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

Once the disease of gluttonous aristocrats, gout is now tormenting the masses

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 210 posts

Re: Once the disease of gluttonous aristocrats, gout is now tormenting the masses

#101

Post by jiofih »

knuthsat wrote: post #83
Ragib_Zaman wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most fruit are nowhere near as healthy as most people expect they are. They have been selectively bred over many hundreds of years to be far larger, sweeter and more devoid of micronutrients than they were hundreds of years ago. The amount of sugar (especially fructose) in fruits like apples, oranges and bananas is shockingly high, and can cause or exacerbate conditions such as obesity, fatty liver, type 2 diabetes,…

Diet containing a lot of fruit can be healthy . Sugar consumed through fruit has a massively different effect compared to consuming only that sugar. Fiber with sugar is not the same as pure sugar. I’m not sure there are any studies demonstrating what you claim.

The fiber will impact the absorption rate and insulin spike, but in the end you’ll have consumed the same amount of sugar. For calorie-counting purposes, or say, avoiding gout due to fructose intake, there will be no difference.

Re: Once the disease of gluttonous aristocrats, gout is now tormenting the masses

#102

Post by jiofih »

watwut wrote: post #90
Ragib_Zaman wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most fruit are nowhere near as healthy as most people expect they are. They have been selectively bred over many hundreds of years to be far larger, sweeter and more devoid of micronutrients than they were hundreds of years ago. The amount of sugar (especially fructose) in fruits like apples, oranges and bananas is shockingly high, and can cause or exacerbate conditions such as obesity, fatty liver, type 2 diabetes,…

I have yet to meet someone who is obese and his calorie intake is primary from fruits. Edit: I just did napkin calculation. Sedentary 170cm high male weighting 66kg would need to eat 20 apples a day to keep his weight. Or 3600 grams per day. The shocking high sugar content still means nearly uneatable quantity of apples just to get enough calories for rather small office worker who does no sport.

That, or 400g+ of chocolate. No conclusion to be taken here.

Re: Once the disease of gluttonous aristocrats, gout is now tormenting the masses

#103

Post by LeCow »

t-0 wrote: post #49
LeCow wrote: post #30

Dispelling bullshit time. Gout isn't caused by what you eat, it's an underlying problem with your kidneys/liver/body and an inability to extract uric acid. It can be exasterbated by drinking beer, dehydration, red meat etc. Saying it's caused by what you eat is a bit like saying peanuts cause peanut allergies, or eating gluten causes coeliacs. You already have the condition, the things you eat makes it worse. I've be…

This is not entirely true. Gout is caused by excessive levels of uric acid, which is an end-product of purine metabolism. You can get uric acid via two pathophysiologic mechanisms: under-excretion of uric acid, or over-production. Under-excretion is by far and away the most common cause of gout (think ~90% of cases). Causes for this include things like chronic kidney disease or an inborne/hereditary problem (like you…

Gout cannot be caused by your diet.

You can temporarily increase your uric acid levels by eating purine rich food/drink beer etc. But if your body is excreting it, as it should be - the levels won't remain high enough to build up crystals.

It takes years of persistent high levels, it's always caused by your body. But you can reduce attacks by changing diet, loosing weight or taking medication.

If your body was functioning properly it wouldn't matter how terrible your diet was.

Re: Once the disease of gluttonous aristocrats, gout is now tormenting the masses

#104

Post by sethammons »

onion2k wrote: post #66
kennethh wrote: post #63

I think the jury is still out on what the the 100% correct treatment of gout or many of the modern life style related sickness. But many can be cured by reversing what one eat to what people ate 100 years ago or 20.000 years ago. 100 years would mean no processed food, vegetable oils and a lot less sugar. 20.000 years would also remove all type of wheat and corns. Here is a guy who cured gout with the carnivore diet.…

100 years would mean no processed food, vegetable oils and a lot less sugar. But a lot more salt.

On mobile so I won’t be looking up a source. Was listening to a pod cast from a a cardiac specialist whose position was that higher salt intake is not as important for heart and artery health as long as you have balanced exercise and hydration. His point was that excessive carbohydrates lead to inflammation which leads to plaque build up which leads to heart disease. But salt can be ok.

Re: Once the disease of gluttonous aristocrats, gout is now tormenting the masses

#105

Post by vagrantJin »

t-0 wrote: post #49
LeCow wrote: post #30

Dispelling bullshit time. Gout isn't caused by what you eat, it's an underlying problem with your kidneys/liver/body and an inability to extract uric acid. It can be exasterbated by drinking beer, dehydration, red meat etc. Saying it's caused by what you eat is a bit like saying peanuts cause peanut allergies, or eating gluten causes coeliacs. You already have the condition, the things you eat makes it worse. I've be…

This is not entirely true. Gout is caused by excessive levels of uric acid, which is an end-product of purine metabolism. You can get uric acid via two pathophysiologic mechanisms: under-excretion of uric acid, or over-production. Under-excretion is by far and away the most common cause of gout (think ~90% of cases). Causes for this include things like chronic kidney disease or an inborne/hereditary problem (like you…

Not to disagree but can you define nebulous terms like excess and put those in context for us who may not be professionals with underlying knowledge of quantity of what acceptable levels and excess are.

Anecdotally, I drink a lot of beer but only twice a week. The rest of the week I may very well be a monk. Not a drop. Does the quantity I consume on weekends count as excess? On what scale or timeline?

Re: Once the disease of gluttonous aristocrats, gout is now tormenting the masses

#106

Post by watwut »

jiofih wrote: post #102
watwut wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have yet to meet someone who is obese and his calorie intake is primary from fruits. Edit: I just did napkin calculation. Sedentary 170cm high male weighting 66kg would need to eat 20 apples a day to keep his weight. Or 3600 grams per day. The shocking high sugar content still means nearly uneatable quantity of apples just to get enough calories for rather small office worker who does no sport.

That, or 400g+ of chocolate. No conclusion to be taken here.

It is easy to eat 400g of chocolate per day. Not at one sitting, but if you have whole day for it, you can do it without any issue.

Also, it would be 350g of dark chocolate for my hypothetical guy.

Re: Once the disease of gluttonous aristocrats, gout is now tormenting the masses

#107

Post by kleiba »

nordsieck wrote: post #85
kleiba wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most national dietary guidelines encourage eating fruits and vegetables, with an emphasis on the vegetables. The sugar amount in fruit has a direct impact on the overall calories you consume but since fruit are also high in fibre, the contained sugar is not comparable to, say, a chocolate bar.

> The sugar amount in fruit has a direct impact on the overall calories you consume but since fruit are also high in fibre, the contained sugar is not comparable to, say, a chocolate bar. I think a more precise way to say this is: Due to the water and fiber in fruit, they tend to be more satiating than eating something like a chocolate bar on a calorie normalized basis.

True, but what I was actually trying to get at was that sugar is also metabolized differently in the presence of fibre.

Re: Once the disease of gluttonous aristocrats, gout is now tormenting the masses

#108

Post by [deleted] »

knuthsat wrote: post #83
Ragib_Zaman wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most fruit are nowhere near as healthy as most people expect they are. They have been selectively bred over many hundreds of years to be far larger, sweeter and more devoid of micronutrients than they were hundreds of years ago. The amount of sugar (especially fructose) in fruits like apples, oranges and bananas is shockingly high, and can cause or exacerbate conditions such as obesity, fatty liver, type 2 diabetes,…

Diet containing a lot of fruit can be healthy . Sugar consumed through fruit has a massively different effect compared to consuming only that sugar. Fiber with sugar is not the same as pure sugar. I’m not sure there are any studies demonstrating what you claim.

[deleted]

Re: Once the disease of gluttonous aristocrats, gout is now tormenting the masses

#109

Post by darkerside »

nordsieck wrote: post #85
kleiba wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most national dietary guidelines encourage eating fruits and vegetables, with an emphasis on the vegetables. The sugar amount in fruit has a direct impact on the overall calories you consume but since fruit are also high in fibre, the contained sugar is not comparable to, say, a chocolate bar.

> The sugar amount in fruit has a direct impact on the overall calories you consume but since fruit are also high in fibre, the contained sugar is not comparable to, say, a chocolate bar. I think a more precise way to say this is: Due to the water and fiber in fruit, they tend to be more satiating than eating something like a chocolate bar on a calorie normalized basis.

My understanding is that the fiber literally prevents absorption of fructose, so parent's comment is accurate

Re: Once the disease of gluttonous aristocrats, gout is now tormenting the masses

#110

Post by darkerside »

jiofih wrote: post #101
knuthsat wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Diet containing a lot of fruit can be healthy . Sugar consumed through fruit has a massively different effect compared to consuming only that sugar. Fiber with sugar is not the same as pure sugar. I’m not sure there are any studies demonstrating what you claim.

The fiber will impact the absorption rate and insulin spike, but in the end you’ll have consumed the same amount of sugar. For calorie-counting purposes, or say, avoiding gout due to fructose intake, there will be no difference.

Why wouldn't the absorption rate have an impact? Seems like it could slow down absorption enough for your kidneys to filter out byproducts that can lead to gout. Interested to learn if you know something different.
Post reply on HN