I think people here will appreciate the following information. To understand fat production, I recommend everyone research the way a liver metabolizes sugar, and its connection to fiber - it is most important. Long story short, the liver metabolizes excess sugar into fat cells when there is not enough fiber. Presence of fiber allows excess sugar to be broken down into waste which leaves the body, avoiding production of fat cells. In essence, this is why eating a bag of apples is healthy while eating just the sugar from the same amount of apples is not. Consuming adequate amounts of fiber is key to healthy sugar consumption. If you noticed, fat people tend to not eat much fiber. The smaller the ratio of fiber to sugar the fatter you are. Simply focusing on increasing fiber consumption leads to much better health because you naturally begin to consume more vegetables and fruits which also have the nutrients. Additionally, and this is perhaps the most understated health fact. The importance of pH balance. The body depends and thrives when the environment is alkaline, and dies when it's acidic. Although acidic foods are also healthy, it's important to eat more alkaline foods than acidic. And the pH is determine only after the body digests the food. This is why for example lemons are actually one of the most alkaline foods. Especially when you're sick, eating alkaline vs acidic foods is the best way to regain immune system strength and health.
_
Dr Lustig's video presentation about sugar/fiber/fat metabolism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
_
List of alkaline & acidic foods: http://www.rense.com/1.mpicons/acidalka.htm
The sugar conspiracy: sugar—not fat—is the greatest danger to our health
121–130 of 198 posts
Re: The sugar conspiracy: sugar—not fat—is the greatest danger to our health
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would suggest reading "Fat Chance: Beating the Odds Against Sugar, Processed Food, Obesity, and Disease" by Robert Lustig. He goes into the science behind sugary diets and why they are truly so addicting. I'm talking about, more addicting than cocaine.
> I'm talking about, more addicting than cocaine. Really? I'm on diet for Candida and sugars are a no-no. And the worst part was a week of headaches (that was in part caffeine induced). I haven't tried cocaine, but I imagine cocaine has more side effects than just that.
There's a lot of info out there about how truly addicting sugar is.
A sample: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2013/10/16/research-...
Re: The sugar conspiracy: sugar—not fat—is the greatest danger to our health
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
If anyone has any questions about starting a keto diet (high-fat, mid-protein, low-carb), feel free to ask. :) Cannot recommend it enough. It simply just works..
Where do I start?
Reddit's always good:
For general Keto conversastion: https://www.reddit.com/r/keto
For the scientifically inclined: https://www.reddit.com/r/ketoscience
For those focused on exercise while on the diet: https://www.reddit.com/r/ketogains/
For food suggestions: https://www.reddit.com/r/ketorecipes
Re: The sugar conspiracy: sugar—not fat—is the greatest danger to our health
#124Robert Atkins published Dr. Atkins' Diet Revolution (possibly the ancestor of all the modern low-carb diets) in 1972 and credited a 1958 article in The Journal of the American Medical Association by Alfred W. Pennington. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atkins_diet So I don't think one lone researcher figured this out in 1972.
The article agrees that this is the case: the dangers of sugar used to be orthodoxy, but around the '70s is when sugar was de-emphasized in favor of fat to such a degree that low-carb proponents were labelled cranks.
> When, in 1957, John Yudkin first floated his hypothesis that sugar was a hazard to public health, it was taken seriously, as was its proponent. By the time Yudkin retired, 14 years later, both theory and author had been marginalised and derided.
Re: The sugar conspiracy: sugar—not fat—is the greatest danger to our health
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
If anyone has any questions about starting a keto diet (high-fat, mid-protein, low-carb), feel free to ask. :) Cannot recommend it enough. It simply just works..
Where do I start?
Re: The sugar conspiracy: sugar—not fat—is the greatest danger to our health
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think close to 1000 is pretty common for breakfast. I used to eat Dunkin Donuts a lot and I would see people order a Bagel with Bacon, Egg and Cheese on it. That is 470 calories. A side of hash browns is another 140. And then top of it off with a donut (350~) and an a large ice coffee (170) and you are over 1000 (I took the calorie # from DD website). Also a single serving of cereal is really small. Until I started…
> I think close to 1000 is pretty common for breakfast. I used to eat Dunkin Donuts a lot and I would see people order a Bagel with Bacon, Egg and Cheese on it. That is 470 calories. A side of hash browns is another 140. And then top of it off with a donut (350~) and an a large ice coffee (170) and you are over 1000 (I took the calorie # from DD website). This is not a normal breakfast for anyone except the hyperobes…
Possible, I live in the midwest and there are quite a few obese people in my area.
Cereal wise, I would say 2 servings is pretty common, most people think its 1 bowl anyway. If you have 2 bowls, you're already close to 4-500 calories (depending on the cereal).
Also something like a DD coolatta or starbucks frapp are pushing 3-400 calories easily.
Re: The sugar conspiracy: sugar—not fat—is the greatest danger to our health
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
1) Actual pressed juice is fine. The matter gets confused when people don't realize that a glass of actual orange juice is 6+ oranges worth of juice. You wouldn't eat a dozen oranges without thinking about the caloric intake. But you'd drink a few glasses of OJ because it's not as filling. 2) Thermodynamics... That said, a thousand calories of soda is half a day's worth of energy in sugar form. Your body uses sugar f…
> 2) Thermodynamics... Yes, thermodynamics. However, if you eat five hundred calories per day, you will a) feel miserable, b) be constantly thinking of food, and c) perhaps die, even if there is fat hanging around in the body to be used up. This demonstrates that we're not idealised food-burning machines, but food-burning machines which adjust their desire to take in fuel depending on how the machine is operating. It…
It's a response to "a calorie is not a calorie".
Severe caloric deprivation is not the point of my statement.
Re: The sugar conspiracy: sugar—not fat—is the greatest danger to our health
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't say you were implying anything, what I said was I find it astounding how little actual data you seem to have collected, compared to the sweeping conclusions you're drawing. I take issue with your condescending tone, because it doesn't fit whatsoever with your clear ignorance on the topic. I'm particularly sensitive to the topic of food, because people in your situation (who have found success but have no ide…
I mean, it's just a comment on HN, I'm not writing a scientific journal article. Everything I stated in the original comment is information I have gathered and learned about over the years. Most people haven't read any books about nutrition and how the body works, where I have done a lot of independent research. So I probably know a little bit more about this stuff than the average person. I'm not saying I'm an exper…
Here are the reasons why I don't believe you should have written your comment:
* You falsely (implicitly) assert expertise on a topic (nutrition) to which you've had no actual training.
* You believe "just a comment on HN" doesn't deserve your full effort.
* You elevate yourself above the level of an ambiguous group of "others", without any evidence or actual reason for doing so.
* Your actual content comes without any citation or reasoning. You expect others to simply "take your word for it", or worse, do their own research, which you've given zero helpful information to help guide, other than random statements about nutrition.
* You overvalue your personal experience, while simultaneously undervaluing the research/experience/knowledge of others.
My contribution to this discussion is to point out to others your distinct lack of actual knowledge, despite your insistence on passing yourself off as an "expert"-- no, sorry, you said you're not an expert, just a guy who's "done a lot of independent research" (whatever that means).
I realize this comes off as harsh, but please realize, I don't know you, and am not making a value judgement of you as a person, just on what you've written here in the last hour or so. I'd bet you're not like this all the time, this just wasn't a very well thought out conversation.
Re: The sugar conspiracy: sugar—not fat—is the greatest danger to our health
#129Just the other day was in a store saw a package of candy -- basically pure sugar + artificial food coloring. Big giant label on the front -- "Fat Free!". It is true. But somewhat misleading as to what it implies -- "this is healthy, no fats here, eat this". And also "2.5 servings per package", while most people would it eat it a single serving I imagine, but hey, they calorie counts look more reasonable, so they just…
And the sort of irony is that some of the best sweet stuff, for example Nougat or Nutella, is so because of fat.
Re: The sugar conspiracy: sugar—not fat—is the greatest danger to our health
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't say you were implying anything, what I said was I find it astounding how little actual data you seem to have collected, compared to the sweeping conclusions you're drawing. I take issue with your condescending tone, because it doesn't fit whatsoever with your clear ignorance on the topic. I'm particularly sensitive to the topic of food, because people in your situation (who have found success but have no ide…
Ya know "sophilistic nature of your comment is astounding", "astounding how little actual data", "your clear ignorance" isn't very HN guidelines. Bit unfair too - after all it's the top comment on this thread.
I elaborate somewhat on each of those statements in another comment. Criticism of false "expert" advice is critically important for HN.