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

151–160 of 230 posts

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

#151

Post by croon »

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

1) Are you arguing that Soylent picked it solely on health properties and not for its relative health properties when choosing a sweetening agent (necessary evil for some foods)?

2) Is disaccharide a relevant classifier? Water is a hydrogen calcogenide, as is hydrosulfuric acid. That doesn't mean they're comparable as a food item.

It was likely chosen as a substitute for sucrose (table sugar) for being comparatively good (less bad):

> It is particularly suitable as a non-cariogenic sucrose replacement and is favorable in products for diabetics and prediabetic dispositions. [1]

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12387299

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

#152

Post by saosebastiao »

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…

There will never be a universal answer to the question of what foods are good and what foods are bad because a universal answer would be a stateless solution to a stateful problem. And that problem is: who are you? What do you do? How much do you move your body? What are your goals? What are your genetics predisposed to? How much do you sleep? What are your causes of stress?

At one point in my life, a very well respected nutritionist recommended to me that I eat at least 3 candy bars per day. The reason: I was a D1 swimmer in college, and I couldn't keep my weight on with 4 hours of training per day, and I was having trouble keeping up with the 7000 calorie/day diet she had prescribed for me. Sugars filled that gap. And yes, that would have been unhealthy advice to almost any other American, but for me at the state I was in, it was the healthiest thing for me.

Not everybody is a swimmer. But that doesn't matter because there is no "average" human. We're all different in some way or another, and no diet is universal. Maybe we can hone in on basic dietary recommendations, but the idea that we can find universally good or universally bad things is going to be impossible.

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

#153

Post by liveoneggs »

pharrington wrote: post #42
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…

> Fruits are high in naturally-occurring sugars and they are among the healthiest things you can eat. Can you be precise about what you mean by this, or at least qualify this statement? Modern fruit obviously pushes the definition of "natural" to it's absolute limits, but more importantly, it's at least deeply unintuitive that something that consists mostly of fructose, a little fiber, trace metals, the rare vitamin,…

monkeys eat 70%+ fruit and then a mix of bugs, worms, and seeds for proteins to make up the rest. Do you want gorilla strength or not? :)

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

#154

Post by coldtea »

exhilaration wrote: post #132
coldtea wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yep, in general yes, though watermelon doesn't have much fiber IIRC.

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

#155

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#156

Post by wickawic »

IntronExon wrote: post #134
FussyZeus wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I would guess that in 50 years people will look at current tech trends in the same way. “They had to have known the apps and content were being created to induce maximal stress and addictive behavior!”

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

#157

Post by [deleted] »

shaki-dora wrote: post #100
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. Mostly plants. Not too much" is the timeless advice of Michael Pollan: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/magazine/28nutritionism.t.... It's my go-to essay on dietary science, and still holds up extremely well ten years after it first came out.

[deleted]

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

#158

Post by contravariant »

maloney wrote: post #123
rurban wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure, but it's not like you have to choose one or the other. You can have the beneficial short term effects while avoiding the long term effects by using moderation (which is key in any diet).

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

#159

Post by dwaltrip »

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…

> Wanting to be profitable doesn't make a company intrinsically evil, that's what companies are for.

I think it's evil to want profits at the explicit, direct cost millions of people suffering and dying (not to mention the societal drag of hundreds of billions in healthcare costs).

I personally don't believe that companies should be viewed as entirely amoral agents. I do understand that the vast majority of the time, profit incentives outweigh any moral considerations. But not 100% of the time.

Of course, public policy / laws / regulations are powerful tools that should be used as wisely as possible to help some of these issues. But I don't think we should view law as the only barrier that prevents companies from doing evil things -- the law will always be incomplete and limited in power. Human social factors, culture, and morality play a big role, I think, even in broadly affecting company behavior. Still working out my thoughts on this.

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

#160

Post by dylan604 »

TPPOW0020 wrote: post #141
FussyZeus wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>Wanting to be profitable doesn't make a company intrinsically evil, that's what companies are for. But they increased profits by intentionally misleading people and getting them hooked on unhealthy food. They helped themselves by hurting others. In plain English, we'd call that evil. Let's admit that legal, profit seeking behavior, can sometimes be evil. Furthermore, there's nothing ridiculous with going after bad a…

>Let's admit that legal, profit seeking behavior, can sometimes be evil.

So, how does the HN crowd apply this statement to tech companies like Google, Facebook, Twitter, AT&T, Comcast, etc?

Post reply on HN