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

John Yudkin: the man who tried to warn us about sugar

smh.com.au

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 248 posts

Re: John Yudkin: the man who tried to warn us about sugar

#91

Post by 31reasons »

ynniv wrote: post #41
pvnick wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The insulin response to sugar is the primary way your body stores fat and sugar itself is readily converted to fat This is a common myth, but it's wrong. Dietary fat is what is primarily stored and leads to weight gain during caloric excess; dietary carbs just decrease the amount of fat being used for energy, but can also get stored as fat tissue during overfeeding in a process called de novo lipogenesis (which is w…

it all comes back to calories in vs calories out. 12 cans of Coke a day = healthy diet?

Yes, you heard the man with bunch of citations.

Re: John Yudkin: the man who tried to warn us about sugar

#93

Post by eclipxe »

Spoygg wrote: post #77
eclipxe wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about 500 calories worth of 100% natural apple juice (about 4.5 cups) Try it. Drink it and come back in 15-20 minutes and let me know. Then try 11 slices of pan fried bacon (43 cal/slice according to google) and then tell me how hungry you are in 15-20 minutes.

I don't think that is a fair comparison, can you drink fried bacon? Why would you compare liquid juice with hard meal? It is much easier to digest juice, why not just take a kilo of apples (520 calories)?

because fiber.

Okay, how about half a cup of heavy cream instead of bacon. I guarantee you won't feel hungry 15-20 minutes late.

Re: John Yudkin: the man who tried to warn us about sugar

#94

Post by PakG1 »

pvnick wrote: post #36
PakG1 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like for you to actually explain how it's wrong to say that replacing a fat-heavy diet with a sugar-heavy diet is bad for health. You dismiss their premises and conclusions by saying they're looking at the wrong culprit for health problems. I'd prefer if you dealt with their premises and conclusions by falsifying said premises and conclusions.

I advocate moderation and balance. Consume reasonable calorie and macronutrient (protein, fat, carbohydrate) quantities. Eat what allows you to do that. For me, those carbs come from doughnuts and candy but also from brown rice and pasta. Just like my meats include both lean meats (chicken breast) and fatty, delicious meats (bacon). Combine this with exercise and all you'll avoid all the scary things the article talk…

Again, you deal with their argument by avoiding it and offering an alternative plan of action. I am asking if you can explain why what OP is saying is wrong, not how we can make OP's issues become non-issues. Asking as you seem quite passionate about the subject.

Re: John Yudkin: the man who tried to warn us about sugar

#95

Post by ynniv »

gnusouth wrote: post #84
ynniv wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Week old accounts with no prior comments shouldn't be allowed to use hot button words like "crackpot". They should probably include IP addresses in their comments as well.

I had to start somewhere, didn't I? Yours truly, a new HN user. IP address: 115.64.60.28

Perhaps cut your teeth on a nice technical discussion before calling an article in your local metro newspaper "crackpot".

Re: John Yudkin: the man who tried to warn us about sugar

#96

Post by jimeuxx »

ynniv wrote: post #38
jimeuxx wrote: post #19

Lustig could no doubt write some great posts here about growth hacking and selling your product, but if there's one thing he's proven about nutrition, it's that he's no one to be taken seriously when talking about it. One taste of what Joe Public doesn't see in his unintended hyperbole is here: http://sweetenerstudies.com/sites/default/files/resources/fi... Blaming sugar for everything is no better than what the fat-…

Wow, thanks for linking a really awful rebuttal. Not only does "Mark Kern, PHD, RD, CSSD, Professor of Exercise and Nutritional Sciences" start off by saying that Lustig is inherently biased by selling a book "Even if all proceeds are being donated to charity", he later goes on to drop such gems as: The key for preventing obesity and metabolic syndrome is to avoid consuming excessive energy (Calories) Maybe this is s…

I have no reason to defend Kern or his views on being healthy. The point in question here is Lustig's physiology credentials. Kern isn't the first to bring them into question, and if Lustig's science isn't reliable, then why should I give him any credibility?

I avoided making any ad hominem arguments against a sugar-shunning overweight man who claims sugar causes obesity, or a doctor writing about sugar who can't distinguish between sugar and starch. My mother told me 20 years ago not to pound soda, so why is Lustig relevant?

Yes, I believe that junk food is bad, and sugar is a big part of it. The landscape of obesity is far more complex, however, as Lustig himself helps to show (he mentions his tight schedule and lack of will power as reasons for eating two meals of junk per day). I really don't feel that making sugar the new fat changes anything at all.

Re: John Yudkin: the man who tried to warn us about sugar

#97

Post by eclipxe »

cperciva wrote: post #55
CEyzaguirre wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only point I'm trying to make is that blood sugar is culprit of the numerous conditions afflicting wealthy countries, not just obesity. Clearly obesity isn't a neutral variable in this equation.

And my point is that (aside from glycation damage), blood sugar is a symptom of disease, not a cause of disease.

If only we could figure out a way to not eat foods that increase the amount of sugar in our blood....

Re: John Yudkin: the man who tried to warn us about sugar

#98

Post by eclipxe »

jimeuxx wrote: post #75
eclipxe wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What exactly is self-parodying about a "keto-adapted" lifestyle? Rice and bananas cause some of the same effects of sugar on the body. Some people can tolerate this and others can't.

The willing ignorance of East Asia is part of it, but it's more that a lot of the keto diets I've seen draw people in with tirades against refined sugar and starch, yet it ends up with the dieters counting the carbs in their lettuce to maintain their ketosis. How do we get from Coca-Cola being evil to ketosis being necessary? It's a false dichotomy and as crazy to me as 0% fat yoghurt, but people only seem to respond…

I've never heard of anyone following keto counting carbs in their lettuce. I think the only thing extreme here is your characterization.

Re: John Yudkin: the man who tried to warn us about sugar

#99

Post by [deleted] »

eclipxe wrote: post #93
Spoygg wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that is a fair comparison, can you drink fried bacon? Why would you compare liquid juice with hard meal? It is much easier to digest juice, why not just take a kilo of apples (520 calories)?

because fiber. Okay, how about half a cup of heavy cream instead of bacon. I guarantee you won't feel hungry 15-20 minutes late.

[deleted]

Re: John Yudkin: the man who tried to warn us about sugar

#100

Post by jamesaguilar »

ef4 wrote: post #42
pvnick wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The insulin response to sugar is the primary way your body stores fat and sugar itself is readily converted to fat This is a common myth, but it's wrong. Dietary fat is what is primarily stored and leads to weight gain during caloric excess; dietary carbs just decrease the amount of fat being used for energy, but can also get stored as fat tissue during overfeeding in a process called de novo lipogenesis (which is w…

> Again, it all comes back to calories in vs calories out. Which is both true and irrelevant, because the system that governs calories in and calories out is a complex control loop. When it's working correctly, weight is effortlessly maintained within a narrow range thanks to compensating adjustments in appetite and, to a lesser extent, metabolism. When it isn't working right, people try to drive the process with the…

> Which is both true and irrelevant, because the system that governs calories in and calories out is a complex control loop. When it's working correctly, weight is effortlessly maintained within a narrow range thanks to compensating adjustments in appetite and, to a lesser extent, metabolism.

What evidence leads you to believe this? There's no prima facie reason to believe evolution has adapted mammals to a glut of food, since for all but, generously, about the last ten thousand years, it wasn't really a problem that a significant portion of the gene pool faced. It would require some evidence to believe that the body has this capability.

Post reply on HN