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

The sugar conspiracy: sugar—not fat—is the greatest danger to our health

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–198 of 198 posts

Re: The sugar conspiracy: sugar—not fat—is the greatest danger to our health

#191

Post by SolaceQuantum »

donutdan4114 wrote: post #16
donutdan4114 wrote: post #11

As someone who has shifted to a sugar-free, high-fat lifestyle (keto diet), I can attest to the fact that sugar really is the ultimate evil in terms of health and nutrition. I've lost about 100lbs in 2.5 years... The only thing that I really changed was doing a Keto diet. I've learned a lot about nutrition along the way, and it's amazing how bad nutrition info was when I was growing up.. Common Misconceptions I hear/…

If anyone has any questions about starting a keto diet (high-fat, mid-protein, low-carb), feel free to ask. :) Cannot recommend it enough. It simply just works..

I'm thinking of starting a keto diet, but my only issue is that I'm northern Chinese. I feel like I'll be throwing away my culture, or what little I have from my parents (I'm Asian-american). Many of the dishes are designed with either noodles or steamed buns in mind. E.g. mopping up sauces or vinegars, dumplings, baozi, all the many kinds of noodle. How would you recommend eating asian and also keto? It seems really awkward to swear away dumplings for example, when dumpling making was an activity that brought my whole family together both in China and in America.

Re: The sugar conspiracy: sugar—not fat—is the greatest danger to our health

#192

Post by greggman »

J-dawg wrote: post #74
bosdev wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It absolutely does not have the same flavor, no artificial sweetener does. But if you decide to not have sugar, you can grow to enjoy it in a different way. For me, for example, regular Coca-Cola is just non-existant in my world at this point. I drink Coke Zero, and I like it. I'm sure the sugar full version tastes better, but I've decided that's just not an option for me.

I drink a lot of sugar-free cola, and to my dismay there seems to be mounting evidence that diet soft drinks actually contribute to weight gain, possibly by altering gut fauna. [0] As with all nutrition advice, I find myself wondering what to do with this information (other than kicking my diet coke habit just to be on the safe side). Good science takes time, but I want to make decisions that benefit my health right…

I saw that too.

My anecdata: In 1992 I was 5'10" and 210lbs. I switched from caloried drinks to non-caloried drinks (coke -> diet coke) and have up sides (no more fries). No other changes. Lost 30 lbs and pretty much stayed that way. Pretty much no real physical activity. Don't know which it was, the drinks or the sides or both.

Stayed that way until I moved to Japan in 1998 where most restaurants don't have diet coke. They're only non-caloried drink was tea which got me addicted to tea.

That's probably better for me than diet-coke but tea stains my teeth :(

Re: The sugar conspiracy: sugar—not fat—is the greatest danger to our health

#193

Post by greggman »

J-dawg wrote: post #74
bosdev wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It absolutely does not have the same flavor, no artificial sweetener does. But if you decide to not have sugar, you can grow to enjoy it in a different way. For me, for example, regular Coca-Cola is just non-existant in my world at this point. I drink Coke Zero, and I like it. I'm sure the sugar full version tastes better, but I've decided that's just not an option for me.

I drink a lot of sugar-free cola, and to my dismay there seems to be mounting evidence that diet soft drinks actually contribute to weight gain, possibly by altering gut fauna. [0] As with all nutrition advice, I find myself wondering what to do with this information (other than kicking my diet coke habit just to be on the safe side). Good science takes time, but I want to make decisions that benefit my health right…

I saw that too.

My anecdata: In 1992 I was 5'10" and 210lbs. I switched from caloried drinks to non-caloried drinks (coke -> diet coke) and have up sides (no more fries). No other changes. Lost 30 lbs and pretty much stayed that way. Pretty much no real physical activity. Don't know which it was, the drinks or the sides or both.

Stayed that way until I moved to Japan in 1998 where most restaurants don't have diet coke. They're only non-caloried drink was tea which got me addicted to tea.

That's probably better for me than diet-coke but tea stains my teeth :(

Re: The sugar conspiracy: sugar—not fat—is the greatest danger to our health

#194

Post by SebKba »

notLustig wrote: post #152

I'm seeing two major factual problems with many of the comments here. 1. In terms of determining how much weight you are going to lose/gain. A calorie is a calorie. Calories in/calories out is the secret sauce to every successful weight loss diet, even keto. That is a simple fact, backed by all of the truly solid nutritional research in modern science. 2. If we are talking about lean body mass, body fat percentage go…

Regarding #1... I'm pretty sure that to digest 100kcal worth of chicken breast requires more energy for the body to do, compared to digesting 100kcal worth of Coke/sugar. It also has a different impact on your insulin levels.

Living on a 3000kcal McDonalds diet will give you a different body shape compared to living on a 3000kcal diet of home cooked, organic meals.

No?

Re: The sugar conspiracy: sugar—not fat—is the greatest danger to our health

#195

Post by frankzinger »

dpark wrote: post #81
donutdan4114 wrote: post #11

As someone who has shifted to a sugar-free, high-fat lifestyle (keto diet), I can attest to the fact that sugar really is the ultimate evil in terms of health and nutrition. I've lost about 100lbs in 2.5 years... The only thing that I really changed was doing a Keto diet. I've learned a lot about nutrition along the way, and it's amazing how bad nutrition info was when I was growing up.. Common Misconceptions I hear/…

> Most people would have to run 10 miles per day to burn off the garbage they would eat in the morning (think of a young adult having an innocent bowl of cereal and OJ for breakfast) How big is your bowl of cereal? 10 miles of running would be >1000 Calories burned. I don't think I've ever consumed 1000 Calories of cereal and juice in a sitting. I'm also pretty sure most people are not eating 1000 Calories for a typi…

I make my own muesli. 75g Granola, 20g mixed nuts, 10g cranberries, 10g raisins, 20g seed mix, 100ml soy milk. I can't post a pic right now but it fills no more than a third of a regular bowl. It looks very unimpressive. But it adds up to 755kcal.

Before I started measuring quantities I ate this same mix in much larger quantities because I felt like I needed that amount to be satiated. So I was easily eating close to or more than 1000kcal for breakfast every day. And that's without OJ.

(Even now I feel like I could eat more. 60g of oatmeal fills me up much more and comes in at around 300kcal with sugar and soy milk. Muesli is not a very good breakfast.)

Re: The sugar conspiracy: sugar—not fat—is the greatest danger to our health

#196

Post by notLustig »

SebKba wrote: post #194
notLustig wrote: post #152

I'm seeing two major factual problems with many of the comments here. 1. In terms of determining how much weight you are going to lose/gain. A calorie is a calorie. Calories in/calories out is the secret sauce to every successful weight loss diet, even keto. That is a simple fact, backed by all of the truly solid nutritional research in modern science. 2. If we are talking about lean body mass, body fat percentage go…

Regarding #1... I'm pretty sure that to digest 100kcal worth of chicken breast requires more energy for the body to do, compared to digesting 100kcal worth of Coke/sugar. It also has a different impact on your insulin levels. Living on a 3000kcal McDonalds diet will give you a different body shape compared to living on a 3000kcal diet of home cooked, organic meals. No?

For #1: the point of #1 is that body shape and insulin levels are not being considered. That point specifically only matters for weight gain/weight loss. In regards to differing energy expenditure for digestion for one food vs another, I would guess that that is a level of detail the average person would not spend their time investigating.

For McD's vs home cookin, calories in/calories out still holds to be true. So, if your exercise levels are the same, then you will end up weighing approximately the same after both diets. However, lean body mass, body fat percentage, your overall health and the effect McD's has on any diseases you are fighting/trying to prevent will likely be different based on the quality of your diet and it's macronutrient distribution.

Re: The sugar conspiracy: sugar—not fat—is the greatest danger to our health

#197

Post by KingMob »

KingMob wrote: post #54
mtgx wrote: post #7

So when can we have stevia into all of our food?

Might be better to just curb the craving for sweetness. Study after study shows no effect of diet sodas vs regular sodas. While artificial sweeteners have a low glycemic index/load, they stimulate the release of related hormones like insulin and GLP-1. And insulin, if you recall, signals fat cells to suck up the energy and grow. So if you drink a diet soda, it might have no calories itself, but it's more likely to co…

To all the naysayers:

1) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0898656898... 2) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2008.284/full 3) http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.... 4) http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/32/12/2184.full

etc etc etc...

Re: The sugar conspiracy: sugar—not fat—is the greatest danger to our health

#198

Post by KingMob »

aaxe wrote: post #164
KingMob wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Might be better to just curb the craving for sweetness. Study after study shows no effect of diet sodas vs regular sodas. While artificial sweeteners have a low glycemic index/load, they stimulate the release of related hormones like insulin and GLP-1. And insulin, if you recall, signals fat cells to suck up the energy and grow. So if you drink a diet soda, it might have no calories itself, but it's more likely to co…

No no no no no God damn. This is a perfect example of how a little knowledge is dangerous. 1. Artificial sweeteners do NOT cause insulin to be released. 2. On that note, insulin is a storage hormone. That is it. It is not a fat-hormone. You know what's one of the few hormones that almost all bodybuilders take? Insulin - because it makes their muscles grow. You get fat because your intake of calories is excessive, reg…

> This is a perfect example of how a little knowledge is dangerous.

So is your own comment.

1. Aspartame doesn't release insulin, but it does provoke release of related hormones. Other artificial sweeteners DO stimulate insulin release. See my reply to my own comment for a quick sampling of relevant articles.

2. Yes, insulin is a generalized storage hormone, but fat is always ready to absorb, while muscle requires exercise to stimulate the absorption. Unless you're exercising heavily (which isn't most of us), my general point stands.

Post reply on HN