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

Reducing sugar in packaged foods can prevent disease in millions

eurekalert.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 176 posts

Re: Reducing sugar in packaged foods can prevent disease in millions

#141

Post by phonypc »

gregsq wrote: post #51
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #9

The nice thing about reducing sugar is that after a while your taste buds realize how insanely over-sweetened many products are in the US. My current favorite example is bottled teas. When I was a kid I remember drinking Snapple, now I can't understand how I ever downed that stuff, it's like drinking syrup. If I'm lazy I'll get a bottle of unsweetened tea and mix it about 4-1 with sweetened tea. I get something that…

As a person whose lived mostly in the UK and Australia, and now the US for six years, I still can’t eat many American versions of things I know. Ordinary things like Kit Kat’s or any chocolate, supermarket cakes and so on. They’re almost unpalatable to me. Cadbury’s chocolate, made under license here, is another example. In a shop the other day and the lady at the checkout was discussing with the lady she was serving…

>some salt she had in store had sugar in its ingredients list. We were all bemused.

That's common in iodized salt. It's not nearly enough to taste or make a difference in your diet.

Re: Reducing sugar in packaged foods can prevent disease in millions

#142

Post by phonypc »

laurent92 wrote: post #90
TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> yogurt I don’t think unflavored yogurt has much sugar, does it?

Unflavored yoghurt has 5g of sugar (size of a sugar cube), and I’ve often seen up to 12g… (2 cubes and a half!) still branded as unflavored. It’s a crime we’re doing here, there is no place where we can get unsweetened matter.

The 5g per serving example is probably actually unsweetened, i.e. it's just the naturally present lactose. No sucrose.

Re: Reducing sugar in packaged foods can prevent disease in millions

#143

Post by inglor_cz »

EamonnMR wrote: post #3
guerrilla wrote: post #2

But if sugar is addictive, as it seems it is, this would cost a significant fraction of annual revenue to food producers, so there's no way they'd do it. Even if it's not literally addictive, it's clearly attractive and they'd take a big hit.

What baffles me is that artificial sweeteners exist and yet there is enough (imo) unfounded FUD about them that leads people to instead choose Sugar or Nothing (which inevitably translates to Sugar because of the pseudo-addictiveness you mention.) Is wireheading bad? Maybe, but if I'm going to be doing it either way I'd rather reduce the harm.

I had many unpleasant experiences with zero calorie sodas, especially if I started to consume them regularly. Belching, farting, reflux etc. Those always went away when I stopped. (I do not drink sugary sodas at all.)

So it wasn't as surprising for me to learn that there are suspicions that artificial sweeteners may alter gut biome.

There isn't any consensus yet, but my N==1 seems to agree with the suspicion. I am generally fairly sensitive to gut biome changes, even a few weeks on a different probiotics might change e.g. my sensitivity to milk.

https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/22/10/5228

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8156656/

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature13793

Re: Reducing sugar in packaged foods can prevent disease in millions

#144

Post by phonypc »

gHosts wrote: post #96

I want to start a Truth in Packaging campaign. Mint Sauce? Nah. That mint flavoured sugar water. Cheese is a Good Source of Protein? Nah. Bollocks, it's clearly a better source of fat. I could go on for ages. I'm truly glad I don't live in America... The amount of sugar in NZ food is frightening and I have to spend ages label reading to avoid the worst of it.... ....but the amount of HFCS in American food is just pla…

>Cheese is a Good Source of Protein? Nah. Bollocks, it's clearly a better source of fat.

The former can be true despite the latter.

"Carrots a good source of vitamin A? Nah, clearly a better source of sugar."

Re: Reducing sugar in packaged foods can prevent disease in millions

#145

Post by p2t2p »

iamgopal wrote: post #125
p2t2p wrote: post #83

I’ve been LCHF-ing for last two months. My weight steadily goes down half a kilo a week. Except for that one week during which i consumed half a kilo of Philadelphia cheese

Fat and sugar are different, does cheese are always with added sugar ?

There’s no sugar in that cheese, at least in Australia. Fat maintains weight on that diet as it replaces carbs as the source of energy (simplified statement, there’s a bit more to it but the end result is fat == maintain weight)

Re: Reducing sugar in packaged foods can prevent disease in millions

#146

Post by phonypc »

TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #74
ravenstine wrote: post #43

> Product reformulation efforts have been shown to be successful in reducing other harmful nutrients, such as trans fats and sodium. Trans fats are harmful (well except some natural ones), but how can sodium be a harmful nutrient unless you have existing cardiovascular or renal issues? Seems like a strange statement.

When I read things like this, I feel that a nutrition class should be required in US high school. Not a unit about nutrition during health class, but a full semester on nutrition. Salt (sodium) is terrible for blood pressure. Just search keywords “salt blood pressure”. And if you don’t know why high blood pressure is bad for you, that’s ok. Spend 2 minutes reading about it, that’s all you need.

Given the qualifier "unless you have existing cardiovascular or renal issues" they probably understand the relation between sodium and blood pressure. (Dare I say understand it better than you?)

Trans fats (more specifically partially hydrogenated vegetable oils) are understood to be harmful in any amount. Sodium is essential in some quantity and only harmful in excess. It really doesn't make sense to group them together as "harmful nutrients."

Re: Reducing sugar in packaged foods can prevent disease in millions

#147

Post by phonypc »

TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #78
sjf wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am one of those people. If even sip something with stevia in it I am going to be trying to get the taste out of mouth for hours. It makes me want to scrap my tongue off. It was truly the worst thing I have ever consumed. It has only happened a couple of times, now I am literally traumatized and check the ingredients on anything that is likely to have it. For context, I am not a picky eater, there are things I don't…

There are many others on the market now besides stevia. If added sugar is important to you, try the others because they all taste a little different. There’s also just plain maple syrup which is better than using pure sugar.

>There’s also just plain maple syrup which is better than using pure sugar.

How do you figure? It's practically pure sucrose, just like table sugar.

Re: Reducing sugar in packaged foods can prevent disease in millions

#148

Post by TedDoesntTalk »

phonypc wrote: post #147
TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many others on the market now besides stevia. If added sugar is important to you, try the others because they all taste a little different. There’s also just plain maple syrup which is better than using pure sugar.

> There’s also just plain maple syrup which is better than using pure sugar. How do you figure? It's practically pure sucrose, just like table sugar.

Table sugar has a glycemic index of 65. Maple sugar's is 54. Not a huge difference but if sweeteners are important to you, maybe every bit counts.

Re: Reducing sugar in packaged foods can prevent disease in millions

#149

Post by TedDoesntTalk »

phonypc wrote: post #146
TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I read things like this, I feel that a nutrition class should be required in US high school. Not a unit about nutrition during health class, but a full semester on nutrition. Salt (sodium) is terrible for blood pressure. Just search keywords “salt blood pressure”. And if you don’t know why high blood pressure is bad for you, that’s ok. Spend 2 minutes reading about it, that’s all you need.

Given the qualifier "unless you have existing cardiovascular or renal issues" they probably understand the relation between sodium and blood pressure. (Dare I say understand it better than you?) Trans fats (more specifically partially hydrogenated vegetable oils) are understood to be harmful in any amount. Sodium is essential in some quantity and only harmful in excess. It really doesn't make sense to group them toge…

> only harmful in excess.

Tell that to the American Heart Association:

https://www.heart.org/en/healthy-living/healthy-eating/eat-s...

When there’s extra sodium in your bloodstream, it pulls water into your blood vessels, increasing the total amount (volume) of blood inside them. With more blood flowing through your blood vessels, blood pressure increases. It’s like turning up the water supply to a garden hose — the pressure in the hose increases as more water is blasted through it.

Over time, high blood pressure may overstretch or injure the blood vessel walls and speed the build-up of gunky plaque that can block blood flow. The added pressure tires out the heart by forcing it to work harder to pump blood through the body. And the extra water in your body can lead to bloating and weight gain.

High blood pressure is known as the “silent killer” because its symptoms are not always obvious. It’s one of the major risk factors for heart disease, the No. 1 killer worldwide. Almost no one gets a free pass. Ninety percent of American adults are expected to develop high blood pressure over their lifetimes.

Did you know that sodium can affect your blood pressure even more dramatically if you’re sensitive to salt? Recent science explains that certain factors may influence how your blood pressure changes when you eat salt, such as:

Age Weight Race/ethnicity Gender Some medical conditions (like diabetes or chronic kidney disease) Even if you don’t already have high blood pressure, eating less sodium can help blunt the rise in blood pressure that occurs with age. It can also reduce your risk of heart attack, heart failure, stroke, kidney disease, osteoporosis, stomach cancer and even headaches.

https://www.heart.org/en/healthy-living/healthy-eating/eat-s...

Re: Reducing sugar in packaged foods can prevent disease in millions

#150

Post by JoeAltmaier »

TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #149
phonypc wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the qualifier "unless you have existing cardiovascular or renal issues" they probably understand the relation between sodium and blood pressure. (Dare I say understand it better than you?) Trans fats (more specifically partially hydrogenated vegetable oils) are understood to be harmful in any amount. Sodium is essential in some quantity and only harmful in excess. It really doesn't make sense to group them toge…

> only harmful in excess. Tell that to the American Heart Association: https://www.heart.org/en/healthy-living/healthy-eating/eat-s... When there’s extra sodium in your bloodstream, it pulls water into your blood vessels, increasing the total amount (volume) of blood inside them. With more blood flowing through your blood vessels, blood pressure increases. It’s like turning up the water supply to a garden hose — the…

That's not about sodium - its about high blood pressure, which is not in dispute.

Your body is exquisitely designed to balance sodium. Sweat, tears, urine remove excess very quickly. Blood pressure is affected by sodium, sure. A point or two for an hour or two.

Unless you have a health issue related to sodium, lets quit demonizing it. The worst thing about salt is, folks use it to distract from real improvements they could make in their health.

Post reply on HN