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

201–210 of 230 posts

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

#201

Post by keymone »

KozmoNau7 wrote: post #197
keymone wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

source needed. proper hydration and not overeating protein means kidneys will be fine.

Keto and paleo are by definition "overeating protein".

just as i said - inform yourself on the topic, come arguing later. you have no idea what you're talking about.

just to not leave you completely uninformed - general guideline for protein on keto is 1g per kilogram of bodyweight. i really want to see how will you argue that that is "overeating protein", especially considering that you're "deep in crossfit world".

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

#202

Post by KozmoNau7 »

keymone wrote: post #201
KozmoNau7 wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Keto and paleo are by definition "overeating protein".

just as i said - inform yourself on the topic, come arguing later. you have no idea what you're talking about. just to not leave you completely uninformed - general guideline for protein on keto is 1g per kilogram of bodyweight. i really want to see how will you argue that that is "overeating protein", especially considering that you're "deep in crossfit world".

You're welcome to stick with your pseudoscientific fad diets, it has no effect on my life.

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

#203

Post by KozmoNau7 »

grzm wrote: post #198
KozmoNau7 wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Keto and paleo are by definition "overeating protein".

If you’re going to make a blanket statement like this, would you also provide the definitions you’re working with? Ketosis (not to be confused with ketoacidosis) is a metabolic cycle. Paleo is a diet which, while having no completely agreed upon definition that I’m aware of, often focuses on limiting grain-based sources of carbohydrates. If your definition of “overeating protein” is based on a ratio of macronutrients…

I'm not going to argue with fanatics.

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

#204

Post by keymone »

KozmoNau7 wrote: post #202
keymone wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

just as i said - inform yourself on the topic, come arguing later. you have no idea what you're talking about. just to not leave you completely uninformed - general guideline for protein on keto is 1g per kilogram of bodyweight. i really want to see how will you argue that that is "overeating protein", especially considering that you're "deep in crossfit world".

You're welcome to stick with your pseudoscientific fad diets, it has no effect on my life.

of course you have nothing to say when factual data gets involved :) good luck

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

#205

Post by mancerayder »

croon wrote: post #177
mancerayder wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 na…

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.

Fine, it doesn't have to. And if we have the technology to send someone's car into space, we can surely create something processed and perfect in terms of glycemic index, macronutrient balance, and so forth. But as a general rule, almost all that stuff has flaws. For example, even the organic quinoa chips (and puffs which I'm very guilty of inhaling a bagfull of) has a lot more sodium than you really need.

That and I'd argue, in the case of certain concentrated items like whey protein chips, it's kind of unclear what side effects we might discover one day (as we did with refined sugars and obesity and diabetes and such). That said, I'm risking it.

Lest I be accused of hypocrisy for occasionally eating the healthy processed stuff you describe, I'd argue that for the general (ignorant, at least in the US) public, 'avoid processed' is a good rule of thumb.

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

#206

Post by Valmar »

rurban wrote: post #75
Valmar wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fructose is unhealthy... but glucose is healthy. How they are metabolized is key. :)

Wrong, see above

You're wrong. If you want to know why:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

A brilliant lecture by Robert H. Lustig, MD, UCSF Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology. He knows his stuff. :)

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

#207

Post by Valmar »

switch007 wrote: post #116
Valmar wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder... how common was heart disease before saturated fats were demonized, and ultra-processed plant oils were pushed as the "healthier" alternative? What about after?

Good, step one: make an observation. For the remaining steps, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVnuFY20st0 :P

This does nothing to answer my question, which was sincere. I'm really just looking for statistics, but don't know where to start looking.

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

#208

Post by Valmar »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #80
Valmar wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder... how common was heart disease before saturated fats were demonized, and ultra-processed plant oils were pushed as the "healthier" alternative? What about after?

The problem with that claim is that you have to go back decades, where general quality of life was different, life expectancy was lower and the causes of death were different - or harder to assess. as this chart shows, average life expectancy has gone up from 50 to 75 in the past 50 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#/media/File:Li... , while this page ( http://www.fauxpress.com/kimball/med/heart/h2…

Yeah, this could make it slightly difficult. Good thing I asked the question, though, because this answers it in a way, unlike the other unhelpful commentor.

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

#209

Post by Valmar »

always_good wrote: post #96
Valmar wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Eskimos traditional diet is a good example of this. Their diet also includes organ meats, so they got all of their vitamins and minerals in good amounts.

https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/25/8/737/4733245 Carbohydrates accounted for 15 to 20% of their calories.

"Carbohydrate accounted for only 15 to 20% of their calories, largely in the form of glycogen from the meat they consumed."

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

#210

Post by shlant »

pharrington wrote: post #199
shlant wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet another poster on HN, just echoing the platitudes of keto/paleo... > Modern fruit obviously pushes the definition of "natural" to it's absolute limits Modern fruit is not much different nutritionally from wild fruit[1]. Sure, some ancient fruit like bananas were pretty inedible, but that is a far cry from what keto/paleo dogma suggests. As an anecdote, I am living in Borneo right now, and we can go out into the j…

Do not put words into my mouth. I said nothing about keto/paleo. (If you are curious about my thoughts about those diets, KozmoNau7 elsewhere in this thread has said most of the relevant information) Fruit, the reproductive organ of a plant , is commonly available in markets without seeds . But again, this truth is tangential to the important claims about what is actually in specific foods. Provide your sources. Befo…

> Do not put words into my mouth. I said nothing about keto/paleo.

My apologies. Although your points are very much in line with those lifestyles and the beliefs of their proponents, that of course doesn't mean you subscribe to them.

> Before my original post, I bing searched for "apple nutrients," "orange nutrients," and "banana nutrients."

I'm not sure how to address this paragraph. Did you learn that those fruits are low in nutrients? Or are you saying that fruits that are more local to you are not nutritious? I'm not sure where exactly you live or how local we are talking so I can't comment, but those three fruits you mentioned are certainly nutritious regardless of whether they have seeds or are local.

> If you're literally saying the specific nutrient content of a food tells you nothing about how well the food contributes to maintaining vital processes, then we have a breakdown in language. If it clears things up at all, I'm using Wikipedia definition of "nutrient."

If you read what I said, it was "MACROnutrient" (protein/fat/carb). You cannot tell how nutritious a food is by the MACROnutrient content alone, you have to at least look at the MICROnutients (vitamins + minerals). This is why when a diet suggests that an entire MACROnutrient is "bad", it is totally misunderstanding nutrition.

Post reply on HN