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

Nestlé Wants to Sell You Both Sugary Snacks and Diabetes Pills

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 347 posts

Re: Nestlé Wants to Sell You Both Sugary Snacks and Diabetes Pills

#171

Post by Evgeny »

jerf wrote: post #145
Evgeny wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the root cause of dietary issues is excessive fat in the diet, not sugar. Anything excessive in the diet will lead to gaining weight and eventually to obesity. I can not say which will lead to diabetes faster, consuming extra 1000 calories daily in fat or in sugar, but in terms of fat gain results will be similar. The government recommendations are most unfortunate, as they concentrate on macronutrients. So when *fat…

Do you think you're disagreeing with me somehow? My post was about history. Giving me an example of someone concretely stating some modern opinion doesn't change history. Even if you are totally correct, which I do not stipulate, you're opinions are still recent . Having made sure to stay focused on my core point, I'm going to point out that you're basically begging the question. The model of diabetes as unrelated to…

Do you think you're disagreeing with me somehow?

Probably. I think the following is still controversial:

My read on the current situation is that the evidence strongly indicates that sugar is a major problem

There are multiple possible causes, or a combination of any number of such causes

- Excessive sugar

- Excessive fat

- Combination of fat and sugar

- Excessive calories

What is the root cause? I currently tend to think that the problem started to really accelerate when a lot of processed foods manufactured to be extremely palatable by hitting just the right combination of fat and sugar, entered the market.

For references, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bliss_point_(food) and the book "Salt, Sugar, Fat" by Michael Moss.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Moss

Re: Nestlé Wants to Sell You Both Sugary Snacks and Diabetes Pills

#174

Post by jzwinck »

mikeash wrote: post #95
jzwinck wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their marketing is designed to sell cereal. People unfortunately are happiest (short term) to consume sugary cereal. They really are. I met a breakfast food operative in the supermarket once. I told him I thought his company should offer a low sugar version. He said everyone tells them to do so, but once it's on the shelves it does not sell. People want less sugar in the abstract. But they love sugar in their shoppin…

So they're not encouraging people to consume sugary stuff, they're encouraging people to consume a category of food where people prefer sugary stuff? This is about as sensible as saying that Krispy Kreme isn't pushing sugary foods, people just happen to prefer donuts with lots of sugar in them.

What would you have Krispy Kreme do? Pivot to Kimchi Kombucha?

Re: Nestlé Wants to Sell You Both Sugary Snacks and Diabetes Pills

#175

Post by blowski »

nommm-nommm wrote: post #90
sxg wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no "magic pill" for some of the issues associated with massive obesity. One issue you can get is obstructive sleep apnea where you're so fat your tongue blocks your throat at night, and you can't breathe. This eventually leads to pulmonary hypertension and heart failure. You can "fix" this with a CPAP machine, but it's not pleasant. Another issue is that you can be so fat that your chest muscles aren't stron…

Joint pain and reduced mobility are also issues with obesity.

Lets assume that all the physical health problems are solvable with a magic pill, even if this is 500 years in the future.

Is there an intrinsic, rather than pragmatic, reason why mass obesity would be a bad thing? To use the given WALL-E example, what would be so bad about living in that world?

Re: Nestlé Wants to Sell You Both Sugary Snacks and Diabetes Pills

#176

Post by tremon »

k-mcgrady wrote: post #12
hammock wrote: post #2

It's the Wall-e Scenario. If we can find a way to continue to consume cheap, shelf-stable, nutrient-dense food; while at the same time repairing our bodies from the side effects, we can be fat blobs living and consuming and growing the economy. And whether that's unilaterally a bad thing may not be a settled question. The top 5 drugs in the US[1] are remedies for problems caused by advanced society - a statin, antaci…

I'm curious how the final to drugs you've listed are for problems caused by advanced society. I can sort of see where you may be coming from regarding asthma but not antidepressants.

Regarding asthma: it is currently considered to be an auto-immune disorder. The latest theory I read is that the lungs need to develop their own resistance to infection; more specifically, developing lungs need exposure to hazards to tune the immune system and prevent overreactions of the immune system later [1].

Regarding antidepressants: there exist strong links between depression and stress. Current society is arguably more hectic and stressful than what we've had before, but I'm not sure if that is fixable (it is, however, one of the reasons I use an ad-blocker).

[1] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140606091157.h...

Re: Nestlé Wants to Sell You Both Sugary Snacks and Diabetes Pills

#177

Post by ams6110 »

cookiecaper wrote: post #162
mulletbum wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you feel that a consumer is responsible for what they put in their body? If they never tasted the food, they would miss out on this "marketing." The fact remains, if those manufacturers have always produced their beans with sugar, then they should not be at fault. If those companies changed their recipe to contain sugar after they found people grey addicted to it, there should be a label to warn the consumer that…

>Do you feel that a consumer is responsible for what they put in their body? Of course. But the average consumer is not only at a disadvantage, they are regularly deceived into believing that unhealthy foods are in fact healthy. In reality, culpability is a complex calculation that passes through the farmer, the food processor, the manufacturer, the ad firm, the grocer, the consumer, and any other party involved in t…

The blame also rests with regulators like the FDA, who for decades promoted a food pyramid that was basically upside-down in terms of what was healthy; who for decades promoted that partially-hydroginated oils (trans-fats) were preferable to natural saturated fats; who encouraged a "low fat" diet that prompted food producers to substitute sugar for fat to make foods tasty and consumers to consume an unhealthy high-starch, high-sugar diet and a nearly manic avoidance of fat.

Re: Nestlé Wants to Sell You Both Sugary Snacks and Diabetes Pills

#179

Post by pitchka »

aedron wrote: post #70
jld89 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"does not force or even encourage over consumption of sugar." Actually they do encourage you to eat a lot of sugar. Specially children. Their marketing campaigns are specially tailored to that objective. Just look at the cereal advertisements, most of their cereal brands have a lot of sugar in them. If that is not encouraging over consumption of sugar I don't know what is...

Marketing potentially harmful products to children should simply not be allowed. It is well-accepted that children lack the experience and power of judgement to properly evaluate marketing claims. A product sold as breakfast, that consists of 25% sugar, absolutely qualifies as harmful.

Yep. There's nothing wrong with sugar. Nothing wrong with meat, or milk. Or fat.

People's lifestyle is wrong where they mostly sit around and do not move much. They overeat, average US citizen consumes 3600kcal daily.

Instead of focusing on the lifestyle, we demonize sugar.

Now, the company that uses sugar goes to play with capitalism and buys a producer of diabetes pills and everyone seems to assume that sugar is bad.

I just cannot understand how you consider something containing 25% sugar harmful. Where exactly did you get that number?

Do you consider meat harmful since it has been shown in (Is Meat Killing Us? jaoa) 1.5 million people metaanalysis that there's a considerable relative risk increase of all-cause mortality?

Every single thing is potentially harmful. You believe that consumption of milk isn't harmful? Cows milk is there to create a bull out of a little baby cow? Should we stop marketing milk for children?

This fear of food is absolutely orthorexic. There's no scientific evidence implying sugar is unhealthy or potentially harmful, and if you consider the pseudoscientific nutrition research as evidence, then you should also be fearful of the meat, eggs and dairy since there's bunch of "evidence" for that too.

Re: Nestlé Wants to Sell You Both Sugary Snacks and Diabetes Pills

#180

Post by kazinator »

CaptainZapp wrote: post #141
kazinator wrote: post #125

Yamaha wants to sell you noise-canceling headphones, and a motorcycle.

Although most people know Yamaha as a manufacturer of motor bikes and possibly electronics its origins are in manufacturing music instruments. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamaha_Corporation "Yamaha was established in 1887 as a piano and reed organ manufacturer by Torakusu Yamaha as Nippon Gakki Company, Limited (日本楽器製造株式会社 Nippon Gakki Seizō Kabushiki Kaisha?) (literally Japan Musical Instrument Manufacturing…

Those instruments are consistently good. I wouldn't have any apprehensions about picking up a Yamaha guitar.

Motor bikes can be musical instruments too. There is some yatsu in the Noda city area in Chiba, Japan who likes to ride his motorcycle down the Tsutsumidai road at wee hours in the morning, revving the throttle in neutral to play rhythmic, somewhat tuneful patterns with the engine.

Post reply on HN