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

201–210 of 210 posts

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

#201

Post by trevyn »

mschuster91 wrote: post #134
kennethh wrote: post #63

I think the jury is still out on what the the 100% correct treatment of gout or many of the modern life style related sickness. But many can be cured by reversing what one eat to what people ate 100 years ago or 20.000 years ago. 100 years would mean no processed food, vegetable oils and a lot less sugar. 20.000 years would also remove all type of wheat and corns. Here is a guy who cured gout with the carnivore diet.…

> 100 years would mean no vegetable oils Huh? Olive oil was known to at least the Greeks and Romans, and some disputed citation on Wikipedia even says that olives were harvested even 8.000 years BC.

Perhaps he meant refined vegetable oil? Also, I think seed oils in particular were much less common 100 years ago.

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

#202

Post by arkj »

magicnubs wrote: post #141
arkj wrote: post #87

A close friend of mine suffered from gout since 2012 and it got aggravated since last two years. He also was severely obese with a BMI around 37. Last year his SGPT and SGOT levels really spiked up drastically and doctor suggested it was the beginning of Fibrosis and asked him to reduce weight. He started intermittent fasting 18:6 and religious intake of ~3 litres (250 ml per kg). He reduced 20 kgs in last 8 months.…

> religious intake of ~3 litres (250 ml per kg) Intake of what? (I'm guessing water?)

Sorry; Yes water. An example of mind slipping ahead of the fingers.

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

#203

Post by tuatoru »

jjav wrote: post #188
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…

> 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 regul…

> From a combination of drinking fruit juices and [other stuff] ...

Yes! Juices and smoothies are bad for you. Eat fruit in solid form only, to make your digestive system work harder (as designed), and slow down your rate of calorie ingestion.

It's getting harder and harder to find fruit that hasn't been bred to maximised sugar content, though.

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

#204

Post by paranoidrobot »

Anthony-G wrote: post #197
paranoidrobot wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had mine at about the same age or maybe a little younger - my foot was so swollen, and so sensitive that doctors couldn't believe it was anything other than a break, sprain or some other gross damage. When the X-Ray came back clear, and a blood test showed high Uric Acid they were stunned. Still, I had no further symptoms for several years. Then I had another, then it became a yearly thing and now I'm on Allopurino…

Wow! Until I read the last sentence, I was going to suggest using a walking stick as a visual way of signalling to others that you have some sort of disability and can’t just quickly move out of their way. As a (mostly) healthy and regular pedestrian, I come across the groups you mention – and those who walk with their eyes glued to their phone, expecting others to move out of their way. I really would’ve thought tha…

> I come across the groups you mention – and those who walk with their eyes glued to their phone, expecting others to move out of their way

The folks who don't move or alter their path for the elderly and those with crutches or walking sticks are all over the spectrum.

But it's not just phone users, people will look up, see an older person, and then look down or away and not alter their path at all.

Bags and strollers are frequently used as battering rams. Some of those big trendy bags have extremely sharp corners, as well as metal clasps and other items that also cut and/or bruise.

Groups of people expect that others will get out of their way - members of the group directly in your path will look up, and then back to the rest of their group.

Couples are particularly bad at this - yes, you're together, you're clearly deeply in love, but that doesn't grant you the right to occupy the centre of the footpath and force everyone else to go around.

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

#205

Post by jiofih »

knuthsat wrote: post #181
Fumtumi wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 f…

> I have no idea

Here

> I drastically cut back on fructose, limiting myself to no more than 10g/day. I have been gout-free now for 7 years.

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

#206

Post by Fumtumi »

watwut wrote: post #183
Fumtumi wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think its a combination of all.

I myself stoped drinking soda because of it; Its surprsing how quick you consume extra calories due to needing caffeine.

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

#207

Post by Fumtumi »

rusk wrote: post #190
Fumtumi wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So my statement, you are commenting on, is wrong?

"Make sure you check how much calories you take in regardless of the food."

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

#208

Post by rusk »

Fumtumi wrote: post #207
rusk wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So my statement, you are commenting on, is wrong? "Make sure you check how much calories you take in regardless of the food."

I was agreeing with you, and reinforcing your point.

It's such a shame our reflex is that if somebody responds to something they must be disagreeing.

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

#209

Post by webmaven »

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.

You're implying that total calorie intake is the most (or even the only) important factor.

This is starting to resemble a political thread.

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

#210

Post by SECProto »

CyberDildonics wrote: post #195
SECProto wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When people talk about sugar like this they are talking about fructose. Bringing glucose into it confuses people I believe people are actually usually talking about sucrose, which breaks down into equal parts fructose and glucose v early in digestion.

Fructose is the monosaccharide and is the problem. It doesn't always come from sucrose.

> Fructose is the monosaccharide and is the problem

Glucose is also a monosaccharide.

"sugar" (table sugar, maple syrup, etc) are mainly sucrose, which is one part fructose and one part glucose (joined together, into a disaccharide)

I agree that fructose is the troublesome part of this pair. But when people say "sugar", they aren't referring to fructose, they're referring to sucrose.

Post reply on HN