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

201–210 of 248 posts

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

#201

Post by codex »

sillysaurus2 wrote: post #20
pvnick wrote: post #18

I'm getting sick of this ignorant sugar alarmism. Sugar is not the culprit behind all the diseases listed in the article. Obesity is [5] [6]. Unless of course you're talking about cavities. Then not brushing your teeth is the culprit. The reason sugar gets such a bad rep is that high-sugar foods tend to be less-filling and lead to overeating [1]. Stay at a healthy weight by controlling caloric consumption [2]. The ar…

Doughnuts, one of my favorite foods, can be part of a healthy diet Can they?

Yes. They can be the unhealthy minority in an otherwise healthy diet.

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

#202

Post by codex »

fizzbar wrote: post #54
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.

He's commenting on the fact that large populations of humanity (pretty much all of Asia and Oceania) subsist on high carb diets -- lots of rice and bananas -- yet don't exhibit massive rates of heart disease etc.

White rice contains very little fructose. Bananas have more but not compared to, say, an orange.

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

#203

Post by PakG1 »

adwf wrote: post #184
PakG1 wrote: post #22

The underlying premise that there's something strange about the correlation between the rise of sugar and the rise of health issues is stark. Obviously, we can't say that correlation = causation. But such data points should be taken seriously for more investigation, much like for example, global warming (which is a debate that I still don't completely understand either). This is the key quote for me: Yudkin's detract…

Gonna have to call you up on the cell phones I'm afraid. It has been pretty conclusively proven that there is no link between cell phone radiation and cancer [1]. Unless you call a study of 420,000 people over 20 years insignificant... And as for a mechanical explanation why cell phone radiation doesn't cause cancer: It's because the radiation type used is non-ionising! As for thermal effects, it's orders of magnitud…

I know about the studies, and the explanations are nice, I didn't have those before. I get that we have no current significant reason to fear anything, which is why I'm not exactly panicking and vowing to stop using cell phones. But this doesn't enable me to completely discard my fear either. You're only corroborating my point.

The only slight recommendations that are issued are for longer term studies - simply because cell phones haven't really been in heavy usage for more than 20 years. Pure fear of the unknown, despite study after study showing no effect.

I would call 420,000 people over 20 years insignificant because there are other cancers where even longer timelines are required for symptoms to show. For example, abestos and mesothelioma.

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/i...

Mesothelioma

Mesothelioma is a rare form of cancer that most often affects the thin membranes lining organs in the chest (pleura) and abdomen (peritoneum). Mesothelioma is closely linked with asbestos; most cases of mesothelioma result from direct exposure to asbestos at work. This cancer is also linked to all forms of asbestos, although amphibole asbestos appears to be more potent (causes cancer at lower levels of exposure) than chrysotile..

Studies have found an increased risk of mesothelioma among workers who are exposed to asbestos. There is also an increased risk of mesothelioma among family members of workers and people living in the neighborhoods surrounding asbestos factories and mines. Although the risk of developing mesothelioma increases with the amount of asbestos exposure, there is no clear safe level of asbestos exposure in terms of mesothelioma risk.

Mesotheliomas typically take a long time to develop. The time between first exposure to asbestos and diagnosis of mesothelioma is usually 30 years or more. Unfortunately, the risk of mesothelioma does not drop with time after exposure to asbestos. The risk appears to be lifelong.

Unlike lung cancer, mesothelioma risk is not increased among smokers.

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

#204

Post by carbocation »

glenra wrote: post #135
sosborn wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was never argued that 12 cans of Coke a day is healthy. It was simply argued that body weight gain/loss is governed by calories in vs calories out. These are two entirely separate statements.

Body weight gain/loss is also governed by mass in versus mass out. So make an effort to inhale less than you exhale, drink less water than you expel via urination or sweat, and poop more than you eat. Any of those are guaranteed to work if you could sustain them, but you can't. Which is nicely analogous to telling someone to focus on calories in versus calories out.

You lose mass by exhalation of CO2, not defecation. Since you inhale O2 and exhale CO2, you don't need to inhale more than you exhale (a mathematical impossibility anyway, of course) to lose weight.

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

#205

Post by carbocation »

CEyzaguirre wrote: post #30
eclipxe wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the reason sugar gets a bad rep is because of what it does to your body. The insulin response to sugar is the primary way your body stores fat and sugar itself is readily converted to fat. The glucose & fructose spikes are also source of inflammation. It is believed that this inflammation is the cause of some of the damage related to heart disease, etc.

Heart disease etc, including[1]: "This is why hemoglobin A1C is frequently used in studies that try to correlate blood sugar control to various disease processes like Alzheimer’s, mild cognitive impairment, and coronary artery disease. It’s well documented that glycated hemoglobin is a powerful risk factor for diabetes, but it’s also been correlated with risk for stroke, coronary heart disease, and death from other i…

Nondiabetics have normal A1c because they do not exhibit wild blood glucose swings, even postprandially.

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

#206

Post by pvnick »

the_imp wrote: post #179
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…

> Dietary fat is what is primarily stored and leads to weight gain during caloric excess Do you have a source for this? The sources [1], [4] you quoted don't seem to say that, at least in a way I could understand.

I could have posted a better reference for that claim, but I was actually very busy when I wrote that. This article by the same author (Lyle Mcdonald, a revered expert on nutrition) clears up that point very well: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/how-we-get-fat.htm...

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

#207

Post by DanBC »

hfsktr wrote: post #200
threeseed wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ask anyone who isn't American what the first thing they notice about the food when they visit the US. How sweet everything is.

My friend is from England and the few times she's been to America the primary thing she's said is that the portions here are ridiculously large. At places like Chili's or Applebees she ended up ordering appetizers and eating half of that as a meal. I got a regular meal but I knew in advance I would be taking it to go halfway through, as I usually do.

Yes, the problem with coke isn't that it's got a lot of sugar in it. The problem with coke is that people drink litres of it each day.

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

#208

Post by DanBC »

w0utert wrote: post #160
sillysaurus2 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doughnuts, one of my favorite foods, can be part of a healthy diet Can they?

I'd argue almost anything can be part of a healthy diet, when consumed in moderation. But in itself, there really is nothing in a doughnut your body needs, except energy. I wouldn't even call it 'food' in the sense that you eat it because your body needs it. The OP seems to make a really big point out of justifying sugar as 'not a toxin' just because you can consume sugar without killing yourself or instantly getting…

Sugar is a simplex carbohydrate. Carbohydrates are a nutrient. Your body needs nutrients.

Alcohol is not a nutrient.

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

#209

Post by hfsktr »

DanBC wrote: post #207
hfsktr wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My friend is from England and the few times she's been to America the primary thing she's said is that the portions here are ridiculously large. At places like Chili's or Applebees she ended up ordering appetizers and eating half of that as a meal. I got a regular meal but I knew in advance I would be taking it to go halfway through, as I usually do.

Yes, the problem with coke isn't that it's got a lot of sugar in it. The problem with coke is that people drink litres of it each day.

I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or agreeing or not.

Usually your comments are good so I am going to believe you are sincere here.

Somewhat related I am one of those people who needs to make a change as I get >1000 calories from soda a day. I did quit years ago (just cold turkey) and after the initial headaches and tiredness the biggest change I saw was that I was constantly hungry. Much like quitting smoking made me for quite a while.

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

#210

Post by sosborn »

jerf wrote: post #190
sosborn wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I didn't restrict my calorie intake >On a ketogenic diet I rarely even think about food - I am rarely hungry. You probably did lower your caloric intake. The trick is that you did it in a way that it did not bother you. In other words, you ate a healthy diet.

But this is giving away the farm; if the way to eat healthy is a high-fat diet that cuts out the empty carbs (and especially sugar), and then you just naturally eat a healthy amount of food after that without any sort of bizarre calorie counting, that's not proof that "it's all just calories", it proves the exact opposite, that the calorie type matters a lot and conventional nutritional wisdom up to this point on wha…

>that's not proof that "it's all just calories", it proves the exact opposite

At this point we are just arguing semantics. If you eat fewer calories, regardless of how you accomplish it, you will lose weight. Yes, it is easier to lose weight with healthy diet.

Post reply on HN