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

171–180 of 230 posts

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

#171

Post by ElatedOwl »

gerardnll wrote: post #162
ElatedOwl wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

>I believe high protein intake is as bad as high fat intake, high calories intake, and high everything else.

What constitutes high protein intake, and at what point is it detrimental? Should our macro breakdown be 33%/33%/33%?

How does increased calorie expenditure play into this? The study I referenced says I should eat 130g protein (520 cal) for best gains. My TDEE (on days I don't run) is 2500, putting me at roughly 20% protein. If I do run I've got an extra ~500 cals, how should those calories be allotted?

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

#172

Post by mancerayder »

croon wrote: post #168
mancerayder wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Processed food has a common parlance. I mean, you could try to expand the definition to include 'pre-washed' vegetables, but that would be a waste of a definition. Processed food in day-to-day parlance means 'highly processed', in the extreme being things that have been reconstituted and then items like preservatives and salt added like potato chips, protein powders with lots of ingredients, and so forth - in contrast to foods like vegetables or meats (or potatoes) that weren't pulverized and re-mixed into new foods with new chemicals. The most striking example of terrible, processed foods are cereals [ not the scientific word, the common parlance word ] : take corn or wheat, mash it to shreds, add huge amount of corn syrup and pretty colors, you have a food which you re-define (remember definitions have context) as 'cereal'.

Apologies for replying to the wrong parent, though!

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

#173

Post by keymone »

KozmoNau7 wrote: post #163
keymone wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> Ketosis is a medical condition that is potentially harmful and even deadly in some cases

it is not compatible with certain diseases or other medical conditions, but blanket statement like that is bullshit.

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

#174

Post by nwah1 »

croon wrote: post #151
nwah1 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Fats and proteins, like all food, is slowly killing you, in the same way that life is killing you via aging.

Thus, the fats and proteins are likewise, in the best of circumstances, only "less bad" than sugar.

And there's such a wide variety of fatty acids and aminos that it is quite hard to generalize. Isomaltulose is probably far better than most fatty acids. And excess protein converts to sugar, too.

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

#175

Post by HeyLaughingBoy »

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…

probably served 5,000 milkshakes for breakfast

Sidebar: there's a really interesting talk by Clayton Christensen about why people purchased milkshakes for breakfast: https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/clay-christensens-milkshake-marke...

And it has everything to do with convenience and little to do with nutrition.

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

#176

Post by coatmatter »

Honest/naïve question: Regardless of how good or bad sugar is, is it possible that cars and televisions have both separately contributed more harm than sugar over the past century?

Both encourage sedentary habits and in the case of television, the advertising within is insidious. I personally believe that cars and TV are the two most misused inventions from last century, but so rarely see them mentioned when health, food and diet is mentioned.

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

#177

Post by croon »

mancerayder wrote: post #172
croon wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Processed food has a common parlance. I mean, you could try to expand the definition to include 'pre-washed' vegetables, but that would be a waste of a definition. Processed food in day-to-day parlance means 'highly processed', in the extreme being things that have been reconstituted and then items like preservatives and salt added like potato chips, protein powders with lots of ingredients, and so forth - in contras…

That's fair, and I'm not usually one to try to dilute a words meaning, but if processed indeed means to redefine a natural food item in the way you describe, what's to say you can't do that in a way that keeps it as healthy (or even more healthy) while making it either more approachable in ease of cooking or just tastier.

The issue with processing in your example is mainly the corn syrup and coloring (if not using natural coloring like carotene etc), as well as to a lesser extent shredding of the corn or wheat which leads to a higher glycemic index.

But as we've made cheese puffs out of corn and varying degrees of terrible chemicals, we now have chips made from quinoa, beans, lentils etc, which I'm not saying are great, but better.

If I could have a snickers with 0 calories and no carcinogens, or pringles made out of broccoli, you can bet your ass I would pop that package without stopping.

So again, even with our agreed definition of processed, it might in 95% of cases right now mean "bad food", but it doesn't have to.

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

#178

Post by paulie_a »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #170
danielbln wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Anecdotal but pretty much every grocery store I've been to sells them and also those smaller cans that are 1/2 to 2/3s the size of a regular one.

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

#179

Post by cgh »

asokoloski wrote: post #118
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...

Saturated fats are not bad for you. Listen to the science, not biased websites.

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

#180

Post by KozmoNau7 »

keymone wrote: post #173
KozmoNau7 wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Ketosis is a medical condition that is potentially harmful and even deadly in some cases it is not compatible with certain diseases or other medical conditions, but blanket statement like that is bullshit.

There is a very real risk of kidney damage, if not supervised by a medical professional.
Post reply on HN