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

281–290 of 347 posts

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

#281

Post by trhway »

md224 wrote: post #242

> In a 2013 review of published research, scientists affiliated with France’s national scientific institute wrote that sugar and sweets “can not only substitute [for] addictive drugs, like cocaine, but can even be more rewarding and attractive.” Although sugar is “clearly not as behaviorally and psychologically toxic,” cravings for it can be just as intense, they said. So... how do we measure behavioral and psycholog…

i see the following difference here:

craving - how long you can resist consuming the substance giving for example $1K/per minute reward for every minute you resist :) It seems that they are saying that cocaine and sweets are the same.

behavioral and psychological toxicity - the "bad" consequences, internal and external, associated with the habit of consumption of the substance. We do know that these consequences are different between cocaine and sweets.

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

#282

Post by hammock »

chimeracoder wrote: post #257
shawn-furyan wrote: post #245

The offerings of humongous multinational conglomerations are not coherent. You could generate stories of this type all day, because the offerings of the likes of Nestle, GE, J&J, P&G, Coca-Cola, et. al. are the results of the efforts of hundreds of thousands of employees (for each conglomerate) subdivided into thousands of business units [read sub-companies], each with its own goals, challenges, and many existing wit…

> This sort of story is pure narrative fallacy My favorite of these are the articles which criticize health insurers who invest in things like tobacco products. The point of insurance is to manage risk. Tobacco is indisputably linked to expensive health consequences down the line, so if there is an increase in tobacco consumption, that would generate more claims for health insurers down the line. Capturing some porti…

Sugary snacks and diabetes pills are complementary goods though, magnifying risk not managing it. So your example is kind of unrelated.

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

#283

Post by bduerst »

jakubp wrote: post #279
lloyddobbler wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. As someone with Type 1 diabetes (look up the difference if you don't know), I'm always interested in this distinction. Sugary foods neither "give people" nor cause Type 2 diabetes. A person consistently consuming too many sugary foods over a long period of time causes themselves to be at higher risk for Type 2 diabetes. Cigarettes are a different beast, due to the chemically-addictive nature of them (although…

It is possible one day cigarettes will be considered a minor evil in comparison with sugar. Just you wait.

Only if second-hand sugaring becomes a trend and manages to beat out second-hand smoke in the evil dept.

It's interesting how hyper-aware western and particularly U.S. cultures are of sugar and fat. From the 1990's there's still the stigma that eating any sugar and fat will make you fat.

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

#284

Post by md224 »

trhway wrote: post #281
md224 wrote: post #242

> In a 2013 review of published research, scientists affiliated with France’s national scientific institute wrote that sugar and sweets “can not only substitute [for] addictive drugs, like cocaine, but can even be more rewarding and attractive.” Although sugar is “clearly not as behaviorally and psychologically toxic,” cravings for it can be just as intense, they said. So... how do we measure behavioral and psycholog…

i see the following difference here: craving - how long you can resist consuming the substance giving for example $1K/per minute reward for every minute you resist :) It seems that they are saying that cocaine and sweets are the same. behavioral and psychological toxicity - the "bad" consequences, internal and external, associated with the habit of consumption of the substance. We do know that these consequences are…

Thanks for the reply, but this still doesn't clarify anything... what is "behavioral and psychological toxicity"? I was under the impression that the "bad consequences" of these drugs was the risk of damage to the body, but the phrasing implies that they're not talking about physical/physiological toxicity. So what's left? Does using cocaine turn you into an asshole or something? What behavioral/psychological changes are there beyond those associated with the regular consumption of any addictive substance?

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

#285

Post by [deleted] »

trhway wrote: post #281
md224 wrote: post #242

> In a 2013 review of published research, scientists affiliated with France’s national scientific institute wrote that sugar and sweets “can not only substitute [for] addictive drugs, like cocaine, but can even be more rewarding and attractive.” Although sugar is “clearly not as behaviorally and psychologically toxic,” cravings for it can be just as intense, they said. So... how do we measure behavioral and psycholog…

i see the following difference here: craving - how long you can resist consuming the substance giving for example $1K/per minute reward for every minute you resist :) It seems that they are saying that cocaine and sweets are the same. behavioral and psychological toxicity - the "bad" consequences, internal and external, associated with the habit of consumption of the substance. We do know that these consequences are…

[deleted]

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

#286

Post by pavel_lishin »

GordonS wrote: post #280
lake99 wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hardly. Sugar has been made the scapegoat. Many things contribute to diabetes, sugar is but one among them. Meat has been shown to contribute significantly[0]. If you dig into it further, you'll see study after study blaming "normal" amounts of meat consumption as a factor for an increased risk of diabetes. And yet, few people want to give it any thought. [0] http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/27/9/2108.full

Did that study control for refined carb intake? People who eat a lot of processed meat also tend to eat a lot of refined carbs...

Didn't see anything mentioned in the results:

> These results remained significant after further adjustment for intakes of dietary fiber, magnesium, glycemic load, and total fat. Intakes of total cholesterol, animal protein, and heme iron were also significantly associated with a higher risk of type 2 diabetes.

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

#287

Post by jessaustin »

johndevor wrote: post #108
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...

As a CEO in the US you're legally obligated to maximize profits. In that sense I don't see this as a problem with Nestle, more so the greater system in which Nestle sits.

Nestlé is Swiss.

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

#288

Post by lake99 »

GordonS wrote: post #280
lake99 wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hardly. Sugar has been made the scapegoat. Many things contribute to diabetes, sugar is but one among them. Meat has been shown to contribute significantly[0]. If you dig into it further, you'll see study after study blaming "normal" amounts of meat consumption as a factor for an increased risk of diabetes. And yet, few people want to give it any thought. [0] http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/27/9/2108.full

Did that study control for refined carb intake? People who eat a lot of processed meat also tend to eat a lot of refined carbs...

Quoting from their results

> Furthermore, total red meat intake was positively associated with total energy intake, intakes of all fatty acids, cholesterol, and protein but inversely associated with dietary carbohydrate, fiber, magnesium intakes, and glycemic load. Similar associations were observed for total meat and processed meat.

and also

> In the age- and energy-adjusted models, total red meat and processed meat were significantly associated with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes

This study does not go into refined carbs, but it does adjust for total energy. Don't focus on just this one paper. They this is just one of many such papers. The link between meat and diabetes is well established at this point.

Here's a meta analysis for example: http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/121/21/2271.full

> Red meat intake was not associated with CHD (n=4 studies; relative risk per 100-g serving per day=1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.81 to 1.23; P for heterogeneity=0.36) or diabetes mellitus (n=5; relative risk=1.16; 95% confidence interval, 0.92 to 1.46; P=0.25). Conversely, processed meat intake was associated with 42% higher risk of CHD (n=5; relative risk per 50-g serving per day=1.42; 95% confidence interval, 1.07 to 1.89; P=0.04) and 19% higher risk of diabetes mellitus (n=7; relative risk=1.19; 95% confidence interval, 1.11 to 1.27; P

Note that "processed meat" means any method of extending shelf-life like smoking, curing, adding salt or preservatives, etc. but excludes freezing. None of the the meat-eaters I have known (including myself) really differentiate between processed and unprocessed meat when it comes to their diet.

Edit: All these studies blame just processed meat at the moment. But keep in mind that all we were discussing so far was diabetes. There are more than enough good reasons to avoid all animal-based food, including dairy. I will not go into that now. My intention was to show that sugar has been made the scapegoat for diabetes. There are plenty of other diseases that sugar does not contribute to, but meat does.

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

#289

Post by throw7 »

lotharbot wrote: post #258
gerardnll wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are not talking about what is health or not, the sugar they sell is bad, that's it, there's no questioning, there are doctors that agree on that, non biased studies, half the USA is ill with diabetes, etc. Every company has to have a social responsability, I don't see it here. They are causing harm with their products and they also sell the 'cure'. (actually the best is not to eat any of their products, then you d…

> "the sugar they sell is bad, that's it, there's no questioning" I question it. There appears to be little-to-no scientific evidence that there are "bad" sugars and "good" sugars. From what I understand (I'm no doctor, just a person who reads a lot) the main problem is the volume of consumption, not "good" vs "bad" sugars. There's nothing wrong with a normal, healthy person having sugar in any of the forms Nestle se…

It's not only the dosage that does you in, but also the processing... which i think is what others are alluding to.

Meaning a can of soda has a whacky amount of sugar to begin with, but also, if compared to say an orange, has no fiber/roughage (which helps the insulin spike supposedly, plus orange will have good micro-nutrients and antioxidants).

I think people should be much more mindful of these manufactured processed foods and drinks, and why sticking to whole foods just makes sense.

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

#290

Post by ddebernardy »

md224 wrote: post #284
trhway wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i see the following difference here: craving - how long you can resist consuming the substance giving for example $1K/per minute reward for every minute you resist :) It seems that they are saying that cocaine and sweets are the same. behavioral and psychological toxicity - the "bad" consequences, internal and external, associated with the habit of consumption of the substance. We do know that these consequences are…

Thanks for the reply, but this still doesn't clarify anything... what is "behavioral and psychological toxicity"? I was under the impression that the "bad consequences" of these drugs was the risk of damage to the body, but the phrasing implies that they're not talking about physical/physiological toxicity. So what's left? Does using cocaine turn you into an asshole or something? What behavioral/psychological changes…

> What behavioral/psychological changes are there beyond those associated with the regular consumption of any addictive substance?

Not many, and that's precisely the point: in terms of additivity, the neural receptors involved are essentially the same as those involved in other drugs; and in terms of toxicity, it's metabolized essentially the same as alcohol. Give a fruit juice or a whisky to a 4-year old, and it's about the same (minus the dizzy high of/c).

Post reply on HN