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

The sugar conspiracy: sugar—not fat—is the greatest danger to our health

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 198 posts

Re: The sugar conspiracy: sugar—not fat—is the greatest danger to our health

#131

Post by stcredzero »

donutdan4114 wrote: post #11

As someone who has shifted to a sugar-free, high-fat lifestyle (keto diet), I can attest to the fact that sugar really is the ultimate evil in terms of health and nutrition. I've lost about 100lbs in 2.5 years... The only thing that I really changed was doing a Keto diet. I've learned a lot about nutrition along the way, and it's amazing how bad nutrition info was when I was growing up.. Common Misconceptions I hear/…

3) Fats are bad.

The research on this is mixed, actually. More research is needed. AFAIK, the rest of your points are misconceptions.

There was one Finnish study where the "eat all the salt you want" group had lower mortality than the salt moderation group.

I highly recommend the "Healthcare Triage" YouTube channel as a source of info/infotainment.

Re: The sugar conspiracy: sugar—not fat—is the greatest danger to our health

#132

Post by forgetsusername »

Laaw wrote: post #83
donutdan4114 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wasn't really implying that everyone should start a ketogenic diet. Just stating the success that I've had with it, and also noting several common misconceptions that are still largely heard today.

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 take issue with your condescending tone, because it doesn't fit whatsoever with your clear ignorance on the topic.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

>are immensely harmful to nutrition education.

Why don't you bestow us with that education, instead telling everyone how dangerous their opinions are?

Re: The sugar conspiracy: sugar—not fat—is the greatest danger to our health

#133

Post by dmritard96 »

I am most likely wrong or oversimplifying, but my understanding was that ultimately whatever macromolecules you are consuming, lipids, proteins, or carbohydrates all only get absorbed into the blood stream as glucose (putting on hold random nutrients like iron, vitamin XYZ etc etc).

If that's the case, doesn't it not matter what the originating molecules are as long as you avoid fast highs and lows in blood glucose levels since that is the main danger presented by sugars (fastest to be broken down)?

Re: The sugar conspiracy: sugar—not fat—is the greatest danger to our health

#134

Post by jneal »

dpark wrote: post #105
jneal wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say 1000 calories is a little much, but I think the original point here still stands. I don't have nutrition facts sitting right in front of me, but I do know often times cereal is given in very small quantities, like 130 calories per 3/4 cup. I'd say I used to eat around 3 cups of cereal each morning, so that's 520 calories not counting milk and OJ. The Milk is usually 1 cup, about 110 calories I believe. And 2…

You used to eat 3 cups of cereal every morning? That's a lot of cereal. If I were hungry enough to eat that much cereal, I'd probably want something that felt more substantial (e.g. eggs, breakfast sandwich). I mean, yes, it's totally possible to eat 1000 calories for breakfast. I still don't think it's typical. Why would you even want that OJ after eating 3 whole cups of cereal? Also, how do you not just end up hype…

Yea, that is a lot of cereal. I definitely didn't need that much food but for some reason I wanted that much food. Oh, and I wouldn't have had the OJ on top of that personally.

Today I still eat cereal but usually a cup at most, and either without milk or with almond milk. I started on a diet (the south beach diet) about 5 years ago and I lost over 100 pounds. I don't consider myself to be following any specific diet nowadays, I'm just more healthy and smart about what I eat, and I eat much smaller portions. I also exercise 3 times weekly, and need to find time to increase that even more.

I will say when I first started my diet I dropped cereal and just ate scrambled eggs almost every morning. My morning energy levels skyrocketed.

Re: The sugar conspiracy: sugar—not fat—is the greatest danger to our health

#135

Post by criddell »

rdtsc wrote: post #9

Just 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…

When organic foods got super popular, I knew more than one person that thought organic cookies were healthy.

> whatever they thought is acceptable to print on the nutritional label

I'm not certain, but I think that's regulated.

Re: The sugar conspiracy: sugar—not fat—is the greatest danger to our health

#136

Post by dylanz »

dpark wrote: post #98
bonesinger wrote: post #85

Earlier 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…

I like a big breakfast of pancakes (with butter and syrup), bacon and eggs, coffee with cream and sugar. That is usually around ~900 calories. I count macros and weigh everything daily. Sugary cereal is my weakness and I can easily eat 3 servings. I could eat my TDEE calories just in Cocoa Puffs...

Re: The sugar conspiracy: sugar—not fat—is the greatest danger to our health

#137

Post by cpplinuxdude »

dmritard96 wrote: post #133

I am most likely wrong or oversimplifying, but my understanding was that ultimately whatever macromolecules you are consuming, lipids, proteins, or carbohydrates all only get absorbed into the blood stream as glucose (putting on hold random nutrients like iron, vitamin XYZ etc etc). If that's the case, doesn't it not matter what the originating molecules are as long as you avoid fast highs and lows in blood glucose l…

I'm sorry for being the one breaking it to you, but I think you may, unfortunately, be wrong. :)

Re: The sugar conspiracy: sugar—not fat—is the greatest danger to our health

#138

Post by Laaw »

forgetsusername wrote: post #132
Laaw wrote: post #83

Earlier 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 take issue with your condescending tone, because it doesn't fit whatsoever with your clear ignorance on the topic. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. > are immensely harmful to nutrition education. Why don't you bestow us with that education, instead telling everyone how dangerous their opinions are?

I explain in greater detail the problems with the original comment in another comment, if you're interested in something more than verbal sniping.

It's simply not true that I must be able to provide the correct answer in order to identify and critique an incorrect answer.

Re: The sugar conspiracy: sugar—not fat—is the greatest danger to our health

#139

Post by runeb »

dsmithatx wrote: post #102
jneal wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say 1000 calories is a little much, but I think the original point here still stands. I don't have nutrition facts sitting right in front of me, but I do know often times cereal is given in very small quantities, like 130 calories per 3/4 cup. I'd say I used to eat around 3 cups of cereal each morning, so that's 520 calories not counting milk and OJ. The Milk is usually 1 cup, about 110 calories I believe. And 2…

Yes but, don't you only need to run to burn off the extra calories? If you stick to your ideal calorie intake why the need to run? If it's 2500 calories I'd think you only need that 8.5 miles of running when consuming 3350 daily calories.

True, but like the original comment suggested, a calorie is not a calorie. If you eat 850 calories worth of fat and protein in the morning instead of sugary carbs I am pretty certain your intake the rest of the day will be very different.

Re: The sugar conspiracy: sugar—not fat—is the greatest danger to our health

#140

Post by stcredzero »

chris_va wrote: post #33
donutdan4114 wrote: post #11

As someone who has shifted to a sugar-free, high-fat lifestyle (keto diet), I can attest to the fact that sugar really is the ultimate evil in terms of health and nutrition. I've lost about 100lbs in 2.5 years... The only thing that I really changed was doing a Keto diet. I've learned a lot about nutrition along the way, and it's amazing how bad nutrition info was when I was growing up.. Common Misconceptions I hear/…

(1) is technically incorrect. Humans have evolved to process fructose into triglycerides in the liver. This is different than getting a glucose spike in the bloodstream. (2) unfortunately reality is complicated. Most of what you care about is the glucose curve after consumption. You are correct in that different foods cause different curves. This will change per person, and some people will spike on soda, and some (s…

Humans have evolved to process fructose into triglycerides in the liver. This is different than getting a glucose spike in the bloodstream.

From what I've heard, what happens to your liver when you process fructose isn't so great for you. It taxes your liver in many of the same way alcohol processing taxes your liver.

Post reply on HN