John Yudkin: the man who tried to warn us about sugar • Hacker News Board

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

#211

Post by DanBC » Wed, Feb 12, 2014, 3:59 PM UTC

hfsktr wrote: post #209

DanBC wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Coke has a lot of sugar in it. Some people drink a small amount of coke, and get pleasure from it, and are not fat.

Increasing portion sizes (see for example the increasing sizes of servings in McDonalds menus) mean that people now drink huge quantities of this sugary drink.

The volume of drink, the quantity of the sugar, is the problem.

Two cookies are not a problem. Two packets of cookies are a problem.

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

#212

Post by jbcurtin2 » Wed, Feb 12, 2014, 4:13 PM UTC

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…

If you watch the video, that is referenced in the article. Robert Lustig explains why sugar leads to obesity.

Here it is for easy reference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

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

#213

Post by jerf » Wed, Feb 12, 2014, 4:14 PM UTC

sosborn wrote: post #210

jerf wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The whole line about "it's just calories" is precisely that it does not matter what you eat, it's all just calories. If you agree that it does matter what you eat, it is a fundamentally different position, and it means that, like I said, you are no longer defending the conventional wisdom, you are stipulating the correctness of the attackers, while still confusing yourself into the idea that the original position that you have now stipulated is inaccurate is still somehow true.

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

#214

Post by burgreblast » Wed, Feb 12, 2014, 4:24 PM UTC

jamesaguilar wrote: post #127

beachstartup wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

a bear is a perfect example of an mammal that uses its insulin response during glut times to store fat. 1. gain weight during the summer by eating high sugar, high starch, high calorie foods such as fruit, berries, roots, honey/insects, and as much whole fatty fish as it can get its hands on for a super high calorie kick. it HAS to gain weight in the summer, and does so easily on that diet. 2. during the winter it hi…

Um. Bears don't have a glut in the summer. They eat everything they can and some still die from not getting enough. A glut is when there is so much food that you can eat more than is healthy. You don't see bears passing up salmon saying, nah, I had enough.

> You don't see bears passing up salmon saying, nah, I had enough.

I thought it was interesting to learn from Alaskan's that when salmon are plentiful, bears will gut the salmon and just eat those tasty eggs.

Who knew? My mental picture had never included them possessing much of a palate. This article suggests they also go for the brains and skin.

http://grizzlybearblog.wordpress.com/2010/07/21/grizzly-bear...

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

#215

Post by w0utert » Wed, Feb 12, 2014, 4:26 PM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #208

w0utert wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That doesn't make sense, your body needs minerals as well but that doesn't mean you have to eat dirt, rust, or chalk. As far as nutritional value goes, sugar is one of the least healthy sources of energy, especially in its refined form (which is what this article is about). Mankind evolved through millions of years without even having access to refined sugar.

Also, how is alcohol less of a nutrient than sugar? It gets metabolised to carbohydrates your body can use as energy, store as fat, etc. Apart from the fact there's an extra metabolic step required to convert them to carbohydrates your body can burn as fuel, there isn't much difference compared to sugar, at least not from a nutritional point of view (obviously this says nothing about other health effects alcohol has).

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

#216

Post by jeffdavis » Wed, Feb 12, 2014, 4:58 PM UTC

leoedin wrote: post #158

jeffdavis wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure that both sugar and heroin are fine in moderation. The problem is that moderate consumption of either is known to cause overconsumption. So, perhaps not so fine in an environment of abundance.

Most people eat sugar. In fact, I'm willing to bet that the proportion of people in the western world who have eaten sugar is close to 100%. Not everyone is obese. Even in the US, where obesity is at its worst, it's around 35%. That suggests that 65% of people can consume sugar and then not become obese. Certainly amongst my peer group of middle class graduates almost everyone eats sugar and almost nobody is obese. T…

Causation does not require 100% determinism. If X causes Y, it means that inducing X will increase the likelihood of Y.

So counterexamples are not disproof. You'd have to construct a lab experiment with enough subjects and measure over a long enough time.

Unfortunately, it's difficult to construct a perfect double-blind study, because people usually know if they are eating sugar or not. Maybe if artificial sweeteners are good enough it might work, or maybe the experiment would still be convincing even if the subjects know.

I'd be interested to see the results of such a study for sugar and heroin. I probably should be able to cite one before I claim it as fact, but I didn't think it was a very controversial claim. I think it's mainly a question of degree.

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

#217

Post by neohaven » Wed, Feb 12, 2014, 5:06 PM UTC

ynniv wrote: post #61

gnusouth wrote: post #32

More info. Anti-sugar: http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3821440.htm Anti-anti-sugar: http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3888657.htm The whole thing strikes me as quite sensationalist, and I suspect that digging into the research would affirm the cholesterol heart disease link. For now, I'll trust the scientific consensus over these crackpot types.

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... What?

Are you really attempting to imply that having low account age on Hacker News is a sign of incompetence/inappropriateness of opinion?

Am I really reading this on a website based around people of all ages doing startups? I mean I'm just not getting the tone of your comment. It sounds elitist, demeaning, belittling and callous.

In addition, your "cutting your teeth" approach is absolute bull. You don't want something on the page, downvote, move on. It'll curate itself.

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

#218

Post by sosborn » Wed, Feb 12, 2014, 5:18 PM UTC

jerf wrote: post #213

sosborn wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

The whole line about "it's just calories" is precisely that it does not matter what you eat, it's all just calories. If you agree that it does matter what you eat, it is a fundamentally different position, and it means that, like I said, you are no longer defending the conventional wisdom, you are stipulating the correctness of the attackers, while still confusing yourself into the idea that the original position tha…

You misunderstood me.

You can lose weight focusing solely on calories. It is easier to keep your calories in check while eating wholesome foods for numerous reasons, but at the end of the day, the gain/loss is governed by calories.

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

#219

Post by mcb3k » Wed, Feb 12, 2014, 5:19 PM UTC

ScottBurson wrote: post #81

miralabs wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whats needed is the reduction of added sugars on everyday food..mostly processed food. I dont think we should go to the extent of not having cakes or ice cream on special occasions, that is not the problem.

Agreed. Sugar is being added to almost everything... even chicken broth , to take one example that surprised me.

Yeah, one of the things that people don't realize is that sugar's hygroscopic nature is a great way to make things shelf stable. This is one of the reasons why so many processed foods end up having a lot more sugar than would typically be in the home-made variant.

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

#220

Post by timmm » Wed, Feb 12, 2014, 5:21 PM UTC

pvnick wrote: post #31

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.

>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…

Calories in vs. calories out would assume we all have identical digestive physiologies which we don't.

Furthermore there are many practices in cattle raising that allow for more fat and muscle gain without increasing calories but instead changing other factors.

The following shows the hormone regimen for cattle to increase fat without changing the calories in aspect of the equation.

http://www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/livestock/production/beef/g...