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

181–190 of 230 posts

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

#181

Post by cgh »

52-6F-62 wrote: post #161
saosebastiao wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 alo…

Your doctor was right. Meat is the healthiest stuff you can eat. Throw some liver in there as well and you are covered.

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

#182

Post by cryptonector »

We, humans, are susceptible to group delusions, probably because we are such social animals and have a strong "run with the heard" reflex. We see this in many mammals and other animals (e.g., birds, fish, ...).

This was either a conspiracy, or a group delusion -- or even both. Either way, we now know the truth about sugar. We now get to fix things. It won't be easy.

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

#183

Post by JCFalkenberg »

manmal wrote: post #89
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…

I largely agree with you.. sugar has been shown extensively as being downright bad for insulin levels, microbiome, hormone levels in general, and lots of other issues. White flour (in moderation, and always mixed with fat or protein) can be beneficial though as it’s low in lectins (which damage the gut lining and organs like the kidneys and the brain [1]). One (!) slice of white bread is easier on the body than one s…

'One (!) slice of white bread is easier on the body than one slice of full corn bread...'.

A. By what metrics are you measuring 'easier on the body'.

B. What corn bread and what white bread?

I'm somewhat skeptical of this as a generic claim, though since it will very much depend on the recipe used (for both kinds of bread), it's certainly probable in many cases.

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

#184

Post by croon »

nwah1 wrote: post #174
croon wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

That's a terrible comparison. Gas is the fuel for your car, which will at some point break down to a point where you will trash it. By no definition is the gas destroying that car in the way that gas mixed with sawdust will.

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

You will die in a week without food. Some food will keep you alive longer than others. Fats and protein will do that better than sugar and protein, on aggregate. We can discuss more narrow categories within those, but it's moving goal posts from what I responded to.

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

#185

Post by GeekyBear »

There is a new study out from The Journal of the American Medical Association that backs up the notion that people who want to lose weight need to cut the sugar from their diet.

>people who cut back on added sugar, refined grains and highly processed foods while concentrating on eating plenty of vegetables and whole foods — without worrying about counting calories or limiting portion sizes — lost significant amounts of weight over the course of a year.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/well/eat/counting-calorie...

Interestingly, this held true on two separate diets.

One diet accomplished the above while also reducing other carbs and another that did the above while reducing fats.

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

#186

Post by noxToken »

dylan604 wrote: post #160
TPPOW0020 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

I personally think that some of the actions that they take are evil. A few examples:

Facebook - the emotional manipulation experiment that they ran with non-consenting users was evil. Technically speaking, users agreed to it via the fine print regarding internal testing, and to me, that makes it even more evil. Internal testing typically means A/B testing, and it is not unreasonable to think that internal testing does not include intentional emotional manipulation.

TelCos - their (United States) relentless push, subterfuge and lobbying to continue to rule the laid lines with an iron fist in spite of the government subsidies to help provide fast connectivity to most Americans. Not only did the telcos not upgrade the lines like they were supposed to, but US customers still pay taxes and fees that should go towards these upgrades that most users don't see. Some quick searching shows that the average download speed last year was below 25 Mb/s. I admit that this is actually an adequate speed for every day use in a cable household that only does light browsing. However the plan was to deliver much faster symmetric speeds. The net neutrality decision is just insult to injury (though that's an FCC decision).

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

#187

Post by BeetleB »

walshemj wrote: post #166
BeetleB wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I have no idea what the usual advice is to chronic renal failure patients.

I do know there are easy to find salt alternatives out there that do not have chemicals and do replace salt with other spices. (Some are low salt, and not no salt). As in, you can find them in your grocery store.

And most people who are on a low salt diet are not renal failure patients. They are people with hypertension.

So er yes a number of salt alternatives out there are just fine. And er yes a number of them are pretty bad for you. And statements like "salt alternative products are bad for you because they replace salt with chemicals" are inaccurate.

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

#188

Post by jpindar »

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.

In addition to every grocery store I'm familiar with, there are three convenience stores in walking distance of me right now, and they all sell 12 oz. cans of soda.

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

#189

Post by seanmcdirmid »

jpindar wrote: post #188
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In addition to every grocery store I'm familiar with, there are three convenience stores in walking distance of me right now, and they all sell 12 oz. cans of soda.

The 7-11 across the street doesn't. The Safeway or the QFC doesn't where I live in Bellevue unless you want to buy a case.

I live in Bellevue now, the same was true in Westwood LA, the only place you could actually get single cans was the vending machines on UCLA campus.

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

#190

Post by seanmcdirmid »

paulie_a wrote: post #178
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As singles? The stores around me sell them in multiples (by the case or pack), you can't just walk into safeway and buy a can of coke (normal or smaller size).
Post reply on HN