Was there ever really a “sugar conspiracy”? • Hacker News Board

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

#221

Post by KozmoNau7 » Wed, Feb 21, 2018, 3:14 PM UTC

keymone wrote: post #220

KozmoNau7 wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>fad vegan food blogger What? Hell no. I'm advocating for a healthy, balanced diet as part of a healthy, balanced lifestyle. "Eat food, mostly plants, not too much", and cut out those simple sugars and processed foods. Simple as that. No fads, just a basic long term lifestyle change that works , without buzzwords, without fancy diets, without expensive books or courses or gurus. And without the risks associated with…

i have to keep repeating this: so what about that overeating protein? and what about your ketoacidosis fud? will you concede you were wrong? > healthy, balanced diet as part of a healthy, balanced lifestyle there can be more than one healthy and balanced diet > long term lifestyle change that works , without buzzwords, without fancy diets, without expensive books or courses or gurus. yep, keto can be like this. no bu…

Listen, I'm not going to stop you from keto or paleo or homeopathy or any other wild idea.

Just be aware that the claimed scientific proof for its effectiveness is shaky at best, and there are definite dangers, which is why a medical professional should be consulted before starting.

It may be fine for you, but you are not everyone.

There is a hell of a lot of Dunning-Kruger effect going on in nerd circles, where high technical skill in one area is mistakenly believed to mean equal mastery in all other subjects. In this case it is nutrition, where a group of people have decided that they've "cracked the metabolism's secrets", "dieticians hate this one easy trick!"-style. It doesn't work that way, though. There are no easy shortcuts to weight loss and health, no matter how you stress your metabolism.

Health is simple, but it is not easy.

Dollars to donuts (ha!) your overall increase in health happened because you now look at lot more carefully at what you eat, plus cut out simple sugars completely. That is a very good lifestyle change, and enough to make up for the negatives of ketogenic diets, giving a net positive.

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

#222

Post by keymone » Wed, Feb 21, 2018, 3:33 PM UTC

KozmoNau7 wrote: post #221

keymone wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i have to keep repeating this: so what about that overeating protein? and what about your ketoacidosis fud? will you concede you were wrong? > healthy, balanced diet as part of a healthy, balanced lifestyle there can be more than one healthy and balanced diet > long term lifestyle change that works , without buzzwords, without fancy diets, without expensive books or courses or gurus. yep, keto can be like this. no bu…

Listen, I'm not going to stop you from keto or paleo or homeopathy or any other wild idea. Just be aware that the claimed scientific proof for its effectiveness is shaky at best, and there are definite dangers, which is why a medical professional should be consulted before starting. It may be fine for you, but you are not everyone. There is a hell of a lot of Dunning-Kruger effect going on in nerd circles, where high…

you still refuse to answer: so what about that overeating protein? and what about your ketoacidosis fud? will you concede you were wrong?

> claimed scientific proof for its effectiveness is shaky at best

studies show the opposite: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2716748/

> there are definite dangers

yeah, for kids with epilepsy. still best treatment so far even despite complications.

none of this allows you to make any conclusions about harmful effects on healthy individuals.

> In this case it is nutrition, where a group of people have decided that they've "cracked the metabolism's secrets", "dieticians hate this one easy trick!"-style. It doesn't work that way, though. There are no easy shortcuts to weight loss and health, no matter how you stress your metabolism.

you're still in the mindset that keto is short term fat loss fad diet. it isn't, it's a longterm lifestyle change.

> That is a very good lifestyle change, and enough to make up for the negatives of ketogenic diets

of which you have yet to show any evidence.

this whole thread is you reiterating the same crap and me constantly asking to back it up with some evidence. it's getting tiresome.

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

#223

Post by KozmoNau7 » Wed, Feb 21, 2018, 4:33 PM UTC

keymone wrote: post #222

KozmoNau7 wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Listen, I'm not going to stop you from keto or paleo or homeopathy or any other wild idea. Just be aware that the claimed scientific proof for its effectiveness is shaky at best, and there are definite dangers, which is why a medical professional should be consulted before starting. It may be fine for you, but you are not everyone. There is a hell of a lot of Dunning-Kruger effect going on in nerd circles, where high…

you still refuse to answer: so what about that overeating protein? and what about your ketoacidosis fud? will you concede you were wrong? > claimed scientific proof for its effectiveness is shaky at best studies show the opposite: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2716748/ > there are definite dangers yeah, for kids with epilepsy. still best treatment so far even despite complications. none of this allows…

Keto is deliberately putting your metabolism into survival mode. It is putting a stress factor on the organism.

The study you link claims to study a "long term ketogenic diet", but only cover a 24-week period. That's less than 6 months.

That is absolutely not "long term". When talking about long term in diet and lifestyle terms, we are talking about several years, hopefully the entire remainder of a person's life.

Maybe the keto diet is making your tired and argumentative (a well-known side effect). There is no reason to be belligerent, just because I don't believe in your chosen fad diet.

https://asunow.asu.edu/content/low-carb-diets-may-stress-bod...

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

#224

Post by keymone » Wed, Feb 21, 2018, 5:26 PM UTC

KozmoNau7 wrote: post #223

keymone wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you still refuse to answer: so what about that overeating protein? and what about your ketoacidosis fud? will you concede you were wrong? > claimed scientific proof for its effectiveness is shaky at best studies show the opposite: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2716748/ > there are definite dangers yeah, for kids with epilepsy. still best treatment so far even despite complications. none of this allows…

Keto is deliberately putting your metabolism into survival mode. It is putting a stress factor on the organism. The study you link claims to study a "long term ketogenic diet", but only cover a 24-week period. That's less than 6 months. That is absolutely not "long term". When talking about long term in diet and lifestyle terms, we are talking about several years, hopefully the entire remainder of a person's life. Ma…

> The study you link claims to study a "long term ketogenic diet", but only cover a 24-week period. That's less than 6 months.

24 weeks is 6 months give or take few days. but obviously you will keep coming up with higher barriers no matter the evidence presented to you.

you silence on this one is very telling: so what about that overeating protein? and what about your ketoacidosis fud? will you concede you were wrong?

inform yourself on the topic, then come arguing.

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

#225

Post by KozmoNau7 » Wed, Feb 21, 2018, 7:52 PM UTC

keymone wrote: post #224

KozmoNau7 wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Keto is deliberately putting your metabolism into survival mode. It is putting a stress factor on the organism. The study you link claims to study a "long term ketogenic diet", but only cover a 24-week period. That's less than 6 months. That is absolutely not "long term". When talking about long term in diet and lifestyle terms, we are talking about several years, hopefully the entire remainder of a person's life. Ma…

> The study you link claims to study a "long term ketogenic diet", but only cover a 24-week period. That's less than 6 months. 24 weeks is 6 months give or take few days. but obviously you will keep coming up with higher barriers no matter the evidence presented to you. you silence on this one is very telling: so what about that overeating protein? and what about your ketoacidosis fud? will you concede you were wrong…

You're obviously a True Believer. Nothing I say will convince you.

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

#226

Post by rurban » Thu, Feb 22, 2018, 4:06 PM UTC

Valmar wrote: post #206

rurban wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. :)

Ok, thanks. I do trust Lustig. Interesting then that the Europeans do have the opposite opinion. They are not influenced by the sugar lobby.

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

#227

Post by esailija » Thu, Feb 22, 2018, 7:43 PM UTC

keymone wrote: post #68

esailija wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> no you don't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluconeogenesis That doesn't refute his argument. > yeah, those carnivores consume so much carbohydrates! Fresh raw meat actually has a good amount of carbs. The muscle glycogen (animal equivalent of plant starch) starts to turn into lactic acid after death, but it's there for a carnivore that immediately starts eating after the kill. Also carnivores have jacked up glucon…

> That doesn't refute his argument how come? gluconeogenesis is how body gets glucose from non-carbbohydrate sources. his argument was "You need carbohydrates for energy". you don't. > muscle glycogen fair enough. the comment about carnivores was not entirely correct.

> how come? gluconeogenesis is how body gets glucose from non-carbbohydrate sources. his argument was "You need carbohydrates for energy". you don't.

The body can create fat from carbs and protein via fatty acid synthesis. Does this mean fat in diet is unnecessary? Of course not. Similarly, there existing a pathway for creating carbohydrate from fat and protein doesn't by itself prove that carbohydrate is unnecessary.

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

#228

Post by esailija » Thu, Feb 22, 2018, 7:56 PM UTC

gerardnll wrote: post #115

esailija wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plain vegetables are not palatable because they have very little nutritional value, like saw dust. If you were as rewarded for eating vegetables as you are for foods with actual nutritional value you would quickly be malnourished. If you ate a vegetable only meal you wouldn't even absorb the fat soluble vitamins from them because they don't have any fat. In the wild where the immediate pressure is on getting enough c…

I haven't seen any study suggesting eating vegetables is cancerous but have seen a few from meat and processed meat (studies from the WHO). I'm not vegan, but meat is 30% of my diet. If vegetables are that bad in nutritional value, why can you survive being vegan and just taking vitamin B12 complements? I think using palatability as a way of measuring nutritional quality is not going to help you in the context of a s…

I think I didn't mention meat anywhere. I am actually vegan. There are a lot of plant foods that are relatively high in calories, vitamins, minerals, fat and protein which I mentioned: fruits, nuts, legumes, grains, potatoes, berries and so on. Vegetables (e.g. cabbage, lettuce, tomatoes, cucumber etc) only have vitamins and minerals when you consider that as human you don't have the digestive system and time to digest tens of kilograms of food in a day.

Sugar contains a lot of energy so it's not fooling you when it's tasting great.

Can you say which specific animal is alive eating food without much caloric content (and which specific vegetable are they eating)?

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

#229

Post by rurban » Fri, Feb 23, 2018, 12:01 PM UTC

orbifold wrote: post #119

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…

Glucose is harmless and can be metabolised by any cell in your body, while Fructose can only be metabolised by your liver and produced a bunch of undesirable metabolic end products in the process. It also blocks leptin, the antagonist of insulin and therefore messes with your metabolic regulation, while glucose does none of that. If you feed rats large amounts of glucose they will get a very big liver but stay otherw…

Glucose being harmless is the understatement of the year. In the end fructose and every other carb is split up to glucose. And glucose (the simple monosaccharide sugar) is one of the most powerful medicines and drugs, stronger, cheaper and better than cocaine, and responsible for many severe illnesses:

  * Retinal damage to the eye
  * Arterial blockage
  * Oxidative stress
  * Increased inflammation
  * Endothelial dysfunction
  * Reduced coronary blood flow
  * Increased cancer risk

Let me just point to http://www.lifeextension.com/magazine/2011/1/glucose-the-sil... or https://www.atkins.com/how-it-works/library/articles/10-ways...

This is all very well known and ignored by the US sugar industry which rather blames other factors. If you feed americans large amounts of glucose (they do), they will get obese and die early. You cannot argue with the numbers, because it's mostly only affecting americans who do consume sugar levels above the health risk. Blaming fructose and the liver alone is dangerous. It's the end product, glucose, and the fat reserves, not the carb. metabolism.

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

#230

Post by keymone » Wed, Feb 28, 2018, 10:52 AM UTC

esailija wrote: post #227

keymone wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That doesn't refute his argument how come? gluconeogenesis is how body gets glucose from non-carbbohydrate sources. his argument was "You need carbohydrates for energy". you don't. > muscle glycogen fair enough. the comment about carnivores was not entirely correct.

> how come? gluconeogenesis is how body gets glucose from non-carbbohydrate sources. his argument was "You need carbohydrates for energy". you don't. The body can create fat from carbs and protein via fatty acid synthesis. Does this mean fat in diet is unnecessary? Of course not. Similarly, there existing a pathway for creating carbohydrate from fat and protein doesn't by itself prove that carbohydrate is unnecessary…

> Does this mean fat in diet is unnecessary

goalpost has shifted? his wording was "body needs carbs for energy". no, body doesn't need carbs for energy.

besides, there definitely are essential fatty acids that our body cannot produce and cannot survive without, so you're wrong implying that body can survive without fats just like it can without carbs. there are no essential carbohydrates.