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

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

#131

Post by KozmoNau7 » Tue, Feb 20, 2018, 2:47 PM UTC

orbifold wrote: post #127

KozmoNau7 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

The Department of Agriculture reference is only in there for context, they didn't conduct the survey.

Your conspiracy theories are showing.

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

#132

Post by exhilaration » Tue, Feb 20, 2018, 2:48 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #27

ggg9990 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where is the evidence that “processing” or “refining” makes anything worse? In what way is 300 calories of table sugar worse for you than 300 calories of watermelon?

For starters, because you can much more quickly and easily eat "300 calories of table sugar" (e.g. by drinking sodas or some sweet) than 300 calories of watermelon. Second, because 300 calories of watermelon will come with all kinds of vitamins (including C and A), and lots of water.

And fiber. That's the important component of fruit that will buffer the sugar.

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

#133

Post by KozmoNau7 » Tue, Feb 20, 2018, 2:51 PM UTC

keymone wrote: post #130

KozmoNau7 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

These are the experts on the panel: https://health.usnews.com/best-diet/experts

The overall consensus used to be that fat was bad, but science has advanced and our view on the subject is a lot more nuanced than "fat bad". Clinical dieticians and other experts have updated their recommendations accordingly. That's how science works, we continually improve our collective knowledge.

Going completely off the rails and jumping on fad diets instead is not a wise choice.

The current recommendation of a diet heavy in plants, low in saturated fat, moderate in carbs (complex carbs, ditch the simple ones) is perfectly sound, a good average diet for the average person.

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

#134

Post by IntronExon » Tue, Feb 20, 2018, 2:54 PM UTC

FussyZeus wrote: post #126

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 a…

I don’t know if it’s a need, or just an awareness of history which leads people to search for malice when misinformation and tons of money converge.

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

#135

Post by mtgx » Tue, Feb 20, 2018, 2:56 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…

I think we already know that "low-carb and high-protein" doesn't work. You also need high (or moderate) fat. Low-fat protein is also highly insulogenic. High insulogenic foods = insulin resistance which leads to obesity, metabolic syndrom, diabetes, and likely Alzheimer, heart disease, and so on.

The higher the amount of fat taken with protein, the less insulogenic the food is. Also, it seems Vitamin K2 exists almost exclusively in saturated fat, and Vitamin K2 is what protects you from atherosclerosis, osteoporosis, and heart attacks, too. There are many other vitamins and minerals stored in fat, too, possibly because fat is the body's "reserves" which means more just than "high-density calories".

After all, the body needs vitamins and minerals, too, to survive. And if it can't get them while not eating, then it makes sense that they should be stored somewhere (they are stored in the liver, too, but the liver is more of a short/medium term storage).

However, you also have to keep in mind that fat stores toxins, and in our high-pollution modern world, it may not be a good idea to eat too much fat, or at least you should be watch out where you're getting your food from.

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

#136

Post by IntronExon » Tue, Feb 20, 2018, 2:57 PM UTC

nwah1 wrote: post #120

croon wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

IIRC wasn’t there a recent study which showed Isomaltulose and some similar disaccharides have negative effects on the gut flora? I think it was in the context of C. Diff infections, but I could be wrong.

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

#137

Post by gerardnll » Tue, Feb 20, 2018, 2:57 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…

White bread is nutritionally poor

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

#138

Post by BeetleB » Tue, Feb 20, 2018, 2:57 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

I'm having trouble seeing your point. Your earlier comment said:

>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

This sounds like he/she is against salt alternatives. And then you go and say:

>I actually reduced salt by using other spices

Which is what a number of salt alternatives do. So are low salt alternatives good or bad?

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

#139

Post by KozmoNau7 » Tue, Feb 20, 2018, 3:01 PM UTC

gerardnll wrote: post #137

KozmoNau7 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

White bread is nutritionally poor

>White bread is nutritionally poor

Yes, absolutely. No one is arguing against that. But it's still less bad than straight sugar.

I live near an amazing bakery that does good sourdough bread with plenty of seeds, and I bake my own sourdough whole grain breads. The proximity of a good bakery and stores where I can buy good flour will seriously affect where I will even consider buying a house next time.

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

#140

Post by saosebastiao » Tue, Feb 20, 2018, 3:03 PM UTC

seren wrote: post #37

slampig wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would eating processed food be bad? What does it matter if the ingredients are recognizable.

It seems to increase the risk of cancer by 10%, even if the exact mechanism or cause, is still unknown. http://www.bmj.com/content/360/bmj.k322

Everything causes cancer. The reason is that the vast majority of cancer risk studies are done with insufficient control methodologies, have weak effect magnitudes, but are affected by positive finding publication bias and are published anyway.

And then they get cherry picked by diet fad promoters to support their crackpot theories and sell books.

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/everything-we-eat-causes-ca...