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

331–340 of 397 posts

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

#331

Post by dilap »

siliconc0w wrote: post #179
dilap wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd take the other side of that bet. https://imgur.com/a/4b0O4AW Prior to early 2000s when sugar consumption started going down, it was probably a reasonble guess as one of the drivers of increasing disease. But since then sugar consumption has tailed off while disease rates have continued to rise, so I don't think it's plausible anymore. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7666899/ My bet to flatten the chronic…

While I don't disagree that omega-6 oils are suspect - especially when heated/reheated - the evidence for sugar being bad for you is still far greater than the evidence that seed oils are bad for you. The US State system lends itself to natural experiments so I'm all for iterating on what taxes incentives actually lead to the desired outcomes (higher healthspan and lower healthcare costs). There very well could be mu…

Yeah, I agree it would be great to do some regional experiments.

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

#332

Post by Der_Einzige »

Zobat wrote: post #271
gdw2 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the health effect would be equally detrimental. From the article: > High doses of rapidly digested glucose also activate insulin and other regulatory pathways... Orange Soda (i.e. Fanta), an SSB, and Orange Juice have glycemic indexes of about 68 and 48 respectively. I assume that's a material difference in that OJ doesn't spike your insulin as abruptly and therefore is not as harmful. Thre's more to it than simply…

The diabetics I know say OJ is worse than (sugared) sodas.

Maybe because they can drink it faster. Glycmic index's and the equivalent index's around insulin response are literally the gold standard for deciding what's okay to eat. "Vibes" or "My opinions" do not matter. OJ is marginally "healthier", significantly because the fiber in the drink (more pulp the better) slows down (slightly) the insulin and glycemic responses.

Source: Family of diabetics who have actually lost limb to the poison that is refined sugar.

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

#333

Post by m3kw9 »

chiefalchemist wrote: post #216
m3kw9 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Learn to drink it black, it’s good. But I do get beans and grind them so the brew is much higher quality. I’m assuming you drink that can of grinds for 3 bucks or instant. Those suck

I learned to drink it black, but not for health reasons. I did it to avoid having to depend on sugar a/o milk in order to have a coffee. Plus, nothing says "No nonsense" like "Coffee? Yes, black please."

“Please hold on, white”

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

#334

Post by mlyle »

rroblak wrote: post #327
johnyzee wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I do the same for fats. The way I look at it, I want to maximize the "enjoyment per kcalorie". :) We are increasingly moving away from looking at fat as an indulgence, towards understanding it as an essential nutrient, with a large variance in fat types and their benefits. E.g. some people would avoid eating nuts, because they are high in fat, and not as tasty as something similarly fatty, like a pastry. This seems…

This. People are getting the message that "sugar is bad" but the public health messaging of "fat is bad" still lingers in many people's heads. It's sad, because as you mentioned some days are indeed essential nutrients. Especially for kids and pregnant women.

I mean, the "fat is bad" thing isn't completely wrong: it is definitely possible to overdo it. It's extremely calorically dense, and most fats are bad for us in other ways.

But society didn't replace some of the fat with increased intake of vegetables and lean meats.

Food manufacturers compensated for less fat with more sugars and salt, which we've been finding are even worse.

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

#335

Post by loeg »

raegis wrote: post #243
loeg wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lustig is a crank with opinions well outside scientific consensus.

This isn't true. He has books and lectures explaining the metabolic processes when eating refined sugar, and why it's bad for you. Nowadays it's pretty mainstream stuff. Nevertheless, can you give an example of one of his opinions which is "well outside scientific consensus".

> Nevertheless, can you give an example of one of his opinions which is "well outside scientific consensus".

Lustig specifically claims that sugar is addictive; that fiber somehow mitigates the absorption of fructose; that calorie restriction does not cause weight loss; that in fact, weight loss is somehow a function of insulin, not calories; that fructose is uniquely bad relative to other sugars; that fructose causes inflammation; that recent decades' increase in obesity is caused by increased sugar consumption; that statins are essentially useless; that some kinds of LDL cholesterol are good for longevity; that non-nutritive sweeteners have the same impact on fat/weight gain as sugar; etc, etc, etc, etc.

A few of these claims are wholly unsubstantiated by research; the rest have some research and the research does not support Lustig's claims.

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

#336

Post by itishappy »

bluGill wrote: post #32
sitkack wrote: post #2

> Burdens of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease attributable to sugar-sweetened beverages in 184 countries https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-024-03345-4.pdf The data and the code used for the analysis appears to be available. ---- One of the reasons that we don't have Universal Healthcare in the US is that things that are categorically unhealthy would be prohibited from being sold. Afterall, it would ben…

Before we go here, what is the alternative. If restrict soda and people switch to beer even if they will be driving that could be much worse. (I don't otherwise know how the effects of alcohol vs soda come up but that too is a question worth asking)

I don't think that's a relevant comparison. They're both beverages, sure, but that's about where the similarities end. As drugs they're entirely different. May as well add Ayahuasca to consideration as well.

I could see tea or coffee (particularly the sweetened varieties) and sparkling water, but honestly I think the most likely alternative will just be plain ol' water.

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

#338

Post by scrollop »

Supermancho wrote: post #186
chrisco255 wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's probably a risky line of thinking, if you're addicted to sugar, to substitute in some other source of sugar. Best to avoid pastries, lollipops and sugary sodas.

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.

Yes you need to have carbs, however the quality of the carbohydrate is the most important factor.

If you have any sense for your health you will not have regular intake of sugar, white bread, potatoes crisps, rice cakes, any thing with a high GI.

Some carbohydrates reduce your risk of diabetes, and if you're smart you follow the evidence and you eat these-

https://youtu.be/DNQrNWsoPEE?si=GORRP5IblhNkKCdF

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

#339

Post by mmustapic »

rauljordan2020 wrote: post #320

I'm from latam. I never saw anyone drink water growing up. Anytime you try to drink water, people label you as boring, even your parents. Whenever we go to a restaurant, the first thing you ask the waiter is "what sodas do you have?". If you're not feeling like drinking soda and want something "healthier", you ask what kinds of fruit juices they have. If you don't like the options, you settle on a hyper-sweetened tea…

Latin America is very big, I don’t think you can generalise your experience to a whole subcontinent.

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

#340

Post by hollerith »

Supermancho wrote: post #324
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?

They also had carbohydrates in their diet. Meat naturally contains carbs. Pretending that the human body is misunderstood and that it worked very differently is a common pitfall of these discussions. Largely it was the same, with the amounts differing.

Meat contains only insignificant amounts of carbs. The human body can convert protein to carbs (glucose specifically) but the rate at which it can do it is limited, and my guess is that if it can't burn glucose, a metabolically-healthy body will burn fat (rather than glucose made from protein) until the diet has been quite deficient in calories for at least 3 days.
Post reply on HN