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

141–150 of 198 posts

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

#141

Post by awqrre »

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…

Labelling really need to be better regulated in the US... They started using multiple kinds of sugars in the same product to make them appear lower in the ingredient list (I have no proof that it is truly the reason, but that is the only reason that makes sense to me).

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

#142

Post by bovermyer »

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/…

This, but I'd also add that the closer your food is to fresh and unpreserved, the more likely it is to be healthy for you. If you eat primarily fresh foods (note: I do not advocate the "raw" diet, for other reasons), then by happy coincidence you also remove a lot of the stuff that eventually kills us.

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

#143

Post by Ygg2 »

donutdan4114 wrote: post #122
Ygg2 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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-...

Yeah, well, I'm not a rat. Just because rats liked side with Oreos as much as they liked side with Morhpine doesn't mean Sugar = Morphine.

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

#144

Post by dpark »

retbull wrote: post #117
dpark wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

A medium bowl takes 2.5 cups to be a full cereal bowl. You should measure out 2 cups of cereal and see how small it is.

"medium bowl" is not a standard measurement. My everyday bowls at home probably hold about 2.5 cups if filled to the top, which I don't do, because a bowl filled to the top inevitably spills. I use a 2-cup measuring cup every day, so I'm reasonably familiar with how much it holds. It's a decent bit.

Also, a cup of Cheerios is 100 Calories. So 3 cups is still only 300 calories. Add milk and you're at maybe 500 Calories. Even Honey Smacks is only 133 Calories per cup. If you eat 600 Calories of Honey Smacks and milk, I hope you'd consider that enough sugar for breakfast. Or else I hope you're training for a marathon.

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

#145

Post by pigpaws »

goda90 wrote: post #50
Diederich wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything you said. I've been treating sugar as personal health enemy #1 for quite a few years now. Note: I am deeply addicted to sugar. It has been absurdly and embarrassingly hard for me to abstain from high sugar foods. I can eat a healthy, high-protein meal, and be full. Yet 30 minutes later, I will feel hungry again. But checking in with my stomach: still full. I can eat a few grams of sugar and feel instantly…

I think it feels irrational because these high protein, low carb diets are really meant up be weight loss diets, not the diet of an active human with healthy fat and muscle levels. In that case, whole grains and vegetables, fruits and the like along with the supplemental meats and nuts are normal. If you're genetically disposed, throw in some whole fat, no sugar added dairy. I think all this confusion arises because…

one issue is that high-protein diets don't regulate blood sugar. If anything, they contribute to the problem as too much protein gets turned into sugar (Gluconeogenesis) and dumped back into the blood.

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

#146

Post by dmritard96 »

cpplinuxdude wrote: post #137
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. :)

care to elaborate? open to being wrong, but also want to see who says so and why

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

#147

Post by splatcollision »

stcredzero wrote: post #140
chris_va wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(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.

Do you have a source for this? Genuinely interested in this linkage, as I'm supposed to be taking it easy on my liver after recovering from a bout of antibiotic-induced jaundice, and apples are one of the things I've been relying on to help with nausea. Thanks!

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

#148

Post by beaner »

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/…

The real question is how we got here in the first place. Wasn't it the opinion of some scientific body and/or government health entity that basically said "fat is bad" and set us on this 30-year craze? Where are the pitchforks against these organizations? "Big sugar" is their creation.

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

#149

Post by Kip9000 »

This type of demonising one over the other is not proper science. Sugar (in various forms) carries the energy needed for the cells to operate well, brain being the highest consumer. Balanced nutrients would be the best bet for overall wellbeing.

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

#150

Post by kentor »

beaner wrote: post #148
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/…

The real question is how we got here in the first place. Wasn't it the opinion of some scientific body and/or government health entity that basically said "fat is bad" and set us on this 30-year craze? Where are the pitchforks against these organizations? "Big sugar" is their creation.

It's explained in the article. The part about Ancel Keys.
Post reply on HN