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

How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 623 posts

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#291

Post by dragonwriter »

abainbridge wrote: post #66
jly wrote: post #20

I think after the last few years of these kinds of things coming out, the takeaway is pretty simple: be fairly sceptical of 'advice' coming out of large governing bodies and instead just be sensible. Don't eat too much food. Limit processed foods. Eat lots of fruit and vegetables. Eat a large variety of foods. Be active. These rudimentary guidelines are clearly difficult for a lot of people to follow, but I think it'…

Yeah. But humans haven't had fresh fruit available all year round until recently. Similarly, there was never a wide range of foods available. I'm not sure we've got enough evidence to say that changing our diet to include lots of fruit and a wide variety of foods is safe. The encouragement to do this is coming from large governing bodies. I'm off to eat nothing but turnips for a year and get scurvy :-)

> But humans haven't had fresh fruit available all year round until recently.

Certain groups like Europeans haven't, but humans have lived in lots of places that have year-round fresh fruit for quite a long time.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#292

Post by Cyph0n »

dredmorbius wrote: post #219
Cyph0n wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't get it: heart disease causes people to slip on ice?

Compromised health tends to make effective responses to hazardous environmental conditions more difficult. Heart disease can affect strength, balance, coordination, mental function, and any number of other responses, much as a cold or flu or pnemonia can. You might care to review the recent video footage of a notable candidate visibly collapsing whilst being aided into a waiting van for transport, as a consequence of…

> Think systemically, please. Especially if you're in tech.

Which is why I would follow Occam's Razor in this scenario instead of using a convoluted theory to explain why someone slipped on ice.

"Simple is better than complex." [1]

[1]: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0020/

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#293

Post by deisner »

This is the definition of chutzpah: "The [sugar] association also questioned the motives behind the new paper.

“Most concerning is the growing use of headline-baiting articles to trump quality scientific research,” the organization said. “We’re disappointed to see a journal of JAMA’s stature being drawn into this trend.”

Yes, the dubious ethics and research quality at issue here are clearly JAMA's, and not the lobbyists' who, by their own admission, paid scientists to publish a journal article to exonerate their own industry.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#294

Post by hx87 »

nnain wrote: post #153

What if this backlash against Sugar is as extreme as the initial marketing? What if 50 years on, people come back to say, "the generation that endlessly promoted tasteless food and took away the sweetness". Is there a proper study on the effect of eating a sweet chocolate everytime you feel like it, to some kind of happiness? Everyone just sees to be treating this as a magical wand... while still irrationally giving…

In my experience, tasteless food and sweet food are positively, not negatively correlated. The blandest food (lowfat yogurt) is often the sweetest while the tastiest food (ribeye steak) has no sweetness at all.=.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#295

Post by nightski »

dredmorbius wrote: post #267
nightski wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100 years back life expectancy was significantly worse. There are countless things in nature that can out right kill you. Your approach seems pretty ridiculous. (I did not down vote you however).

Little of that life expectancy had to do specifically with worse nutritional quality of food. Access to food, nutritional understanding, and food spoilage, yes. Much had to do with a lack of awareness of germ theory, with waste disposal -- both human and trash -- with pollution of water supplies, and with poor or limited public health measures against community-propogating infectious disease. The highest mortality ra…

I already knew all of this, yet it doesn't really affect my opinion. It provides no evidence whatsoever that going out into nature and picking random naturally occurring foods is more healthy than our food system today.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#296

Post by cmsefton »

abainbridge wrote: post #224
adrianggg wrote: post #182

I rarely say anything is black and white in this world but sugar is in my opinion. Without any doubt in my mind. Recently in the last 3 months I gave up sugar, hard core, it's hard but the benefits are out of this world. I was healthy and active. I ate healthy, or so I thought. Boy was I wrong and mis informed. I had heard theories so I decided to check them out. I went all out to avoid sugar for a couple of weeks ju…

> Of course eat whole fruits those are ok. Why's that any different from eating say table sugar + celery? I just had a slice of a lovely honey dew melon. It was like drinking sugar syrup. I'm pretty sure it was bad for me. Surely the advice should be to not eat too many sugary fruits either, especially not the modern breeds that are much sweeter than more traditional varieties.

Generally, the advice is that fruit is good for you primarily because of the quantity of fibre it contains. I seem to recall Robert Lustig discussing this point. Fibre keeps sugar in your gut longer, which in turn means it's broken down by bacteria there rather than having to be broken down by your liver. It was in this talk he gave, at around 1hr 13min 52sec or so: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#297

Post by matt_wulfeck »

This makes me remember the late Dr. Atkins of the "Atkins Diet" who was pretty much the laughing stock of dietitians then and now.

Yet people that tried the diet have found life-long positive health impacts. I'm one of these people.

I would also like to put some blame on so-called dietitians, who up until very, very recently would have warned you against a low carb diet.

Every dietician I talk to is so absolutely sure about what they recommend and believe.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#298

Post by terminalcommand »

crpatino wrote: post #266
abainbridge wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Of course eat whole fruits those are ok. Why's that any different from eating say table sugar + celery? I just had a slice of a lovely honey dew melon. It was like drinking sugar syrup. I'm pretty sure it was bad for me. Surely the advice should be to not eat too many sugary fruits either, especially not the modern breeds that are much sweeter than more traditional varieties.

> Why's that any different from eating say table sugar + celery? In principle it's not, except perhaps for a glass of water. Most sweet fruits tend to have much more moisture than celery. An unstated assumption that may come with your question is that just like eating fruit is equivalent to eating sugar + celery, it would also be the same to eat sugar, then celery. This is not the case. The fiber and water in the fru…

I've had type 1 diabetes since I was 12, I'm 21 now. Food with identical glycemic indexes do cause different responses. Bread and food with fibers keep the blood sugar levels sustained.

When I have to skip a meal, I've learned that it's best to eat oatmeal crackers. They keep you full and you don't experience hypoglysemia. When I eat candy-bars/chocolate as a substitute for a meal, my blood sugar drops immensely after a couple of hours. I feel exhausted, my hands start to tremble and I forget words/things.

On the other hand, fruits also have the same effect on me as candy-bars. Fructose is no different for me.

For diabetics at least, sugar is poison. But I can't seem to live without it.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#299

Post by hx87 »

LordHumungous wrote: post #127

On the other hand, I think the low carb/keto people have taken the pendulum too far in the other direction. A lot of research seems to suggest that a plant based diet heavy on whole fruits, vegetables, grains, and nuts is healthier than one consisting of animal fats and protein. It makes sense when you look at the diets of the healthiest people on Earth. Just because excess processed sugar is bad for you doe not mean…

A diet of animal parts (i.e. ALL of the animal, not just muscle) and leafy, non-starchy plants, is perfectly keto-compliant. Who says that a low-carb diet excludes plants?

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#300

Post by mixmastamyk »

bad_user wrote: post #269
PieterH wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many different kinds of sugars. It's worth understanding. Fructose is what harms you. Glucose is harmless. Sucrose is fructose plus a glucose. Lactose is harmless as long as you can digest it. Maltose is harmless. Etc. Fruits contain varying amounts of fructose. Wild berries, not so much. An apple or grape, rather a lot. Apple juice, considerably more.

This is reductionist thinking, the same kind of thinking that led to the low-fat fad, which unfortunately lasted decades. Fruits don't deliver just fructose, the also deliver nutrients, vitamins, antioxidants and fiber. As a consequence we digest fruits differently compared with processed sugar, as the absorption of fructose when eating fruits is slowed down. And our taste buds love sugar because our bodies crave for…

Remember though that modern fruits have been bred to be sweeter.
Post reply on HN