Was there ever really a “sugar conspiracy”? • Hacker News Board

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

#121

Post by autokad » Tue, Feb 20, 2018, 2:31 PM UTC

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 "

No no no no. the industry reacted to government intervention (bad intervention, as usual). the industry didnt want to change what it was selling, they said the food would taste bad if we removed the fats. but the government always gets what it wants.

and bogeyman policy is how things work. hey look, a boogeyman, fund my "research". then you can write books, hold paid talks/conferences, get hugely paid government positions, etc.

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

#122

Post by iambateman » Tue, Feb 20, 2018, 2:32 PM UTC

Perhaps there was no sugar conspiracy. In that case, an entire industry (along with government nutrition teams) went along with an incorrect theory for so long that it accounted for millions of chronic illnesses and trillions of dollars spent in the wrong direction.

So there was no conspiracy. It seems - in either case - to be one of the greatest misapplications of science in history. At least the “flat earth” theory didn’t pump people full of expensive “alternative foods” while making generations progressively sicker.

Even if there was no conspiracy, I think consumers ought to be furious that they were “fed” 50 years of bad info. We will spend generations trying to undo the habits and ingrained “wisdom” that have developed around fat and sugar. Meanwhile the food industry is allowed to put in as much sugar as they like. You can’t give a child a cigarette, but you can hand them 17 teaspoons of sugar for lunch in the form of a single Coca Cola.

I feel like we within HN live in an echo chamber with respect to nutrition. The reality is that I worked at Chick fil A for 5 years and probably served 5,000 milkshakes for breakfast.

Who cares if there was a conspiracy in the 60’s. We need way more cultural attention on this issue for today.

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

#123

Post by maloney » Tue, Feb 20, 2018, 2:34 PM UTC

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…

Fructose is metabolized almost entirly by the liver which might make it better for blood sugar levels but it’s signifacantly worse on the liver.

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

#124

Post by Jedi72 » Tue, Feb 20, 2018, 2:34 PM UTC

gerardnll wrote: post #39

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…

That's because people expect the food industry to solve the same nutrition problems they put you into. Nutrition is solved if you take veggies, fish, meat, etc. Whole foods, not ultraprocessed. And make exercise. But that doesn't give them money and does not attach you to ultraprocessed foods like a drug (yes, simple sugars found in ultraprocessed foods keep you attached at them like a drug. It has been proved to aff…

Found the 24 yr old male

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

#125

Post by appleshore » Tue, Feb 20, 2018, 2:36 PM UTC

While I appreciate the article, it seems analogous to asking, was there ever really a "drug dealing conspiracy"? When you have an industry worth hundreds of billions, individuals will "collaborate" and "market" their interests in the most "effective" way possible.

If you doubt that a conspiracy exists, watch Fed Up narrated by Katie Couric. If Michelle Obama, as the First Lady to the President of the United States, can't reform the food industry without serious pressure on her, causing her to modify her stance, then yes there is a real sinister force promoting cheap, profitable food that happens to be carbohydrate-based.

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

#126

Post by FussyZeus » Tue, Feb 20, 2018, 2:37 PM UTC

iambateman wrote: post #122

Perhaps there was no sugar conspiracy. In that case, an entire industry (along with government nutrition teams) went along with an incorrect theory for so long that it accounted for millions of chronic illnesses and trillions of dollars spent in the wrong direction. So there was no conspiracy. It seems - in either case - to be one of the greatest misapplications of science in history. At least the “flat earth” theory…

I always find it interesting that it's never enough for any given person or group (be it corporation, Government agency, etc.) to be simply wrong, they also have to be evil in some capacity in order for people to get interested in retelling the story.

IMHO, no, there was no sugar "conspiracy" merely the financial motives at play where companies wanted to continue producing foods they knew were unhealthy, addictive and extremely profitable. Wanting to be profitable doesn't make a company intrinsically evil, that's what companies are for.

There is plenty to say about many industries where it's clear they didn't know certain things about their products because they didn't want to know those things, but retroactively trying to hold them responsible is ridiculous. Instead, focus on companies pulling that exact same stunt right now when it's useful.

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

#127

Post by orbifold » Tue, Feb 20, 2018, 2:39 PM UTC

KozmoNau7 wrote: post #114

keymone wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 otherwis…

This is a bullshit link if I ever saw one... I mean of course the Department of Agriculture will recommend a high carb diet, given that they are mostly concerned for an agricultural sector that produces corn and other grains en masse...

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

#128

Post by keymone » Tue, Feb 20, 2018, 2:43 PM UTC

TrisMcC wrote: post #117

keymone wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

ffs.. how on earth from me saying

> many confuse the two

you made the conclusion that i'm trying to equate the two?

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

#129

Post by exhilaration » Tue, Feb 20, 2018, 2:46 PM UTC

walshemj wrote: post #112

BeetleB wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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

You might be interested in this article: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/its-time-to-end-t...

"The zealous drive by politicians to limit our salt intake has little basis in science"

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

#130

Post by keymone » Tue, Feb 20, 2018, 2:46 PM UTC

KozmoNau7 wrote: post #114

keymone wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 otherwis…

> keto diet is widely acknowledged to be a bad choice

"Keto Is Ranked the Worst Diet by Health Experts"

are those the same "experts" that have been recommending people to reduce their fat intake for the last 4 decades, effectively increasing sugar consumption and being responbsible for literally millions of dead people around the world?

sorry if i won't take you seriously anymore.