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

Sugar-sweetened drinks with protein rich meal affect metabolism

blogs.biomedcentral.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 180 posts

Re: Sugar-sweetened drinks with protein rich meal affect metabolism

#141

Post by StillBored »

phonon wrote: post #95
spodek wrote: post #10

> The next time you tuck into a protein rich dinner, it may be a good idea to hold off on the sugary drinks. For 300,000 of human existence except the past few decades, humans drank no sugar-sweetened drinks. It is always a good idea to hold off on sugary drinks.

Humans have been drinking fruit juices for a very long time...where do you think wine originated from?

I believe the glass of OJ for breakfast is a fairly modern habit.

Wine, hard ciders, etc. were popular for the very reason that the actual fruit juices weren't. The lack of refrigeration and with no knowledge of pasteurization fruit juices were likely only consumed a few days a year when the fruits were ripening. Cellar preserved fruits likely wouldn't produce good juice either.

So the juices were preserved by fermenting the glucose (and much of the fructose), or making preserves, etc.

Re: Sugar-sweetened drinks with protein rich meal affect metabolism

#142

Post by wutbrodo »

astrange wrote: post #7
beagle3 wrote: post #6

Note that (at least the summary indicates) this experiment refutes "calories in calories out" theory - food composition affects thermogenesis. (I am not talking about the tautological and useless thermodynamic sense in which it definitely is true; I am talking about the "measure your intake and exercise" crowd)

Exercise is a bad way to increase calories out, because it's just too efficient. The conversion is something like 1 mile run = 1 tbsp peanut butter.

I feel like it's one of those things that sits in the background and eventually has a decent effect over time (assuming you're not looking for unreasonably rapid weight loss). It's an extra tool not, not a replacement for restriction (as well as a safeguard against a crashing metabolism).

An easy run of three miles three times a week takes three half hours out of your week and can easily burn 1000 calories. If you're keeping an eye on calories in and don't go over to compensate, that's a pound every 3-4 weeks. That sounds glacially slow, but if you're doing CICO for six months it's an extra 8-9 lbs.

And this is being conservative: given the lengths of willpower people go to in the calories-in side, going for a half hour run every day isn't that unreasonable. That will lose you an extra 17 lbs in six months. If you're trying to lose even 50-100 lbs, 17 lbs over six months is not insignificant (let alone if you're trying to lose 20-30lbs).

I think the idea that it's not useful for weight loss comes from the fact that it's tough when you're starting, but then, so is calorie restriction.

All of this is ignoring weightlifting, which is even better at making weight loss easier.

Re: Sugar-sweetened drinks with protein rich meal affect metabolism

#143

Post by in_hindsight »

fghtr wrote: post #40
zython wrote: post #8

Lately I've been having this feeling that the pseudo science of nutrition (not talking about the researchers but the food and lifestyle artists on social media) makes it very hard to find out what a good diet is and what isnt. Meat ? Bad unless it isnt. Dairy and Eggs ? Even worse except when it isnt. Vegan/vegetarian nutrition ? The worst except, you guessed it, when it isnt. If you dont believe me just google any f…

Harvard School of Public Health [0] provides advices backed by research and the main points did not change already for a long time. Meat is only recommended in small portions as well as diary [1]. [0] https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/ [1] https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/healthy-eating-...

Thank you for these links

Re: Sugar-sweetened drinks with protein rich meal affect metabolism

#144

Post by 0xbear »

Lionga wrote: post #114
0xbear wrote: post #101

Does someone know of any serious "weight loss" books that are _rigorously evidence based_, without layman explanations, bad/outdated research, and bovine manure like confusing correlation with causation or relying on small, unrandomized population studies to confirm the author's preconceived notions for how things should be? I mean real, hard ass summary of today's best, most rigorous studies + some recommendations.

Eat less calories then you burn == weight loss

I'm more interested in sustained weight loss over the rest of person's life. Best I can tell, that is predicated on reducing insulin resistance while not restricting calories too much. People don't stick with reduced calorie diets, and human body can (and does) reduce its metabolic rate to compensate for reduced calorie intake, thus defeating it.

Re: Sugar-sweetened drinks with protein rich meal affect metabolism

#145

Post by et-al »

DiThi wrote: post #131
charlesdm wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Low carb or not, I can't believe eating 40+ eggs a week is healthy. Balance it out, yo! Plus, while I like eggs (a lot), they do get boring after a while. There are only so many different ways to prepare them.

> I can't believe eating 40+ eggs a week is healthy. I've started precisely after reading the studies that find no correlation between consumed cholesterol and its levels in blood. Also when I found out that the vast majority of cholesterol in blood is made in the body to match the levels it needs. Also when I found out the link between heart disease and LDL levels couldn't be proven. Of course, I eat them alone, wit…

40 eggs/week seems excessive, regardless of the cholesterol or lack of. Is the rest of your diet still balanced and diverse?

Re: Sugar-sweetened drinks with protein rich meal affect metabolism

#146

Post by majkinetor »

stephen_g wrote: post #72
majkinetor wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, because toxins do not exist, right ? And you can't ingest them or be exposed to them chronically. It only makes sense that we all live in perfectly clean environment and eat perfectly nutritious food 24x7 ...

Your liver removes toxins as one of its normal functions. There is no evidence that any sort of 'detox' diet is able to assist with this any more than a normal diet (with sufficient vitamins etc.).

Yeah, because liver has unlimited resources and efficiency just if u give it anything, such as dirt, and you can overload it with any type of toxin without a problem and it will do just fine. I am sure that is what is going on.

Re: Sugar-sweetened drinks with protein rich meal affect metabolism

#147

Post by Swizec »

adrianN wrote: post #16
Swizec wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eat stuff, exercise, measure results, adjust. This stuff is extremely individual, unless we're talking extremes. Just do whatever makes your favorite KPI trend in the direction you want. Experiment. The rest is bullshit.

We don't have many biomarkers that can be measured cheaply and say something about your expected remaining healthspan.

Don't weight and bodyfat% have high correlation to lifespan? You can get a good enough scale for both for pretty cheap.

Fitbits and such also measure resting heart rate for cheap. As far as I've heard, that correlates well to lifespan as well.

Re: Sugar-sweetened drinks with protein rich meal affect metabolism

#148

Post by nthcolumn »

wutbrodo wrote: post #136
nthcolumn wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh shit if its peer reviewed by reddit then hold the cola.

There's a difference between "as explained by this comment" and "because this comment says so". Then again, it relies on a level of self-confidence in one's ability to understand the analysis that you probably lack if you can't tell the difference between the above statements.

Ad hominem! Is that all you got? Were it anything other than utter twaddle it might be able to cite a more reputable peer than the comment section of the gutter of the internet. I lump this in with homeopathy and now also your opinion on anything.

Re: Sugar-sweetened drinks with protein rich meal affect metabolism

#149

Post by Pica_soO »

KitDuncan wrote: post #112
Pica_soO wrote: post #69

So O-Juices and Eggs are a sin, to the holy church of body now? Well sorry, if i sin on like a old heathen, while you drive up your blood pressure in your schisms, popes and anti-popes. Seriously, fruit was a base part of our food source - since we walked out of the djungle. And we have cravings for it, wherever we go- to get some honey, some overripe mango. If somebody wants to declare that unhealthy, he is free to…

There is a difference between whole fruits and juices. Juices basically don't have any fiber in them anymore and the sugar is much more concentrated. Nobody will take eating fruit or even drinking smoothies away from you. (well maybe the Keto folks will)

I just wish there was- i dont know, some time-wise distance between research and application. Time for the propaganda to die and the science to survive by having repeatable results. This all is - too fast moving, to hasty, to many zealots ready to jump on any band wagon promising a longer live.

Its just a guts feeling, but we had several times over by now, whole category's declared bad and then re-instated. I will keep to what i can know for certain, and that is the diet our hunter-gatherer ancestors ate. I shall keep away from processed, enriched foods as much as possible. And thats it.

Everything not close or similar to the nutrition approach- no matter how demonized or declared healthy will have to ripe for ten years, before i evaluate it. Im sorry for the serious scientists, but in a field so ravaged by Replacement-Religious fanatics and Cooperate Propaganda, time is the only thing that will tell.

Re: Sugar-sweetened drinks with protein rich meal affect metabolism

#150

Post by joveian »

ulber wrote: post #4

Often people are wary of new results about health, so it's worth pointing out that this paper is rigorous and the conclusion is very likely to be correct, as explained by this comment on Reddit's /r/science [1]. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/6oufus/comment/dkk...

However:

* the "multiply p value by ten" rule would exclude the main results (but not some well known findings)

* paper does not have much discussion of context or past results

* paper does not have any scatter plots or show individual data at all for the primary results; there are scatter plots under additional files for oxidation vs. lean body mass and vs. fat mass and 24 hour energy expenditure vs fat mass

* there is no discussion of the possibility that the small additional calories could have had the same effect even if not sugar

* there is no discussion of the possibility that gut microbial response to the non-sugar drink might cause the differences they see

* a conflicting study used a different artificial sweetener

* the study did not test if the same SSB vs NNSB given at non-meal times would have a similar or different effect

* also all the limitations mentioned in the study

* this is a basic research study, not something directly applicable to real life; if you aren't doing extensive research in the area then drawing any conclusions from this one paper is unlikely to be helpful

Of course, considering the study in connection with the rest of the literature is likely to address some of these considerations and it may be a valuable contribution. Saying "very likely to be correct" does not sound accurate to me.

Since fructose is suspect, comparing trehalose vs. sucrose would be interesting.

Post reply on HN