Live data from Hacker News

Industry pushes sugary products, while obfuscating the health hazards

ucsf.edu

111–120 of 132 posts

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

#111
post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That’s a strange reply...I never suggested HFCS was different or more harmful than any other sugar, I only mentioned that it contains both sugar that is processed by the liver and sugar that is released into the blood stream triggering insulin. Although now that you bring it up...if one were to choose it’s probably better to have only a single one type of sugar processed by the liver or released into the blood trigge…

HCFS contains fructose and glucose.

Sucrose contains fructose and glucose (50% of each).

HFCS and sucrose are broken down in the same way. HFCS comes in different formulations, but the most commonly used is close to sucrose at 55% fructose and 45% glucose.

HFCS vs sucrose probably isn't the problem. Huge portion sizes, total amounts of sugars and fats, and sedentary lifestyle is probably more important.

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

#112
post #110
post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)?

55g of sugar per 100ml of product would be insane. Coca Cola has about 10-12g per 100ml. Starbucks Mulled Fruit Drink (widely reported in the UK as a very sugary drink) has about 14g per 100ml.

That wasn't my point -- I was confused that there isn't a standard way to compare food content in the US. In Australia, by law, nutritional information contains a column with the "serving size", and a column for 100g or 100mL of the product so you can compare similar products much more easily) I can only imagine how difficult it would be to compare the nutrition between two different drinks or foods if they have different container sizes.

In other words, you could easily track the change in sugar content over the years if you paid attention to the "per 100{g,mL}" column without having to do any maths.

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

#113
post #109
post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a general response, I'm highly suspicious of anyone denying these connections as being someone who's spent very little time with children. Anyone who cites an article to back up their opinion is especially suspect. Now in case I'm wrong, let's have all the moms who've chimed in here please raise your hands...

Yep... just as I suspected...nothing but crickets.

I spend lots of time with my kid every day, and I've never noticed any difference in behavior when he eats lots of sugary stuff (usually once a week). Also, at every birthday party some parent will always start espousing this theory while pointing to the kids playing as evidence, and I've learned not to point out that their kid acted exactly the same way last week while visiting my kid with no sugar served at all... My pet theory is that people who claim this connection are mostly exposed to children running around and acting like children do at events where incidentally there's a lot of soda, cakes and candy.

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

#114
post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want to believe real data, I will keep my prejudices. Is like that how it works?

No, how it works is raising children and observing the real cause and effect and comparing it with others who've raised children. That is "real data". How many have you raised?

"Real data" would involve double-blind trials and a large sample size. Anything else is anecdotal evidence (which might be used to inform the question of a study, but is not a study unto itself).

I don't know how many other parents you know, but I'd guess that's it in the range of n=36 (based on an average of 40 friends in adulthood and a parental rate of 90%). If you talked with people over the internet about this in parenting forums, there is an implicit selection bias towards people who believe there is something wrong with their children (more people will seek out such information who think they need help than those who think their children are okay). All of these biases and limited sample sizes mean that your experience isn't objective enough to count as "real data" -- and even if it was you'd be proving a correlation not causation (that requires even more rigor).

I don't actually have an opinion either way, but I just wanted to point out that it would be a good idea to look up clinical studies on the topic with large sample sizes and review your position from there (maybe they back up your position, maybe they don't -- but ignoring them and stating that anecdotes from raising a child is the only valid form of evidence is incredibly unscientific).

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

#115
post #112
post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

55g of sugar per 100ml of product would be insane. Coca Cola has about 10-12g per 100ml. Starbucks Mulled Fruit Drink (widely reported in the UK as a very sugary drink) has about 14g per 100ml.

That wasn't my point -- I was confused that there isn't a standard way to compare food content in the US. In Australia, by law, nutritional information contains a column with the "serving size", and a column for 100g or 100mL of the product so you can compare similar products much more easily) I can only imagine how difficult it would be to compare the nutrition between two different drinks or foods if they have diff…

Sorry, yes, I agree with you.

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

#116
post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a strange reply...I never suggested HFCS was different or more harmful than any other sugar, I only mentioned that it contains both sugar that is processed by the liver and sugar that is released into the blood stream triggering insulin. Although now that you bring it up...if one were to choose it’s probably better to have only a single one type of sugar processed by the liver or released into the blood trigge…

HCFS contains fructose and glucose. Sucrose contains fructose and glucose (50% of each). HFCS and sucrose are broken down in the same way. HFCS comes in different formulations, but the most commonly used is close to sucrose at 55% fructose and 45% glucose. HFCS vs sucrose probably isn't the problem. Huge portion sizes, total amounts of sugars and fats, and sedentary lifestyle is probably more important.

>HFCS vs sucrose probably isn't the problem.

You’re right about portion being a big issue, which reinforces my earlier point that HFCS is cheaper than other sweeteners so it’s opted for and in higher amounts.

That said I’d say it is a problem. Look at children, there wasn’t a medical diagnosis of childhood type2 or childhood non alcoholic fatty liver disease, now both are a problem and childhood fatty liver disease is diagnosed at even higher rates than type2. So medically I think it is a problem.

And saying it’s a portion/life style issue I agree with 100% and these chronic diseases can be prevented in most cases without cutting out 100% of sugar, but i don’t know why layman can’t echo the medical science and admit cutting 100% of sugar can prevent 100% of these medical cases. In other words you can be sedentary and eat huge portions (you will have other health issues for sure which likely include liver issues) but you won’t get type 2 so long as there isn’t any insulin spiking sugar in the diet.

Edit:

Fructose is sent from the blood directly to be processed in the liver and over consuming results in deposits of fat in the liver cells (aka fatty liver disease). Glucose goes straight to the blood and is only sent to the liver to convert to glycogen if the body needs it (but most people’s glycogen stores are already full) and glucose is converted to fat in fat cells (no liver processing). In short glucose and fructose are not processed the same.

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

#117
post #38
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?

For soda cans, the regular size in the US 355ml and serving size is 1.

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

#118
post #87
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.

Aspartame, sucralose, saccharin etc

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

#119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s misleading to deflect from sugar onto obesity when consumption of sugary foods is a primary driver of obesity.

It's an important distinction though. It's possible to consume sugary foods and not be obese. See twinkie diet.

The Twinkie diet and similar diets are straw men. The fact that it is possible to consume high quantities of sugar and not gain weight is not surprising. The reality is that consumption of high sugar foods (especially high sugar low calorie like many sugary drinks) prime you to eat more. There is a causative relationship between consuming sugary foods and consuming too much. This can be overcome with unnatural levels of attention, however this is a fringe edge case and generally not relevant to discussing the broad impact of sugar in western diets.

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

#120
post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep... just as I suspected...nothing but crickets.

I spend lots of time with my kid every day, and I've never noticed any difference in behavior when he eats lots of sugary stuff (usually once a week). Also, at every birthday party some parent will always start espousing this theory while pointing to the kids playing as evidence, and I've learned not to point out that their kid acted exactly the same way last week while visiting my kid with no sugar served at all...…

If your kid is only eating sugar once a week that's really not the norm anymore and you've got my admiration.

Here's the thing I noticed when I was a single father. I'd have my daughter with me and she'd be fine doing what toddlers do. Someone would see us and whip out a piece of candy and give it to her, and then we'd say our goodbyes. 5-10 minutes later my daughter was bouncing off the walls, every single time that happened.

It's the sugar, and most all moms who spend a lot of time with their kids will tell you the same thing. That's who I learned about it from. And when I got up the nerve to start telling people, "Please don't give her candy" I stopped having that problem, when I was successful at stopping them.

I've seen the same thing with my youngest step-kids when my wife and I met and I took over the day to day caring for them. And I spent a great deal of time with "moms" learning from them and listening to them because when I started caring for my daughter myself (at 14 months) I realized fast that I didn't know shit about momming, and I was a very active father before then.

The funny thing about those who've posted links to "studies" here that dispute this is they must know there are many studies that do make this link for both sugar and Red 40, and that Red 40 is banned in many other countries because of it's links to making kids hyper and other issues.

I'll readily concede that these may not affect all kids the same, and that it probably affects young children most, but that really makes sense when you consider doses (serving sizes) and body weight. But in my experience it affects most children. I've not met many it doesn't, but I've met a lot of adults that ignore it.

The longer term ill effects of too much sugar are pretty well documented too. If you don't raise children to eat healthy foods you're pretty much failing as a parent.

Post reply on HN