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

Type 2 Diabetes and cardiovascular disease attributable to sugar beverages

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 397 posts

Re: Type 2 Diabetes and cardiovascular disease attributable to sugar beverages

#281

Post by vixen99 »

loeg wrote: post #204
bitwize wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is one of those areas where scientific consensus needs to catch up with the alarming facts that have been discovered. Scientific consensus was against handwashing for doctors and plate tectonics, and it still is in favor of "clearing amyloid plaques will totally fix Alzheimer's", but the facts just keep on being what they be.

No, this is an area where Lustig is probably wrong, and definitely making unsubstantiated statements.

As in? No examples so that we can look at the facts ourselves?

Re: Type 2 Diabetes and cardiovascular disease attributable to sugar beverages

#282

Post by lhoff »

hgomersall wrote: post #280
pessimizer wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> About 15 years ago, I stopped drinking soda. Not out of a desire to be healthy or loose weight[...] Same thing happened to me at probably around the same time. I realized I could just have a lollypop, and it would be a tenth of the sugar. Most of the sweetness in soda doesn't even get a chance to touch your tongue before it's going down your throat. If I want candy, I should just have a piece of candy. If I'm thirs…

If I go to a restaurant with fill your own drinks (rare in the UK), I generally get soda water with about 10% coke. It's remarkable how much it tastes (to me) just like coke, albeit palatably sweet. I always thought the sugar tax should be a sweetness tax to change people's perceptions.

I also do this, usually with sprite or fanta and I think its more refreshing this way

Re: Type 2 Diabetes and cardiovascular disease attributable to sugar beverages

#283

Post by aziaziazi »

addicted wrote: post #272
aziaziazi wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with peers. Doesn’t Keto (for part of the year) worked for millennia for our ancestors?

Most of our ancestors lived a fraction of the lifespans we do. So any argument based on “it worked for our ancestors” is flawed. “It worked for our ancestors” could be the beginning of an idea for research, but certainly does not take you much further than that.

I agree with all you said but I also guess our ancestors mostly die from infection, hypothermia, viruses… certainly not from brain stop working because carbs deficiency.

"You have to have carbs for your brain to run" doesn’t make sense. You have to have sugar in your brain to run, but that sugar surely can comes from fat as well.

Re: Type 2 Diabetes and cardiovascular disease attributable to sugar beverages

#284

Post by vixen99 »

eru wrote: post #190
Supermancho wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a risky way of thinking to reduce every act to a moral choice. ie I could have used the energy that I burned making this post, to hand out a dollar to a homeless person. Beyond how ridiculously reductive this becomes, it's impractical. You have to have carbs for your brain to run.

I agree with almost everything you say. However: > Beyond how ridiculously reductive this becomes, it's impractical. You have to have carbs for your brain to run. No. People live on no-carb diets just fine and enter ketosis. (And in any case, the comment you replied to only talked about sugar, not carbs in general.)

Not just any no/low carb diet:

'A low-carbohydrate diet based on animal sources was associated with higher all-cause mortality in both men and women, whereas a vegetable-based low-carbohydrate diet was associated with lower all-cause and cardiovascular disease mortality rates.'

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2989112/

It is of course rather difficult if not impossible, to have a vegetable diet completely devoid of carbohydrates.

Re: Type 2 Diabetes and cardiovascular disease attributable to sugar beverages

#285

Post by gigatexal »

lm28469 wrote: post #276
gigatexal wrote: post #264

Well this article scared me. Guess I will have to quit Mountain Dew. But what if I switched to the sugar free one? (Am I swapping diabetes and heart disease for cancer?)

First you should take a few long minutes and think hard about why you drink this shit in the first place.

Cuz it tastes good? Because I’m addicted? Because the caffeine is great. Because I hate the taste of coffee. Because I can? I dunno.

Re: Type 2 Diabetes and cardiovascular disease attributable to sugar beverages

#286

Post by eru »

vixen99 wrote: post #284
eru wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with almost everything you say. However: > Beyond how ridiculously reductive this becomes, it's impractical. You have to have carbs for your brain to run. No. People live on no-carb diets just fine and enter ketosis. (And in any case, the comment you replied to only talked about sugar, not carbs in general.)

Not just any no/low carb diet: 'A low-carbohydrate diet based on animal sources was associated with higher all-cause mortality in both men and women, whereas a vegetable-based low-carbohydrate diet was associated with lower all-cause and cardiovascular disease mortality rates.' https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2989112/ It is of course rather difficult if not impossible, to have a vegetable diet completely dev…

The number of people in this study is surprisingly large!

Alas, it doesn't have much bearing on the part of the comment I wanted to focus on 'You have to have carbs for your brain to run.' Because the diets in question here still have some carbs. (And the changes in mortality rates are fairly modest, too.)

What I wanted to say is that even if you eat no carbs at all, you brain will still get its energy. You won't just keel over after a while, like if you didn't eat anything at all henceforth.

Of course, there might be second order health effects, like the study you linked suggest.

Re: Type 2 Diabetes and cardiovascular disease attributable to sugar beverages

#287

Post by eru »

aziaziazi wrote: post #254
Supermancho wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a risky way of thinking to reduce every act to a moral choice. ie I could have used the energy that I burned making this post, to hand out a dollar to a homeless person. Beyond how ridiculously reductive this becomes, it's impractical. You have to have carbs for your brain to run.

I agree with peers. Doesn’t Keto (for part of the year) worked for millennia for our ancestors?

Some of our ancestors might have done keto some times, but I'm not sure most of them did most of the time? Humans are decidedly omnivorous, and most of them would eat whatever they could get their hands on, including plants and mushrooms (and sometimes honey!) etc.

Re: Type 2 Diabetes and cardiovascular disease attributable to sugar beverages

#288

Post by aziaziazi »

LordAtlas wrote: post #273
jillesvangurp wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good for you. I think for meat especially, there's a difference between the stuff people talk about (like premium steaks they almost never eat) and the reality of what ends up on their plates which is a lot less glamorous. A typical fast food burger just isn't that great in terms of texture, taste, looks, etc. and IMHO almost always disappointingly unsatisfying and slightly uncomfortable afterwards. I'll eat that onc…

Man, as an Indian, this is hard to read. You're spreading a lot of misinformation about Indian food. > Which is possibly also a reason why vegan food is popular in India. First, while there are a lot of tasty Indian vegetarian dishes, vegan food is decidedly not a cultural thing. We use butter and ghee pretty commonly in food: definitely not vegan. India is the world's largest milk producer; also not vegan. That dal…

Hi, thanks for this cultural sharing. I don't understand something about Indian culture -probably because of prejudices- and would be glad to know more. Hindus in India venerate (or respect?) cows such a way they let them live in free roaming. Also they eat a lot of ghee and milk derivatives. Where does those milk comes from ?

A. Is it ok to eat a cow if someone else raise the cow?

B. Is it ok to eat milk raised by someone else

C. Is it ok to 'milk' a stray cows while they looks skinny?

D. How do they regards the calves needed once in a while for milk production?

E. Does Hindus only eat chicken (and so) but no milk while muslims eat everything?

F. Where goes the dead free roaming cows cadavers? Is there enough vultures?

Note I'm not trying to find logical incoherencies or logical fallacies, I'm very aware there's many think that can been seen as inconsistant or very consistent depending on your knowledge on a subject - which is never 100% reachable.

Re: Type 2 Diabetes and cardiovascular disease attributable to sugar beverages

#289

Post by f1shy »

lm28469 wrote: post #278
f1shy wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well still different, as I could never possibly drink 300ml of honey, without choking or something worse. On the other hand, grape juice, while not 100% natural, I’m not sure how it fares against cola (just considering sugar, not the rest of the junk) Once I drunk some not-still-done wine, basically grape juice where the fermentation started, and so some bubbles were present. That was the most natural and delicious s…

When in human history could you drink 1L+ of fruit juice for $2 every single day regardless of the season?

No question. Until VERY recently (in terms of evolution anyway).

Re: Type 2 Diabetes and cardiovascular disease attributable to sugar beverages

#290

Post by ricardobeat »

Ensorceled wrote: post #102
ricardobeat wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I take it you haven’t tried a nice ripe mango from subtropical regions, or a pineapple, white grapes (or grape juice), watermelon, navel oranges? They can be sweeter than Dr. Pepper. Sugarcane also exists and you can chew it. They just tended to 1) come with fiber, 2) not be as easy to acquire or eat in large quantities 3) not available all year, or all at once

This is nonsense: 100g of mango has 14g of sugar 100g of watermelon has 6.2g of sugar 100g of navel orange has 12g of sugar 100g of sugar has 100g of sugar, 1 can of Dr Pepper has 40g of sugar It's both pure sugar AND more sugar. You have to eat more than half a pound of mango to get to the same sugar as a Dr Pepper.

As mentioned in the sibling comment, your numbers are not comparable, and anything >10% is already an absolutely unhealthy amount of sugar.

Point being that sugary drinks/foods didn’t suddenly come to existence.

There are sugary products everywhere because we want them - or you might say we were made to want them. We made it central to our culture in many ways, and accepted terrible dietary habits as the norm. The wide availability of something like Dr Pepper is as much a cause as a reflection of that.

Post reply on HN