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

Reducing sugar in packaged foods can prevent disease in millions

eurekalert.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 176 posts

Re: Reducing sugar in packaged foods can prevent disease in millions

#161

Post by dorchadas »

14 wrote: post #82
o10449366 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. Cereals, fruit juices, mainstream coffee (Starbucks, Dunkin, etc.), yogurt, baked goods... It's insane to me that society in the US has been conditioned to consume literally hundreds of grams of sugar for breakfast. If you need caffeine (which is a separate discussion), you don't need to consume what's essentially a frozen milkshake as the delivery vehicle.

I quit coffee New Years and the reason was I was drinking it with a teaspoon of sugar and throughout the day would have about 5 cups like this. Being 240 days into the year I have cut out 1200 teaspoons of sugar from my diet by cutting coffee. I would like to cut out other sugars as well but find it extremely difficult to get ride of things like chocolate.

I tried to cut out processed/added sugar in April. It's worked great mostly, even when eating out if I'm careful. Tea was the big thing for me though. I'm from the South and was literally drinking sweet tea from the time I was a few months old. It was difficult, especially as my grandmother made the best tea. But she eventually started making unsweet for me and it's really hard to go back to sweet tea. It's just so overpowering. Even eating too much sugar makes me sick now.

I'm super glad I'm in Ireland now though, as I hope to keep up with the no added sugar trend once I start cooking for myself more. It'll be really interesting to see how much more weight I can lose (down ~20lbs since summer started simply by IF, walking and cutting out sugar more rigorously)

Re: Reducing sugar in packaged foods can prevent disease in millions

#162

Post by james4k »

sjwalter wrote: post #157
james4k wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, it is frustrating. I'm no expert, either. Part of the problem with nutrition is it's hard to get quality data, like how do you get long-term studies where you can control every aspect of each participant's diet and lifestyle? The best data we have is all over relatively short periods. Saturated fat is one thing there is strong consensus on. https://www.heart.org/en/healthy-living/healthy-eating/eat-s... https:/…

I've made similar comments before, but this is a neutered attitude. Needing some studies before you agree or disagree with something as fundamental as healthful eating. You can do your own scientific studies by changing your diet and feeling the results. Nutrition "science" is, like all science these days, inherently untrustworthy. "The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perha…

I'm not being absolutist. Eat your meat now and then. But if you're interested in longevity, cardiovascular disease is the #1 cause of death. So, I personally make diet decisions with that in mind.

There are a lot of bunk studies, but that doesn't mean you should ignore all scientific studies altogether. If you have multiple randomized controlled trials with good sample sizes saying certain things, and funded by public health institutions, I want to pay attention to those.

You're right about the agricultural industry and its influence. The beef, chicken, and dairy industries are chief among them.

Re: Reducing sugar in packaged foods can prevent disease in millions

#163

Post by james4k »

sjwalter wrote: post #156
james4k wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you think oil is? It's processed food. And I never said you have to get rid of it entirely. But there's no doubt we use too much of it. Why is that controversial? And there is too much consensus around saturated fat being involved in both cardiovascular disease and diabetes for me to say animal fats are a good substitute. It's a step in the wrong direction, even. The only thing worse might be palm oil.

True, oil is processed food. By that same argument, all cooked food is processed. The animal fats I eat are from my own farm, processed by me, lard rendered by me. I realize not everyone can do this, but quality control (and lack of preservatives and other bullshit) is much easier to do when you're the one doing the cooking. Just like roasting a chicken yourself is making "processed food", there's a big difference be…

I guess I'm specifically referring more to refined foods, where you often strip away other healthy components of the food. Oil falls under that category, and is always an important component to the highly processed foods you're talking about.

Re: Reducing sugar in packaged foods can prevent disease in millions

#164

Post by bcassedy »

cbhl wrote: post #11
sandworm101 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The switch to sugar alternatives is already happening. https://www.marketingweek.com/diet-coke-sales-overtake- classic-coca-cola/ "Compare this to the week before, when Diet Coke sales were at £10.4m and classic Coca-Cola £10.65m. The data shows Coca-Cola value sales were higher than Diet Coke every week for the past year until the brand overhaul and subsequent introduction of the sugar tax. Since then they have dive…

Beverages are interesting because there are now financial incentives to switch off of sweetened beverages: sweetened beverages are taxed higher in some municipalities (e.g. SF) and even banned in some school districts (e.g. PepsiCo has been selling Dasani and Bubly in some in-school vending machines instead).

Those penalties must be really harsh if Pepsi is electing to sell Dasani, a Coca-Cola product.

Re: Reducing sugar in packaged foods can prevent disease in millions

#165

Post by BostonEnginerd »

martinpw wrote: post #81
nn3 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was a story here about the Irish tax authority classifying Subway bread as a sweet, not as bread, due to the high sugar content. I think that's an accurate description of a lot of american breads. https://www.npr.org/2020/10/01/919189045/for-subway-a-ruling... Usually when I buy bread in the bread isle i discard all that have added sugars. But it's been getting hard recently.

> Usually when I buy bread in the bread isle i discard all that have added sugars. But it's been getting hard recently. Even companies that try to market their bread as healthy still add sugar but then try to imply that it is a "healthier" kind of sugar. I wrote to one about it and got this reply: Thank you for checking in with Dave's Killer Bread about the sweetness of our bread. We use sweeteners because we find th…

That’s at least a pretty honest response.

Re: Reducing sugar in packaged foods can prevent disease in millions

#166

Post by TedDoesntTalk »

phonypc wrote: post #152
TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Table sugar has a glycemic index of 65. Maple sugar's is 54. Not a huge difference but if sweeteners are important to you, maybe every bit counts.

The same reasoning would imply pure fructose is a better option. Or that eating a potato is worse.

Depending on quantities, you are correct. Glycemic index and quantity tell you how the food affects your blood sugar levels. Whether or not you’re diabetic, keeping blood sugar levels low is important to health.

Re: Reducing sugar in packaged foods can prevent disease in millions

#167

Post by TedDoesntTalk »

phonypc wrote: post #151
TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> only harmful in excess. Tell that to the American Heart Association: https://www.heart.org/en/healthy-living/healthy-eating/eat-s... When there’s extra sodium in your bloodstream, it pulls water into your blood vessels, increasing the total amount (volume) of blood inside them. With more blood flowing through your blood vessels, blood pressure increases. It’s like turning up the water supply to a garden hose — the…

Literally the third word in your excerpt is "extra".

That’s right. I never said sodium is bad for you. Excess sodium is.

Re: Reducing sugar in packaged foods can prevent disease in millions

#168

Post by crdrost »

caturopath wrote: post #98
crdrost wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's bigger than that. So first off, just about all of these artificial sweeteners are like 200x sweeter than sugar or higher. This kind of means that you have high amplification which comes with distortion—artificial sweeteners do not taste like the real thing. So those chemical aftertastes are probably the biggest contributors to skepticism. Second, the most common artificial sweetener right now is aspartame, and i…

'Formaldehyde' fearmongering addressed at (sorry) https://youtu.be/92r1oOul0kM?t=69

No that's fine, unlike one commenter replied, I am really not fear mongering here but just trying to answer the question—are people just upset that they're getting something for free? It's just that the most common sweetener legit starts to taste awful after just a little while in the can.

Re: Reducing sugar in packaged foods can prevent disease in millions

#169

Post by crdrost »

EamonnMR wrote: post #137
crdrost wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's bigger than that. So first off, just about all of these artificial sweeteners are like 200x sweeter than sugar or higher. This kind of means that you have high amplification which comes with distortion—artificial sweeteners do not taste like the real thing. So those chemical aftertastes are probably the biggest contributors to skepticism. Second, the most common artificial sweetener right now is aspartame, and i…

This is the exact kind of FuD that I'm talking about. There is a whole world of low-calorie sweeteners, Aspartame isn't the only one by a long shot. As you pointed out It's uncanny potency means that the amount of metabolites you end up with is vanishingly small. For most people it does not cause any problems. Certainly fewer than the 100% of people who art consuming calories when they consume sugar. My suggestion is…

If you see me as FuD you might consider re-examining yourself?

Aspartame may not be the only one but it's absolutely the most common. And it really isn't very shelf stable and it really does taste nasty when it decays. If that's “FuD” then you're at war with taste buds?

Diet Pepsi switched to sucralose and had to switch back. Diet Coke sells a sucralose version but it's not at all popular. There are a couple smaller markets for offbeat sodas sweetened with stevia, but like someone else mentioned, stevia is a hella acquired taste, very soapy.

Re: Reducing sugar in packaged foods can prevent disease in millions

#170

Post by gHosts »

phonypc wrote: post #144
gHosts wrote: post #96

I want to start a Truth in Packaging campaign. Mint Sauce? Nah. That mint flavoured sugar water. Cheese is a Good Source of Protein? Nah. Bollocks, it's clearly a better source of fat. I could go on for ages. I'm truly glad I don't live in America... The amount of sugar in NZ food is frightening and I have to spend ages label reading to avoid the worst of it.... ....but the amount of HFCS in American food is just pla…

> Cheese is a Good Source of Protein? Nah. Bollocks, it's clearly a better source of fat. The former can be true despite the latter. "Carrots a good source of vitamin A? Nah, clearly a better source of sugar."

If you have as a Biggest Label about the nutrition on Carrots is "Carrots a good source of vitamin A" then it's misleading. It's "spin".
Post reply on HN