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

81–90 of 230 posts

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

#81

Post by SCdF »

montyf wrote: post #15
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 gene…

> If you're in the US or Europe, you don't have access to fresh coconuts.

What does fresh mean in this context? I can buy them whole from the supermarket…

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

#82

Post by walshemj »

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…

Yes! a while back I had a consolation with a NHS specialist renal dietician and asked about lo salt versions of food /condiments.

They sniffed and said the low salt movement has been very well marketed but what they don't tell you is the "shit" they put in to food to replace the salt - which is actually worse than salt - same with these low fat spreads

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

#83

Post by watwut »

croon wrote: post #41
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…

> The industry maliciously amplifies our innate tendency to find a "one-fits-all" solution. The bogeyman used to be fat, now it's sugar. That isn't a fad though, that is progress. > Soon, people will realize that getting 90% of your caloric intake from protein powders is bad This is obviously already true. You would get protein poisoning very quickly long before you hit your TDEE. > the industry will get ahold of the…

It is not so much progress, as fixing of bad science and bad interpretation of science. The overcorrections and pendulum are not necessities, they are result of bad science and its reporting.

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

#84

Post by walshemj »

shlant wrote: post #60
soneca wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/

No they select for fruits with the longest shelf life for economic reasons

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

#85

Post by SCdF »

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…

> but classic common sense

Common sense is kind of a myth though right? You have no clue what is and isn't good for you: that's the point of people demonizing fat one minute and sugar the next, because you can't just do this on "gut feel".

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

#86

Post by watwut »

cup-of-tea wrote: post #78
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…

More generally I think it's a tendancy for many people to only support binary decision making. This is why many democracies end up with two party systems and everything is just good or bad. So when it comes to food: fat bad, sugar bad, fibre good, etc. Of course, when you actually observe a healthy population such as that of France or Italy, they break all of these stupidly simple rules. It seems to be that the most…

> This is why many democracies end up with two party systems

Are two party systems really worldwide phenomenom enough to claim it is people issue? I thought it is consequence of American constitution or appears in counties with constitutions based on American one.

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

#87

Post by KozmoNau7 »

keymone wrote: post #70
KozmoNau7 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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-...

First of all, you're looking at a mass-produced ("artisinal" is marketing wank) low-fiber generic bread, with a rather low percentage of whole-grain flour.

Not to mention that what the US allows under the umbrella of "whole grain" is problematic.

Secondly, you're completely ignoring the fiber, vitamins and minerals you get from the bread, compared to eating straight refined pure white sugar.

No food is nutrionally perfect, but good whole-grain bread can certainly be an essential part of a balanced and healthy diet.

This war against all carbs is insane. Sure, you should absolutely avoid refined carbs and straight sugar. But that does not make keto/paleo a healthy diet.

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

#88

Post by mathgeek »

perl4ever wrote: post #43
starpilot wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why did we evolve to enjoy the taste of sugar?

Same reason we evolved to have brain receptors for nicotine? See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotinic_acetylcholine_recept... I noticed my ears have a notch that appears to be specifically designed to fit the cord of my earbuds.

I noticed earbuds and their cords are both designed to fit the human ear.

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

#89

Post by manmal »

croon wrote: post #41
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…

> The industry maliciously amplifies our innate tendency to find a "one-fits-all" solution. The bogeyman used to be fat, now it's sugar. That isn't a fad though, that is progress. > Soon, people will realize that getting 90% of your caloric intake from protein powders is bad This is obviously already true. You would get protein poisoning very quickly long before you hit your TDEE. > the industry will get ahold of the…

I largely agree with you.. sugar has been shown extensively as being downright bad for insulin levels, microbiome, hormone levels in general, and lots of other issues.

White flour (in moderation, and always mixed with fat or protein) can be beneficial though as it’s low in lectins (which damage the gut lining and organs like the kidneys and the brain [1]). One (!) slice of white bread is easier on the body than one slice of full corn bread, if you manage to keep your blood sugar level.

[1]: http://www.krispin.com/lectin.html

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

#90

Post by always_good »

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?…

Have you actually though about your own hypothesis beyond the seconds it took to write that post?

For example, you pick on fruit and not all of the vegetables that are even easier to grow like, grabbing at random, green beans?

I guess thanks for the "applied mathematician" disclaimer. Not sure why your job title matters here. I know this is hard to believe after dropping this wisdom bomb but I'm just an airplane engine mechanic out of Texas with 17 years experience! -- Just seems like a bizarre trope I only see on HN.

Post reply on HN