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

161–170 of 230 posts

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

#161

Post by 52-6F-62 »

saosebastiao wrote: post #152
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 respe…

>At one point in my life, a very well respected nutritionist recommended to me that I eat at least 3 candy bars per day.

I received equally bizarre advice from my doctor based upon some blood test results. I was explicitly directed to eat more red meat. At the time I wasn't eating much in the way of meat at all (though I wasn't a vegetarian). He recommended that as opposed to only supplementation, and preferably alongside supplementation.

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

#162

Post by gerardnll »

ElatedOwl wrote: post #146
gerardnll wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>Also, it's your choice if you just eat eggs or take protein shakes because you want to look like Arnold. You want fast and unrealistic results without working hard. It seems you're implying high protein intake is bad for you - any evidence supporting this? More protein (up to .72g protein/lb of body weight) does increase lean mass gain in individuals resistance training. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28698222…

The objective of that study is only checking "if dietary protein supplementation augments resistance exercise training (RET)-induced gains in muscle mass and strength." nothing else.

Taking protein shakes could affect negatively other parts of your body. And nobody talks about the quality of that protein. Why do we want real food? Let's all eat Soylent.

I believe high protein intake is as bad as high fat intake, high calories intake, and high everything else. Just stop wanting unreal bodies that are only achieved by supplementation.

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

#163

Post by KozmoNau7 »

keymone wrote: post #150
KozmoNau7 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ju…

> Going completely off the rails and jumping on fad diets instead is not a wise choice it seems your opinion on how to tell which diet is fad is based not on research but on a quick google search. inform yourself on the topic, then we can argue. > 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…

Keto is definitely a fad diet, same as Atkins, paleo and a ton of others.

I'm deep in the crossfit world, and I definitely did look at keto and paleo, before an actual dietician talked some sense into me.

Ketosis is a medical condition that is potentially harmful and even deadly in some cases. You absolutely should not go into ketosis without qualified medical assistance.

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

#164

Post by jerf »

iamt2 wrote: post #77
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…

> Interpretations vary, but giving up on fruit or grain and starch is obviously not part of it. For typical genetics, this is true. However, I've yet to find any sources that show prevention and/or reversal of Type 2 that holds over 5+ years that includes a significant (>20g) of net daily carbs from fruit, grain and/or starches. I'm not alone, but in a definite minority of people who control their Type 2 through only…

As I've been trying to reconcile both the behavior of my own body and all the data that has been coming at us over the past couple of decades, one of the things that I've wondered is whether a crap, sugar-filled diet can do permanent damage that can never be undone, making the body especially prone to take carbs and behave badly with them.

My idea here is that perhaps some of the issue here is that people like you (and to a non-clinical extent, me) who may have had a very bad diet in the past kick our bodies into this "mode", for lack of a better word, we find we have to watch our carbs relatively closely. Or perhaps for some people, their genetics simply start them there. Meanwhile, people who never got to that point are saying "It's no big deal, I eat a lot more carbs a day and never get fat." It may still be the case that when you get down to it, the sugar and the white bread aren't doing them any favors, but they never overwhelmed their body's ability to deal with it.

I think one of the perils of medical studies is that it's really easy to run a study like "How Important Is It To Eat Beets 5 Times A Day" and get back a statistical result that it's a 3% detriment or something, without noticing that the 3% detriment is that two people had a horrible reaction and everybody else had no reaction. As an individual, the 3% isn't really interesting, because that number doesn't correspond to the result that anybody had; the question is, are you in the set of people who had an extreme reaction or not? I wish I had time to study this question concretely; how many studies are presenting their results using Gaussian-based statistics when the underlying data is fundamentally bi-modal ("it worked really well for a few people and didn't do anything to most"), thus causing potentially useful treatments to get statistically fuzzed out of existence?

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

#165

Post by gerardnll »

KozmoNau7 wrote: post #139
gerardnll wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I buy meat, fish, vegetables, fruits and I have a nice diet without counting calories or other nutrients. I avoid ultra-processed foods, I may have a few of them on weekends.

I've had 2 blood analysis, one at the beginning of my new diet (and lifestyle) and the other one 6 months later. All perfect.

I just eat carbs for lunch and that's because I'm looking to lose weight. If I wouldn't want to lose weight I would just look at how reasonable are the quantities I eat. There's no need to be maniac at what you eat if what you eat is healthy and natural.

It seems like the food industry has made us forget how to eat properly, and that's normal because they influence us since we are kids (even babies).

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

#166

Post by walshemj »

BeetleB wrote: post #138
walshemj wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 altern…

er no it was chemicals they add to lo salt foods to replace nacl - not using more pepper and other spices which is standard advice for chronic renal failure patients

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

#167

Post by KozmoNau7 »

gerardnll wrote: post #165
KozmoNau7 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

I buy meat, fish, vegetables, fruits and I have a nice diet without counting calories or other nutrients. I avoid ultra-processed foods, I may have a few of them on weekends. I've had 2 blood analysis, one at the beginning of my new diet (and lifestyle) and the other one 6 months later. All perfect. I just eat carbs for lunch and that's because I'm looking to lose weight. If I wouldn't want to lose weight I would jus…

"Lifestyle" is the key here. Diets are temporary, a lifestyle change is what most people need.

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

#168

Post by croon »

mancerayder wrote: post #142
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…

> 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. First off, do you need a study for that? I'd hate to sound insensitive, but perhaps common sense is a new Darwinism? There's a slew of shortcuts that will cut our lives short. And for the record I eat a huge amount o…

You replied to me, but your questions and comments seem directed at GP? And actually your protein intake is closer to the low end. You could safely and probably beneficially go up to 1.3-1.6g/kg [1] [2]. It's as important to muscle gain as it is to fat loss. Athletes actually require less since they're better at utilizing intake.

You don't seem to be disagreeing with anything I wrote, but just a comment on your last paragraph:

> Going back, what's common sense is to eat natural foods rather than avoid them. Processed stuff is the real danger, including meal replacement with powders.

I think avoiding something "processed" is a terribly blunt tool, which will likely end up not serving you. What does processed even mean? I usually buy pre-washed potatoes because I'm lazy, those are processed. As is my cheese, as is my chili sauce, my peeled nuts, and most if not all my spices.

I don't think we're there yet with Soylent and similar meal replacements, but I don't doubt that we in the future will have meal replacements with much better macros, better taste and fun texture, as well as lab grown meats and meat substitutes that taste better.

Processed doesn't mean inherently bad, and there's nothing definitive saying that processed through photosynthesis is better than on a molecular level processed through a series of tubes in the other kind of plant. The only thing making "processed" foods bad are businesses cutting corners on cost with the only goal of delivering something palatable, not something healthy. That isn't a process problem, but a market problem.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26797090

[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22150425

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

#169

Post by OfficerGuac »

liveoneggs wrote: post #148
ByThyGrace wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a source for that Coca Cola claim? Just curious.

a 20oz coke bottle has 65g of sugar / 4.2 = 15.4 teaspoons

If they marked teaspoons instead of grams on the nutrition labels, I wonder how many people would be swayed away by that approach. That's a mind-boggling number.

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

#170

Post by seanmcdirmid »

danielbln wrote: post #147
ByThyGrace wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a source for that Coca Cola claim? Just curious.

This article lists coca cola (and pepsi) having 9 teaspoosn of sugar per 330ml (a can's worth), so 17 per bottle seems sound: https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/jun/12/how-mu...

Try finding just a can of coke these days in the states, it’s hard. Everyone wants to sell a half a liter or more.
Post reply on HN