: post #61
keymone wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It seems like you didn't read your own post. > sugar is never good for you Fruits contain sugar, fruits are very good for you. Does that answer "what is your point?" The OP of the thread said "Fruits are high in naturally-occurring sugars and they are among the healthiest things you can eat." That's what we are discussing. > which is why it is recommended not to drink too much fruit juice. Nobody is talking about fru…

fruits are good because of things that sugar doesn't have.

and it seems you haven't read my comment past the first sentence, because i specifically wrote about fruits there.

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

#63

Post by shlant »

Rainymood wrote: post #55

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?…

> Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.

This is the simplest and most sound nutritional advice so far. Nothing complicated, has stood the test of time, maintainable when done reasonably, shown over and over again to be extremely healthy [1][2][3][4][5]

1. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/plant-based...

2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3565018/

3. http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PII0140-673...

4. https://www.health.harvard.edu/heart-health/halt-heart-disea...

5. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4315380/

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

#64

Post by shlant »

keymone wrote: post #62
shlant wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like you didn't read your own post. > sugar is never good for you Fruits contain sugar, fruits are very good for you. Does that answer "what is your point?" The OP of the thread said "Fruits are high in naturally-occurring sugars and they are among the healthiest things you can eat." That's what we are discussing. > which is why it is recommended not to drink too much fruit juice. Nobody is talking about fru…

fruits are good because of things that sugar doesn't have . and it seems you haven't read my comment past the first sentence, because i specifically wrote about fruits there.

> fruits are good because of things that sugar doesn't have.

> sugar is never good for you

You are contradicting yourself. Would you like to amend your original statement?

> and it seems you haven't read my comment past the first sentence, because i specifically wrote about fruits there.

I am not refuting the fact that our diets have too much sugar. I am only addressing the sweeping generalizing that "sugar is never good for you".

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

#65

Post by keymone »

shlant wrote: post #64
keymone wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

fruits are good because of things that sugar doesn't have . and it seems you haven't read my comment past the first sentence, because i specifically wrote about fruits there.

> fruits are good because of things that sugar doesn't have. > sugar is never good for you You are contradicting yourself. Would you like to amend your original statement? > and it seems you haven't read my comment past the first sentence, because i specifically wrote about fruits there. I am not refuting the fact that our diets have too much sugar. I am only addressing the sweeping generalizing that "sugar is never…

> Would you like to amend your original statement?

no. sugar is never good for you. fruits are good because of stuff that is not sugar. there is no contradiction.

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

#66

Post by KozmoNau7 »

John_KZ wrote: post #17

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 s…

"Eat food, not too much, mostly plants" is still the best and most succinct advice I have heard.

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

#67

Post by esailija »

keymone wrote: post #50
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 need carbohydrates for energy no you don't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluconeogenesis > Glucose is the primary source of energy for almost every food consuming organism yeah, those carnivores consume so much carbohydrates! > Too much sugar is harmful, yes, but don't say things that aren't true. the problem is with public perception of what is "too much" - it has to be lowered significantly and people have t…

> no you don't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluconeogenesis

That doesn't refute his argument.

> yeah, those carnivores consume so much carbohydrates!

Fresh raw meat actually has a good amount of carbs. The muscle glycogen (animal equivalent of plant starch) starts to turn into lactic acid after death, but it's there for a carnivore that immediately starts eating after the kill. Also carnivores have jacked up gluconeogenesis. Carbohydrates are vital for carnivores who need to use anaerobic energy system to catch prey. They might not be vital for coach potato ketoers.

People usually claim that Inuits somehow survive without carbs but that's not true at all. Inuits are eating 15-20% of their calories as carbs in the form of muscle glycogen: https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/25/8/737/4733245

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

#68

Post by keymone »

esailija wrote: post #67
keymone wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You need carbohydrates for energy no you don't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluconeogenesis > Glucose is the primary source of energy for almost every food consuming organism yeah, those carnivores consume so much carbohydrates! > Too much sugar is harmful, yes, but don't say things that aren't true. the problem is with public perception of what is "too much" - it has to be lowered significantly and people have t…

> no you don't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluconeogenesis That doesn't refute his argument. > yeah, those carnivores consume so much carbohydrates! Fresh raw meat actually has a good amount of carbs. The muscle glycogen (animal equivalent of plant starch) starts to turn into lactic acid after death, but it's there for a carnivore that immediately starts eating after the kill. Also carnivores have jacked up glucon…

> That doesn't refute his argument

how come? gluconeogenesis is how body gets glucose from non-carbbohydrate sources. his argument was "You need carbohydrates for energy". you don't.

> muscle glycogen

fair enough. the comment about carnivores was not entirely correct.

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

#69

Post by KozmoNau7 »

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…

>all the flours and starches are for all intents and purposes sugar

Only if you look at the most refined and treated flours. Overly refined and bleached flour is obviously not great nutritionally, as with all processed foods.

Even just unbleached wheat flour is significantly better, and whole grain types are much better, plenty of fiber and vitamins/minerals.

I hope you're not claiming a good wholegrain mixed-grain sourdough bread is the same as eating white sugar.

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

#70

Post by keymone »

KozmoNau7 wrote: post #69
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…

>all the flours and starches are for all intents and purposes sugar Only if you look at the most refined and treated flours. Overly refined and bleached flour is obviously not great nutritionally, as with all processed foods. Even just unbleached wheat flour is significantly better, and whole grain types are much better, plenty of fiber and vitamins/minerals. I hope you're not claiming a good wholegrain mixed-grain s…

> I hope you're not claiming a good wholegrain mixed-grain sourdough bread is the same as eating white sugar.

no, it's the same as eating 33% of that weight in white sugar, but of course ymmv

https://www.eatthismuch.com/food/view/sourdough-whole-grain-...

Post reply on HN