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

Was there ever really a “sugar conspiracy”?

science.sciencemag.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 230 posts

Re: Was there ever really a “sugar conspiracy”?

#141

Post by TPPOW0020 »

FussyZeus wrote: post #126
iambateman wrote: post #122

Perhaps there was no sugar conspiracy. In that case, an entire industry (along with government nutrition teams) went along with an incorrect theory for so long that it accounted for millions of chronic illnesses and trillions of dollars spent in the wrong direction. So there was no conspiracy. It seems - in either case - to be one of the greatest misapplications of science in history. At least the “flat earth” theory…

I always find it interesting that it's never enough for any given person or group (be it corporation, Government agency, etc.) to be simply wrong , they also have to be evil in some capacity in order for people to get interested in retelling the story. IMHO, no, there was no sugar "conspiracy" merely the financial motives at play where companies wanted to continue producing foods they knew were unhealthy, addictive a…

>Wanting to be profitable doesn't make a company intrinsically evil, that's what companies are for.

But they increased profits by intentionally misleading people and getting them hooked on unhealthy food. They helped themselves by hurting others. In plain English, we'd call that evil.

Let's admit that legal, profit seeking behavior, can sometimes be evil.

Furthermore, there's nothing ridiculous with going after bad actors in the past. I agree the main focus should be on companies doing harm in the present. But holding past actions to account sends the message that you can't get away with harming customers forever. It's a deterrent.

Re: Was there ever really a “sugar conspiracy”?

#142

Post by mancerayder »

croon wrote: post #41
John_KZ wrote: post #17

The industry maliciously amplifies our innate tendency to find a "one-fits-all" solution. The bogeyman used to be fat, now it's sugar. Soon, people will realize that getting 90% of your caloric intake from protein powders is bad, the industry will get ahold of the new trend, and they'll start going back to "healthy carbs" or something stupid like that, and people will forget the meat rush of the 2010s and move onto s…

> The industry maliciously amplifies our innate tendency to find a "one-fits-all" solution. The bogeyman used to be fat, now it's sugar. That isn't a fad though, that is progress. > Soon, people will realize that getting 90% of your caloric intake from protein powders is bad This is obviously already true. You would get protein poisoning very quickly long before you hit your TDEE. > the industry will get ahold of the…

> Soon, people will realize that getting 90% of your caloric intake from protein powders is bad

This is obviously already true. You would get protein poisoning very quickly long before you hit your TDEE.

First off, do you need a study for that? I'd hate to sound insensitive, but perhaps common sense is a new Darwinism? There's a slew of shortcuts that will cut our lives short.

And for the record I eat a huge amount of protein everyday. At least 1 to 1.2 g / kg of bodyweight. I'm not at risk of protein poisoning (per another commenter) since I consume a large amount of water, fiber as well, and the sources are lean meats rather than powders. Although I admit a weakness in the knees for Quest flavored protein chips. All that said, I'll need a lot more than that to kill me.

Going back, what's common sense is to eat natural foods rather than avoid them. Processed stuff is the real danger, including meal replacement with powders. If people don't even have time to eat due to their jobs, I'd argue they've got a potentially worse lifestyle threat to their health.

Re: Was there ever really a “sugar conspiracy”?

#143

Post by ByThyGrace »

iambateman wrote: post #122

Perhaps there was no sugar conspiracy. In that case, an entire industry (along with government nutrition teams) went along with an incorrect theory for so long that it accounted for millions of chronic illnesses and trillions of dollars spent in the wrong direction. So there was no conspiracy. It seems - in either case - to be one of the greatest misapplications of science in history. At least the “flat earth” theory…

Do you have a source for that Coca Cola claim? Just curious.

Re: Was there ever really a “sugar conspiracy”?

#144

Post by FussyZeus »

TPPOW0020 wrote: post #141
FussyZeus wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always find it interesting that it's never enough for any given person or group (be it corporation, Government agency, etc.) to be simply wrong , they also have to be evil in some capacity in order for people to get interested in retelling the story. IMHO, no, there was no sugar "conspiracy" merely the financial motives at play where companies wanted to continue producing foods they knew were unhealthy, addictive a…

>Wanting to be profitable doesn't make a company intrinsically evil, that's what companies are for. But they increased profits by intentionally misleading people and getting them hooked on unhealthy food. They helped themselves by hurting others. In plain English, we'd call that evil. Let's admit that legal, profit seeking behavior, can sometimes be evil. Furthermore, there's nothing ridiculous with going after bad a…

> Let's admit that legal, profit seeking behavior, can sometimes be evil.

Obviously. That's why we have Government regulations and various protection agencies, and why I get headaches when free market types whine about having to meet them and how we're "constraining" businesses by making them do things like not store toxic product in break rooms, allow workers enough rest to function whilst operating 20 ton machinery, etc.

> Furthermore, there's nothing ridiculous with going after bad actors in the past. I agree the main focus should be on companies doing harm in the present. But holding past actions to account sends the message that you can't get away with harming customers forever. It's a deterrent.

In it's current state, I'd argue those deterrents barely qualify as such. Fines, especially in the tech sector are a bad joke. They're so low that the companies could just add them as a budget line item and still be massively profitable.

Re: Was there ever really a “sugar conspiracy”?

#145

Post by zzleeper »

ByThyGrace wrote: post #143
iambateman wrote: post #122

Perhaps there was no sugar conspiracy. In that case, an entire industry (along with government nutrition teams) went along with an incorrect theory for so long that it accounted for millions of chronic illnesses and trillions of dollars spent in the wrong direction. So there was no conspiracy. It seems - in either case - to be one of the greatest misapplications of science in history. At least the “flat earth” theory…

Do you have a source for that Coca Cola claim? Just curious.

I'm not op but the claim is pretty well known. Just count the grams of sugar in any coke bottle.

Re: Was there ever really a “sugar conspiracy”?

#146

Post by ElatedOwl »

gerardnll wrote: post #39
John_KZ wrote: post #17

The industry maliciously amplifies our innate tendency to find a "one-fits-all" solution. The bogeyman used to be fat, now it's sugar. Soon, people will realize that getting 90% of your caloric intake from protein powders is bad, the industry will get ahold of the new trend, and they'll start going back to "healthy carbs" or something stupid like that, and people will forget the meat rush of the 2010s and move onto s…

That's because people expect the food industry to solve the same nutrition problems they put you into. Nutrition is solved if you take veggies, fish, meat, etc. Whole foods, not ultraprocessed. And make exercise. But that doesn't give them money and does not attach you to ultraprocessed foods like a drug (yes, simple sugars found in ultraprocessed foods keep you attached at them like a drug. It has been proved to aff…

>Also, it's your choice if you just eat eggs or take protein shakes because you want to look like Arnold. You want fast and unrealistic results without working hard.

It seems you're implying high protein intake is bad for you - any evidence supporting this? More protein (up to .72g protein/lb of body weight) does increase lean mass gain in individuals resistance training. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28698222

It's a bit silly imo to say people putting in the work and eating sufficient protein want "fast and unrealistic" results.

Re: Was there ever really a “sugar conspiracy”?

#147

Post by danielbln »

ByThyGrace wrote: post #143
iambateman wrote: post #122

Perhaps there was no sugar conspiracy. In that case, an entire industry (along with government nutrition teams) went along with an incorrect theory for so long that it accounted for millions of chronic illnesses and trillions of dollars spent in the wrong direction. So there was no conspiracy. It seems - in either case - to be one of the greatest misapplications of science in history. At least the “flat earth” theory…

Do you have a source for that Coca Cola claim? Just curious.

This article lists coca cola (and pepsi) having 9 teaspoosn of sugar per 330ml (a can's worth), so 17 per bottle seems sound: https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/jun/12/how-mu...

Re: Was there ever really a “sugar conspiracy”?

#148

Post by liveoneggs »

ByThyGrace wrote: post #143
iambateman wrote: post #122

Perhaps there was no sugar conspiracy. In that case, an entire industry (along with government nutrition teams) went along with an incorrect theory for so long that it accounted for millions of chronic illnesses and trillions of dollars spent in the wrong direction. So there was no conspiracy. It seems - in either case - to be one of the greatest misapplications of science in history. At least the “flat earth” theory…

Do you have a source for that Coca Cola claim? Just curious.

a 20oz coke bottle has 65g of sugar / 4.2 = 15.4 teaspoons

Re: Was there ever really a “sugar conspiracy”?

#149

Post by liveoneggs »

walshemj wrote: post #82
John_KZ wrote: post #17

The industry maliciously amplifies our innate tendency to find a "one-fits-all" solution. The bogeyman used to be fat, now it's sugar. Soon, people will realize that getting 90% of your caloric intake from protein powders is bad, the industry will get ahold of the new trend, and they'll start going back to "healthy carbs" or something stupid like that, and people will forget the meat rush of the 2010s and move onto s…

Yes! a while back I had a consolation with a NHS specialist renal dietician and asked about lo salt versions of food /condiments. They sniffed and said the low salt movement has been very well marketed but what they don't tell you is the "shit" they put in to food to replace the salt - which is actually worse than salt - same with these low fat spreads

that's too bad. I really like Mrs Dash

Re: Was there ever really a “sugar conspiracy”?

#150

Post by keymone »

KozmoNau7 wrote: post #133
keymone wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> keto diet is widely acknowledged to be a bad choice "Keto Is Ranked the Worst Diet by Health Experts" are those the same "experts" that have been recommending people to reduce their fat intake for the last 4 decades, effectively increasing sugar consumption and being responbsible for literally millions of dead people around the world? sorry if i won't take you seriously anymore.

These are the experts on the panel: https://health.usnews.com/best-diet/experts The overall consensus used to be that fat was bad, but science has advanced and our view on the subject is a lot more nuanced than "fat bad". Clinical dieticians and other experts have updated their recommendations accordingly. That's how science works, we continually improve our collective knowledge. Going completely off the rails and ju…

> Going completely off the rails and jumping on fad diets instead is not a wise choice

it seems your opinion on how to tell which diet is fad is based not on research but on a quick google search. inform yourself on the topic, then we can argue.

> The current recommendation of a diet heavy in plants, low in saturated fat, moderate in carbs (complex carbs, ditch the simple ones) is perfectly sound, a good average diet for the average person

except none of what you said makes the keto diet bad. i can grant you that it's not recommended for average person mainly because it requires a lot of knowledge and discipline to be following properly, but the rest is bs.

Post reply on HN