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

111–120 of 230 posts

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

#111

Post by keymone »

TrisMcC wrote: post #107
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…

> Fruits are to various degrees beneficial but not in unlimited amounts. You cannot eat too much fruit. https://nutritionfacts.org/2017/02/23/can-you-eat-too-much-f...

you can, in form of fruit juice. many confuse the two.

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

#112

Post by walshemj »

BeetleB wrote: post #106
walshemj wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

>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 I'm eternally annoyed by statements like these: Low salt diet is bad because it is replaced by things worse than salt. Low sugar diet is bad because artificial sweeteners are worse. Low fat diet…

Yes but if a professional who deals with renal patients says it as mine did ? I am going to take their advice over Jamie Oliver et al?

I actually reduced salt by using other spices

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

#113

Post by keymone »

KozmoNau7 wrote: post #87
keymone wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 pe…

> you're completely ignoring the fiber

how come? 33% is net carbs, which is carbs minus fiber.

i'm not advocating for paleo or keto here. just saying that people overeat simple sugars and often don't know the source.

i also don't agree keto/paleo is unhealthy. gotta provide sources for claims like that.

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

#114

Post by KozmoNau7 »

keymone wrote: post #113
KozmoNau7 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pe…

> you're completely ignoring the fiber how come? 33% is net carbs, which is carbs minus fiber. i'm not advocating for paleo or keto here. just saying that people overeat simple sugars and often don't know the source. i also don't agree keto/paleo is unhealthy. gotta provide sources for claims like that.

Bread provides additional quality nutrition, compared to straight sugar. That's my point. Not every foodstuff needs to be nutritionally complete and macro nutrient balanced.

The keto diet is widely acknowledged to be a bad choice. Here's just one summary: https://www.thedailymeal.com/healthy-eating/keto-ranked-wors...

Keto diets are useful as medical tools, but they absolutely should not be used generally by otherwise healthy people.

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

#115

Post by gerardnll »

esailija wrote: post #54
gerardnll wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

I haven't seen any study suggesting eating vegetables is cancerous but have seen a few from meat and processed meat (studies from the WHO). I'm not vegan, but meat is 30% of my diet. If vegetables are that bad in nutritional value, why can you survive being vegan and just taking vitamin B12 complements?

I think using palatability as a way of measuring nutritional quality is not going to help you in the context of a society raised on ultraprocessed foods, because sugar, salt and other chemicals give taste to food without giving it nutritional value.

If vegetables don't give you as many calories as meat and as you say: "...any human wasting energy collecting and digesting food that doesn't have calories and macronutrients (vegetables) would be quickly weeded out", why there are so many animals still alive after millions of years eating plants (some of them eating many kilograms every day)?

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

#116

Post by switch007 »

Valmar wrote: post #58
sgift wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Good, step one: make an observation. For the remaining steps, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVnuFY20st0 :P

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

#117

Post by TrisMcC »

keymone wrote: post #111
TrisMcC wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Fruits are to various degrees beneficial but not in unlimited amounts. You cannot eat too much fruit. https://nutritionfacts.org/2017/02/23/can-you-eat-too-much-f...

you can, in form of fruit juice. many confuse the two.

I never mentioned juice. I was talking about fruit. Stop trying to equate the two.

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

#118

Post by asokoloski »

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

Coconut oil is not a naturally occurring fat, unless you're eating it as part of a coconut. It's just as bad for you as other saturated fats (unfortunately, because it's super tasty): https://nutritionfacts.org/video/coconut-oil-and-the-boost-i...

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

#119

Post by orbifold »

rurban wrote: post #74
Valmar wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

300 calories of glucose is going to be far healthier than 300 calories of fructose, because of how they are metabolized by the body.

You mean obviously the other way round. It's the typical US/UK propaganda. Frucose doesn't go directly into blood as glucose (the basic energy form) and galactose (-> milk). Wikipedia: "The European Food Safety Authority stated that fructose is preferable over sucrose and glucose in sugar-sweetened foods and beverages because of its lower effect on postprandial blood sugar levels". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruct…

Glucose is harmless and can be metabolised by any cell in your body, while Fructose can only be metabolised by your liver and produced a bunch of undesirable metabolic end products in the process. It also blocks leptin, the antagonist of insulin and therefore messes with your metabolic regulation, while glucose does none of that. If you feed rats large amounts of glucose they will get a very big liver but stay otherwise healthy, if you feed them fructose they will develop diabetes... This is all very well known.

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

#120

Post by nwah1 »

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…

Isomaltulose is a component of the drink Soylent. It is a disaccharide that was specifically chosen for its health properties. Table sugar is also a disaccharide
Post reply on HN