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

Once the disease of gluttonous aristocrats, gout is now tormenting the masses

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 210 posts

Re: Once the disease of gluttonous aristocrats, gout is now tormenting the masses

#181

Post by knuthsat »

Fumtumi wrote: post #176
glofish wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly this. The most common and pervasive misconceptions about nutrition use the extremely simplistic view of it, believing that in the end all matters is that you end up with N grams of say sugar. The effects on the body of consuming an apple versus the equivalent two table spoons of raw sugar are not even remotely similar.

They are when you look at the calorie intake. That is the point i made and still make.

The problem is that there’s no study demonstrating what was stated. Consuming a fructose concentrate will not have the same outcome as consuming the same amount of fructose through fruits.

There isn’t a study that shows the outcomes are equivalent . I have no idea where OP got his conclusion that fruits are an issue.

Yes, keeping an eye on glycemic index or FODMAP for people with metabolic disease works but I can’t find studies showing that you can eat so much fruit to get diabetic or gout.

Re: Once the disease of gluttonous aristocrats, gout is now tormenting the masses

#182

Post by hinkley »

zests wrote: post #137
rusk wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By cutting out “fructose” surely you don’t mean cutting out fruit? Do mean derivatives like fructose syrup and stuff?

The worst offender is fruit juice. It is practically soda with some vitamin C. Suppose I'm from a country that does not have fruits. How do you convince me to start eating them from a health perspective? Fibre is in vegetables and I'm not too keen on increasing sugar intake for no reason.

Fruit juice removes all of the fructose from the fiber your body has to scrounge through to absorb the sugar.

The overall quantity of sugar may be roughly equivalent, but the glass of juice is going to hit your blood stream almost as fast as a can of coke. Probably as fast since a typical bottle of fruit juice is running about 20 calories more than a soda.

Also PSA: Watch out for apple juice in your 100% fruit juice. It is at this point a very old industry trick to use apple juice that's concentrated, increasing the sugar content drastically. If you got a press and juiced your own apples, it would taste like flavored water to you compared to the 'worst' case in bottled juices.

Re: Once the disease of gluttonous aristocrats, gout is now tormenting the masses

#183

Post by watwut »

Fumtumi wrote: post #154
watwut wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have yet to meet someone who is obese and his calorie intake is primary from fruits. Edit: I just did napkin calculation. Sedentary 170cm high male weighting 66kg would need to eat 20 apples a day to keep his weight. Or 3600 grams per day. The shocking high sugar content still means nearly uneatable quantity of apples just to get enough calories for rather small office worker who does no sport.

I don't think 20 apples is that much. And we are talking about people who are obese, they are consumgint oo many calories per day, every day. Now lets take a real example: obese people tend to drink juices and replacing soda with juice because they assumed juices are healthy. I can easily drink 2 liters of water or 2 liters of juice/soda every day. 470 calories for 1 liter -> 900 calories additional. easy

Juice is not apple, that is competely different argument. 20 apples is quite a lot and dude I picked is small - I intentionally made him smaller then average.

I am 100% confident that pearl clutching over need to replace fruit by vegetables else people will be obese is really not even close to why people get fat.

Re: Once the disease of gluttonous aristocrats, gout is now tormenting the masses

#184

Post by slfnflctd »

CyberDildonics wrote: post #175
slfnflctd wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There might also be evidence that as with so many other things, different people require different amounts. My partner consistently shows low sodium in their blood work, yet eats way more salt than I do (my blood results are normal) and craves saltier things. They will put salt on already-salted foods that I consider too salty already.

How much is 'different people' and how much is different actions? Is eating salt a 1:1 direct cause of high sodium or is it relative to hydration, exercise, and other factors?

I'm quite certain it's relative. Hydration and exercise are huge factors. I'm not sure how common it is now, but construction workers in hot climates were often given straight salt tablets to swallow in the past-- with as much water & exercise as they get, it's actually necessary to prevent Hyponatremia. They're probably more into energy drinks these days.

Anyway, the person I was thinking of also seems to take in less fluids and get less exercise than I do on average, further compounding the difference for us in particular. That's part of why I mentioned our case, it's more extreme the closer you look.

Re: Once the disease of gluttonous aristocrats, gout is now tormenting the masses

#185

Post by darkerside »

Emphere wrote: post #142
darkerside wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why wouldn't the absorption rate have an impact? Seems like it could slow down absorption enough for your kidneys to filter out byproducts that can lead to gout. Interested to learn if you know something different.

No, fiber does not have that big of an impact on absorption. That's why most fruits are a big no on keto diets

https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-h....

> Studies also have shown that high-fiber foods may have other heart-health benefits, such as reducing blood pressure and inflammation. Helps control blood sugar levels. In people with diabetes, fiber — particularly soluble fiber — can slow the absorption of sugar and help improve blood sugar levels.

Seems like it impacts time to absorb

Re: Once the disease of gluttonous aristocrats, gout is now tormenting the masses

#186

Post by yoyonamite »

I have suspicions that my wrist pain was because of gout. My doctor only seemed to care whether or not I've ever had a full-on attack, but I think it's plausible that there could be negative effects short of that. My wrist pain went away when I modified my diet, which I was advised to do anyway.

I'm sure I made other changes to my life during that period of time so I can't say for certain that it wasn't some other change that caused the pain to go away. I also know that wrist pain can go away on its own without any intervention. I wanted to leave this comment here in case it helps others; I would have been very grateful if simply modifying my diet would have helped me as I tried many things during that period of time.

I'd also be interested in getting feedback from those more knowledgeable as I don't have much of a medical background. I did find a study - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4101606/ which may support what I'm saying, but I might be completely wrong.

Re: Once the disease of gluttonous aristocrats, gout is now tormenting the masses

#187

Post by easytiger »

darkerside wrote: post #116
easytiger wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apparently only something like Certainly can imagine other cases can be aggravated by diet choices.

How is something diet aggravated but not diet related? Seems like all these people who claim there's no _meaningful_ correlation here are just setting goalposts in a way where they don't feel compelled to change their diets.

It's not caused by diet in 85% of cases.

It can be aggravated by diet if you have it.

You can't seriously tell me you don't see the difference?

Re: Once the disease of gluttonous aristocrats, gout is now tormenting the masses

#188

Post by jjav »

hombre_fatal wrote: post #144
Ragib_Zaman wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most fruit are nowhere near as healthy as most people expect they are. They have been selectively bred over many hundreds of years to be far larger, sweeter and more devoid of micronutrients than they were hundreds of years ago. The amount of sugar (especially fructose) in fruits like apples, oranges and bananas is shockingly high, and can cause or exacerbate conditions such as obesity, fatty liver, type 2 diabetes,…

Obese people avoiding fruit is one of the biggest eye roll on offer. I had a fat roommate who measured out the raw almonds he ate because they were calorie dense the same day he’d eat two whole pizzas for dinner. Meanwhile, almonds and bananas aren’t the things making people fat. Looking at my own fat friends, some tasty fruit is the only fiber they even get. And vegetables aren’t even on the menu of most fat people…

> making people fat

This thread isn't about being fat, it was about gout.

I've never been fat but had plenty of gout attacks. Back when I was getting my worst gout attacks I was in the best shape of my life but the problem was I was consuming too much fructose. From a combination of drinking fruit juices (a single glass can have more than my limit of 10g/day!) and not paying enough attention to sugar content of regular foods. When I finally started adding it all up I was easily reaching 100g of fructose per day.

Re: Once the disease of gluttonous aristocrats, gout is now tormenting the masses

#189

Post by rusk »

jerf wrote: post #152
hombre_fatal wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obese people avoiding fruit is one of the biggest eye roll on offer. I had a fat roommate who measured out the raw almonds he ate because they were calorie dense the same day he’d eat two whole pizzas for dinner. Meanwhile, almonds and bananas aren’t the things making people fat. Looking at my own fat friends, some tasty fruit is the only fiber they even get. And vegetables aren’t even on the menu of most fat people…

It wasn't "advice". It's a true statement: Most fruit isn't as healthy as people think it is. If you've got someone eating an unhealthy diet, but sticking some token fruit in, then that means that even their token nods towards good diet aren't as good as they think, and they should be made aware of that.

Even so they’re getting fibre, vitamins and other micronutrients they wouldn’t otherwise get.

Re: Once the disease of gluttonous aristocrats, gout is now tormenting the masses

#190

Post by rusk »

Fumtumi wrote: post #149
hombre_fatal wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obese people avoiding fruit is one of the biggest eye roll on offer. I had a fat roommate who measured out the raw almonds he ate because they were calorie dense the same day he’d eat two whole pizzas for dinner. Meanwhile, almonds and bananas aren’t the things making people fat. Looking at my own fat friends, some tasty fruit is the only fiber they even get. And vegetables aren’t even on the menu of most fat people…

To add to your very generic statement: Fruit juice contains a lot of sugar; Oranges contain a lot of sugar; Make sure you check how much calories you take in regardless of the food. A good understanding of food healthiness is to understand what you are eating.

The difference between fruit juice and actual fruit is massive. Volume for starters it’s far easier to overconsume juice than whole fruits. Then there’s the matter of the rough fibrous matter being strained out and the glycaemic index ... (EDIT not to mention the various adulterations for shelf life and added sugar and stuff)

It’s far harder to go wrong with whole fruits.

Post reply on HN