Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Seriously, Juice Is Not Healthy

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 147 posts

Re: Seriously, Juice Is Not Healthy

#81

Post by dunham »

forgotpwagain wrote: post #37
sm64 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To add, the "no sugar added" thing is wholly misleading because there are fruit concentrates that companies can add that are basically sugar substitutes. It's technically not "sugar added" but it's basically filled with healthy dollop of fructose (which is worse than sucrose but I'm too lazy to cite a reference).

Grape juice is the notorious one here. It doesn't have a very strong taste on its own, so when blended basically serves as a not-technically-added-sugar source of added sugar.

I've also seen apple juice used as a sugar in "100% juice" drinks.

Re: Seriously, Juice Is Not Healthy

#82

Post by User23 »

indecisive_user wrote: post #80
zaptheimpaler wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thats interesting.. so does that mean eating a lot of protein cannot make you gain fat? It would just be a tax on your kidneys instead?

Well in practice it would be very tough to over eat on protein alone. Assuming a 2000 calorie diet you'd need to eat over 500g of protein which is roughly 4lbs of chicken breast or 5lbs of tuna. But at that point it would also be quite harmful to the kidneys

Unless you’re Dwayne Johnson.

Seriously though if you don’t have kidney disease then you really don’t have to worry about protein consumption.

Re: Seriously, Juice Is Not Healthy

#83

Post by benjaminl »

Gobd wrote: post #9
amasad wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is demonstrably false. No respectable scientist believes in the calories-in-calories-out model of obesity anymore.

What do they believe in now? I still thought calorie-in/out was the truth. I'd love to see some articles.

It is way more complicated than that. The body autonomously regulates the amount of calories that you eat. For example when you exercise more studies show people will eat almost exactly an extra amount of food equalent to the calories exercised.

The average person gains an extra 1 to 2 pounds a year. It takes 6,000 calories to gains 2 pounds. This is about ~16.5 calories a day. About a fifth of a slice of bread.

This is an imbalance of energy, on a 2000 calorie diet, of less than 1%.

Re: Seriously, Juice Is Not Healthy

#84

Post by iforgotpassword »

throwaway080383 wrote: post #61
JshWright wrote: post #8

Here's some context on the authors: https://twitter.com/aaronecarroll/status/1015682328411230208

Does anyone else have about a 40% success rate on clicking Twitter links? Maybe I'm rate-limited because I don't have an account, but the level of reliability I see clicking a few links a day isn't exactly compelling.

I'm getting "twitter takes too long to load" instead of the tweet half the time on mobile. Then I have to refresh to see the tweet.

My browser has to load 90 JavaScript files totaling in 20 gigabytes to display a 140 character string and fails along the way. And all the engineering brains at twitter couldn't make it so that it would just try again on its own. It's like they're trying to convince people to stay away from the platform.

Re: Seriously, Juice Is Not Healthy

#85

Post by projektir »

_bxg1 wrote: post #24
projektir wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK... that is news to me... do you have a link to a paper that proves this demonstrably false? Disproving a law of thermodynamics sounds like a big deal. How does the new model explain people losing weight in adverse conditions? I'm watching someone steadily lose weight via calories-in-calories-out model in front of me right now.

Obviously calories matter, but there's just so much more going on than that. For example, your body's shifting metabolism. Eating certain things causes this to shift. Some people eat healthy constantly and remain overweight; others can't put on pounds no matter what they take in. That's a difference in their natural metabolisms. This is also why exercise matters beyond just the calories you burn over the course of a…

> Obviously calories matter, but there's just so much more going on than that.

The purpose of black box perspective is to not worry about the "so much more going on". Regardless of what happens in the box the rules of energy must stay put. As for the human body, the science there is young, it's extremely complex, there's a lot of misinformation, a lot of it was grabbed by governments ("don't eat fat!") to ill effect. Let's not. Just take it easy with the portions.

Metabolism shifts are not that large. If you are following CICO, you're counting calories, and that is already an error prone process. There's not a big difference between "my metabolism shifted because of this odd food", "I drank some alcohol", and "I miscounted how much beans I actually had". It's fine, if you have a good enough weekly target and you stick to it, you will have a baseline. If you are not losing weight, reduce the target.

It will work. If you are saying it won't I want to see a straight up study that says it put 500 men on a 1500 cal/day diet and they didn't lose weight.

Note that I am only talking about the physical angle, not the sociological one. "Juice is not healthy" is, to me, a non-sociological claim, but a scientific one, and I would prefer that "x is unhealthy" means "x is mildly poisonous", not "x is calorie-dense", because there's nothing actually wrong with calorie-density.

Re: Seriously, Juice Is Not Healthy

#86

Post by anothergoogler »

dunham wrote: post #81
forgotpwagain wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Grape juice is the notorious one here. It doesn't have a very strong taste on its own, so when blended basically serves as a not-technically-added-sugar source of added sugar.

I've also seen apple juice used as a sugar in "100% juice" drinks.

Yep, buy something like "kiwi-strawberry-guava" juice, apple or pear juice is usually the first ingredient. I wouldn't be surprised if most juices are flavored versions of the same base.

Re: Seriously, Juice Is Not Healthy

#88

Post by brador »

JshWright wrote: post #62
kareemm wrote: post #13

I love the strange looks we get when we tell extended family that our 1.5y old and 4y old kids don't drink juice. I had this exact conversation with a cousin of mine last week. She checked in with me before giving my child juice. When I told her we didn't give our kids juice this is how the conversation went: Q: "They don't drink juice? What do they drink?" A: "Water." Q: "Just water?" A: "Yep. If you want to get fan…

> wired on sugar That's not a thing. http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/sugar-and-candy-... (From one of the co-authors of this article)

Have kids and give them sugar. It absolutely is a verifiable thing. You get ~2-3 hours of hyperactivity/tunnelvision followed by the crying crash to nap combo. Every parent knows this. It's real and repeatable.

Re: Seriously, Juice Is Not Healthy

#89

Post by projektir »

dangrossman wrote: post #38
DanAndersen wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But in most cases, they quickly gain it back. So they gain it back once they stop being on calorie-restricted diets? This isn't a surprise to anyone. The point of any of these things, CICO or otherwise, is that you do them for your lifetime as a lifestyle change.

We have a century of evidence that calorie restriction is not a diet people can stay on. I just sourced this above. Calorie restriction alone while eating fast food, soda, cake, etc is a diet of chronic hunger/deprivation, and "become a monk with an iron will until your death" is not a reasonable "lifestyle change" to suggest. That's why "just count calories" is not the advice any respectable scientist would give an…

> We have a century of evidence that calorie restriction is not a diet people can stay on.

We do? Last I checked we had a century of people being told that fat is bad and they should eat the fat-free high-sugar yogurt. CICO is still a hotly debated concept in many circles. Such as this thread.

Calorie restriction doesn't tell you what you should or should not be eating. That is the beauty of it. It doesn't tell you what you do. It doesn't resign you to eating spinach for the rest of your life. It doesn't say you can never have ice cream.

> Calorie restriction alone while eating fast food, soda, cake, etc is a diet of chronic hunger/deprivation, and "become a monk with an iron will until your death"...

Is a strawman nobody suggested. Any diet that it seems you would prefer, that is more detailed/restrictive in its advice is nonetheless still a calorie restriction diet because nothing else would actually work.

Calorie restriction and counting is a request for introspection. If it gets you to simply realize that big macs are really calorie dense, and that you'd break your daily limit with 3 of them, it has done its job. It's up to you to figure out if you have enough willpower to still include big macs in your diet. Mostly overweight people just have no idea how much they're actually eating.

Re: Seriously, Juice Is Not Healthy

#90

Post by projektir »

WilliamEdward wrote: post #46
amasad wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is demonstrably false. No respectable scientist believes in the calories-in-calories-out model of obesity anymore.

Calories-in-Calories-out is a straight-up fact. The thing 'scientists' don't like about it is that even if you lose the same amount of weight, where you got your calories from will impact your health differently depending on whether it's a chocolate bar or an apple. Nevertheless, Calories-in-Calories-out is a true model.

> where you got your calories from will impact your health differently depending on whether it's a chocolate bar or an apple

Is there evidence that this is sufficiently impactful that it should be brought up? I.e., if a person is steadily losing weight, but eating not super healthy, should we tell them to stop?

Overweight people often already don't eat very nutritiously so I'm not sure if it's a large impact. Basically afraid of "perfect is the enemy of good" here. Obesity is a very dominating factor as far as unhealth goes, and many "unhealthy" foods are often marked so because they link back to obesity.

Post reply on HN