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

Training the Brain to Eat Less Sugar

drexel.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 166 posts

Re: Training the Brain to Eat Less Sugar

#141

Post by ZeroFries »

shusson wrote: post #123
ZeroFries wrote: post #103

There's actually not that much evidence moderate sugar intake is bad for you, at all. All this talk about "sugar" swings is completely off base, IMO, especially considering most starches are much higher on the GI and II scales than sugars. Fructose is low GI, and most of it is converted to glucose in the gut, anyway. Higher consumption is converted to fat, but most vilifying sugars promote fat, so what's the differen…

> Moderate carb feels best Yeah I agree, but I think the problem is it's way too easy to eat a lot of sugar without realising it. Eat an average low fat yogurt cup and if you're not careful you just ate 30g of sugar.

I'd argue it's easier to over-consume fats (in the context of a mixed diet). 30g of sugar is less calories than a tablespoon of oil.

Re: Training the Brain to Eat Less Sugar

#142

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

maxxxxx wrote: post #94
amriksohata wrote: post #61

Watch the Fed Up documentary, how sugar is more addictive than cocaine in mice, how 80% of food products in US supermarkets have added sugar. Its nearly impossible trying to train yourself to moderate your sugar, its better to avoid it altogether as your body sugar level (GI) spikes causes withdrawal later. Our body does not need any refined sugar. Fruits are ok, avoid fruit juices as they often either have added or…

This is really infuriating. There is a ton of sugar in almost everything. Now they advertise Coke that has an obscene amount of cane sugar instead of an obscene amount of corn syrup as a health benefit. There has been a lot of talk about a code of ethics for developers. How about one for people working in the food industry? The people working in marketing and product development do truly damaging things to whole nati…

The "code of ethics" is really committing to supplying the nutritional information and ingredients - it provides you what you need to make a decision as a consumer.

Re: Training the Brain to Eat Less Sugar

#143

Post by [deleted] »

johnkpaul wrote: post #119
Nasrudith wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with those criteria is we would need to ask at what stage are we going to call water an addiction? It also fufills those details. Really just because it can be classified as an addiction doesn't mean it should. The real criteria of concern is "does it cause problems /in this case/". Otherwise you end up with a hysterical neo-puritanism of trying to create a perfect life by excision of all vices.

I don't agree, but I also don't know the formalisms around addiction to articulate my argument precisely. I have never heard of water intoxication happening with growing frequency over decades. I have also not heard of water intoxication having support groups, nor of water being described as a craving. Additionally, there are no humans that have lived without water for years of their life. I have lived without sucros…

[deleted]

Re: Training the Brain to Eat Less Sugar

#145

Post by will_brown »

ZeroFries wrote: post #140
will_brown wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If anyone can link me evidence that moderate sugar intake promotes worse blood sugar regulation (compared to saturated fat, especially) in healthy, non-diabetic populations, would love to see it. I think you should reframe this...and ask if anyone can link evidence of a case of type 2 diabeties or non alcoholic fatty liver disease where the patient didn’t consume sugar/carbs (those cases don’t exist). I think histor…

The vast majority of the population eats sugar and carbs, so it's not surprisingly the majority of diabetics consume them, too. Moreover, there are plenty of populations which consume very high carb diets who don't suffer from diabetes.

>so it's not surprisingly the majority of diabetics consume them

No, not a majority, every single patient with T2D has consumed them, whereas a majority could reverse diabeties by cutting them.

Medically it is undisputed T2D could have been avoided in 100% of cases through diet and exercise. Do other factors contribute (obesity, genetics, etc...)? Yes, but notwithstanding those issues still 100% of T2D cases could have been avoided (unfortunately not 100% can be reversed).

Sure people can consume high carb diets live long healthy lives, no one is saying 100% of people who eat carbs/sugar get diabetes, but 100% of patients that get T2D consumed sugar/carbs.

Re: Training the Brain to Eat Less Sugar

#146

Post by gamblor956 »

msiyer wrote: post #112
jtreminio wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Garlic and onions are high in fructans which trigger IBS in millions of people a day. My wife enjoyed and _loved_ galic for 30+ years before her IBS kicked in. Garlic is extremely bad for IBS because bacteria gorge themselves and produce a ton of gas, which causes horrible intestinal pain. A study [0] recommends garlic and onions as key foods to restore a healthy, balanced microbiome. I have never heard anyone before…

>>Rather, they let a specific kind flourish... ... at the expense of others. Garlic is mentioned exactly once in the study. It is just included with a bunch of other things. Nothing to conclude here. Garlic is, by no means, a food. Any study that recommends it as food is not a proper study. Garlic is an extremely potent medicine.

Someone must let the Italians and Indians and Persians and Greeks know that they've been eating medicines for centuries...

If you're going to make a silly claim that garlic and onions aren't foods you need to back that BS up.

Re: Training the Brain to Eat Less Sugar

#147

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

msiyer wrote: post #104
jtreminio wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having problems with onions or garlic is a common sign of IBS.

It is a sign of my system being cleaner than it was before. Onion and garlic are extremely potent medicines. They are not food. They have antibiotic properties and kill bacteria. Our guts have microbes. Now, connect the dots...

> Onion and garlic are extremely potent medicines. They are not food.

Sorry, what? Onion is one of the oldest cultivated plant and it's consumption exists in nearly every culture, in much "cleaner" times than today. If our guts can adapt to milk, it will have adapted to onion.

Also, you're going to have to show me evidence that the extremely potent medicine has extremely potent effects - what do we currently cure with onion? And please no big pharma arguments - aspirin and penicillin are still wildly available and they come from natural elements.

Re: Training the Brain to Eat Less Sugar

#148

Post by EForEndeavour »

ZeroFries wrote: post #139
EForEndeavour wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Fructose is low GI, and most of it is converted to glucose in the gut, anyway. The first half of this sentence (fructose is low GI) is factually correct. The second half (most fructose is converted to glucose in the gut) is factually incorrect. The entire sentence and comment oversimplify sugar metabolism. tl;dr: control your fructose intake. First, nitpicky corrections: about half of ingested fructose is converted…

It takes high doses of sugar for frutose to not get converted in the small intestine. https://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/comments/S1550-4131(17)... Lustig is a highly biased source. I would be interested in summaries of controlled studies which aren't cherry-picked comparing iso-caloric diets of sugar vs fat.

> Lustig is a highly biased source. I would be interested in summaries of controlled studies which aren't cherry-picked comparing iso-caloric diets of sugar vs fat.

The very paper you cite asserts "strong ties between fructose and disease," points out that "high fructose consumption is appreciated as a culprit in metabolic disease," and presents a supremely well-researched case against fructose. Regardless of the precise metabolic fate of low-dose fructose (whatever "low dose" ends up meaning for humans), the practical takeaway of your paper (and mountains of research) agrees with Lustig's: avoid fructose.

Also, that paper is a mouse study. Even if metabolic pathways are exactly identical between mice and humans, how much fructose constitutes a "high" dose that they show overflows from the small intestine to the liver? They address this, emphasis mine:

> The extent of passage of unmetabolized fructose through the small intestine to the liver depended on dose. Conversion of doses between mice and humans is not straightforward. Across mammals, total metabolic activity more closely mirrors body surface area than mass. For a typical adult mouse, daily intake is ~12 kcal, versus ~2,400 kcal for an adult human. One sensible way of converting doses of macronutrients is based on caloric intake: a dose of 0.5 g/kg fructose in mouse is ~0.5% of daily calorie intake, or the same as 3 g of fructose in a person (one orange or about 2 ounces of soda). Thus, the doses that we study here are in the range of typical human fructose consumption (Marriott et al., 2009; Macdonald, 2016).

That mouse dose they convert, 0.5 g/kg, is halfway to the 1 g/kg threshold they define as "high dose fructose." So if you drink more than 4 ounces of soda per day, your liver is doing the bulk of fructose metabolism.

What makes you call Lustig "highly biased"? While he is admittedly argumentative and even a bit sensationalist in his presentation, he bases all of his claims on extensively sourced physiology and epidemiology research, and his credentials and career are highly relevant, for what it's worth.

Again, the conclusion from decades of research is abundantly clear at this point: avoid fructose.

Re: Training the Brain to Eat Less Sugar

#149

Post by msiyer »

gamblor956 wrote: post #146
msiyer wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>Rather, they let a specific kind flourish... ... at the expense of others. Garlic is mentioned exactly once in the study. It is just included with a bunch of other things. Nothing to conclude here. Garlic is, by no means, a food. Any study that recommends it as food is not a proper study. Garlic is an extremely potent medicine.

Someone must let the Italians and Indians and Persians and Greeks know that they've been eating medicines for centuries... If you're going to make a silly claim that garlic and onions aren't foods you need to back that BS up.

Indians know, or atleast knew till a few decades ago, that garlic and onion are medicines. They have known for centuries. I have no idea about Italians and Greeks.

Re: Training the Brain to Eat Less Sugar

#150

Post by busymom0 »

sma222k0n wrote: post #20
busymom0 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have done Keto myself and personally I would not recommend it. I would actually love to do keto forever as I love eating meat but it will pretty much ruin most of your social eating out habits unless you are okay with not going out for things like Sushi (not eating rolls), ice cream etc. I also do powerlifting and my calorie requirements are much higher. Strength wise, my strength took a dip initially but it mostly…

2 Months is absolutely nothing in Ketogenic diet, what you've likely experienced in those two months was mostly the transitioning side-effects from carbs to fat, it takes at least 6-12 months to be fully fat-adapted (mitochondrial changes) especially if you're an athlete.(See Ultra runner Zach Bitter)

I guess you could be right but for me, I couldn't afford 6-12 months of low endurance as I was about to start a specific workout program which also needed me to be in caloric surplus and have high endurance. Maybe I would try it out again in the future.

But another main reason as I pointed out was that Keto was severely limiting my social eating habits. I personally did not do it for losing body fat, I did it mostly to see how it is. I still loved eating out with friends - things like sushi rolls, ice cream etc. Keto wasn't allowing me those things.

I would actually love to do keto because I love eating meat (steak), butter, avocados etc but right now isn't the right time for me from a social point of view.

Post reply on HN