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

Industry pushes sugary products, while obfuscating the health hazards

ucsf.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 132 posts

Re: Industry pushes sugary products, while obfuscating the health hazards

#81

Post by supercheetah »

maxxxxx wrote: post #14
vertex-four wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Starbucks are supposed to be good guys? I thought they were pretty well known as the shop that produces sugary milkshakes with caffeine in them.

I never go there so I don't know their products. But I always had the impression that they are riding on a reputation of being a 'responsible' business compared to for example Coca-Cola. But based on the nutrition label of the Chai I guess Starbucks is really just another sugar water manufacturer.

I would say they're better than most companies, but I wouldn't put then into the "good guys" category--at least not regarding nutrition anyway. Maybe I have too high of a bar regarding who I consider to be in the "good guys" category though.

Re: Industry pushes sugary products, while obfuscating the health hazards

#82

Post by skilled »

ryanobjc wrote: post #70
skilled wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The funny thing is that I have no reason to talk out of my butt. I am just expressing my personal experience with food. My idea of a healthy diet is fruit, seeds, nuts, and occasional grains / legumes. The 'Steve Jobs' diet if you will. It's honestly surprising to see how much lighter and energetic you become once you drop meat and huge blocks (carbs) of crap that makes you feel like you ate something worthwhile.

Given Steve jobs prematurely died due to his diet, I feel like that wasn't a wise choice in anecdotes. Funny thing is how much more energy and lighter I became when I only ate meat. So much for dropping meat.

Actually, Steve Jobs was following solely a fruitarian diet. So, maybe I was just testing your wits, huh?

And here I was thinking that I am the sensitive one. :)

Re: Industry pushes sugary products, while obfuscating the health hazards

#83

Post by astura »

maxxxxx wrote: post #5

It's mind boggling how much sugar is in everything. Just looked at my girlfriend's Starbucks Chai tea container. 100g sugar! She would be better off drinking a bottle of Coke. And Starbucks are supposed to be good guys . On a related note: how do they get that much sugar into these drinks? If I made a liter of Chai tea and poured 100g sugar into it I don't think it would be drinkable.

There's a reason I call Starbucks drinks "milkshakes" instead of "coffee" or "tea."

Re: Industry pushes sugary products, while obfuscating the health hazards

#84

Post by nradov »

will_brown wrote: post #67
Puer wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would also be interested in this. Many soft drink recipes are well-established and rarely adjusted because even small, well-intentioned changes can damage the brand and customer loyalty. Furthermore, it seems counterintuitive that producers would increase sugar content by as much as 1.57 times because that would inherently cost them significantly more money over time.

Well it’s also the type of sugar. Before the 70’s HFCS didn’t exist and it didn’t hit mainstream until the early 80’s. Soft drinks are now predominately made with HFCS which includes multiple sugars, some that are broken down in the liver and others that go into the blood steam and require insulin. Keep in mind one of the reasons most foods include HFCS is because it’s subsidized and cheaper than say cane sugar, so t…

There is no actual proof that HFCS is more harmful than other types of sugar.

Re: Industry pushes sugary products, while obfuscating the health hazards

#85

Post by astura »

paganel wrote: post #13
maxxxxx wrote: post #5

It's mind boggling how much sugar is in everything. Just looked at my girlfriend's Starbucks Chai tea container. 100g sugar! She would be better off drinking a bottle of Coke. And Starbucks are supposed to be good guys . On a related note: how do they get that much sugar into these drinks? If I made a liter of Chai tea and poured 100g sugar into it I don't think it would be drinkable.

> It's mind boggling how much sugar is in everything I remember traveling to Western Europe a couple of years ago (I live further East) and trying to buy plain yogurt from a supermarket, I mean yogurt which should have tasted as close as possible to the one my peasant grandma used to make. It was close to impossible to find such a product, as even the yogurt labeled as "plain" had a sweetish taste, you could definite…

No, I buy plain unsweetened yogurt in the US several times month without a problem.

Re: Industry pushes sugary products, while obfuscating the health hazards

#86

Post by cyphar »

nradov wrote: post #38
foxfired wrote: post #4

I started to notice that sugar content has increased in sodas. I used to work in a grocery store 12/13 years ago, and I remember stacking sodas on the shelves. The sugar content was 35g. I stacked them everyday so as far as I remember this was the norm at the time for a one serving in California. Only a couple months ago, I started looking at the labels of sodas again. The content varies from 39g to 55g in California…

Are you sure that's adjusted for serving size?

Does the US not have a section telling you the nutritional content per-100g (or 100mL or whatever "standard" measurement you folks have) so you can compare products? Or is everything given in serving sizes (which can be arbitrarily chosen by the producer)?

Re: Industry pushes sugary products, while obfuscating the health hazards

#87

Post by nradov »

tyfon wrote: post #47

My father in-law is in hospital right now with gallstones and various other infections due to this. He had severe stomach pain and went to the hospital. Tomorrow he'll be transported to another hospital via helicopter and airplane for operation. It's not too serious when treated but the doctors say it's due to high sugar intake. Personally I prefer natural sugar over the artificial stuff but, as with everything else,…

What do you mean by "artificial stuff"? Pretty much all sugar sold for human consumption comes from natural plant sources: corn, beets, sugar cane.

Re: Industry pushes sugary products, while obfuscating the health hazards

#88

Post by astura »

NikolaeVarius wrote: post #37
oblib wrote: post #27

Sugar, all by itself is bad (awful bad), but when you add "Red 40" to the mix children go into instant hyperactive-overdrive. They start bouncing off the walls and you might as well be feeding them crack cocaine. I spent a total of 24 days watching our grandkids this year and everyone of them was a battle over what they'd eat. I could not get the oldest (11 years old now) to take a single bite of real food during the…

There is no good/conclusive evidence that Red 40 and other food dyes affect hyperactivity.

Same with sugar for that matter.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199402033300501#t=...

And, yeah, if you give an 11 year old the choice between vegetables and junk food that'll pick junk food, news at 11!

Re: Industry pushes sugary products, while obfuscating the health hazards

#89

Post by nradov »

Ologn wrote: post #69

In a desire to eat healthier, I decided instead of eating candy as a snack, I would eat dried mangoes. It naturally contains fiber, Vitamin C and natural sugars. When I go to the supermarket and look at the labels, I see most of the brands don't just have the mango's natural sugar, but add extra sugar as well. If I go that route, I might as well have a candy bar. Luckily, one brand I found does not add extra sugar.

If you can shop at Costco they have good prices on dried mango with no added sugar.

Re: Industry pushes sugary products, while obfuscating the health hazards

#90

Post by cyphar »

Gibbon1 wrote: post #74
chki wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I was about 10 years old my parents took my siblings and me on a 5 week vacation to the US (I'm from Europe). It was a lot of fun, but I distinctly remember that it was impossible for me to eat the bread that we would buy at the supermarket because it was just too sweet. And this was not because my parents just bought some bread but they actually tried to find some "normal" tasting bread and it was not possible.…

I used to eat rye bread because it was heartier than white or 'wheat' bread. Because unlike modern wheat rye still had historical ratio's of carbs to protein. Now it's just rye flavored white bread. And all the healthy hippie dippie bread have buttloads of hidden sugars in it. So now I mostly avoid bread.

You can always bake your own bread. Takes only about 10 real minutes of your time (plus 2 hours proofing and 30 minutes baking), you know exactly what's in it, and it's certainly cheaper (you just need flour, water, salt, yeast, and optionally a little bit of olive oil).
Post reply on HN