Was there ever really a “sugar conspiracy”? • Hacker News Board

Re: Was there ever really a “sugar conspiracy”?

#31

Post by keymone » Tue, Feb 20, 2018, 8:39 AM UTC

stinos wrote: post #25

keymone wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While it is tricky with fats, sugar is never good for you (unless some genetic disease where you die if you don’t consume sugar?). Fruits are to various degrees beneficial but not in unlimited amounts. Fruits also don’t have a lot of sugar, see the watermelon comment in the other thread. The problem with sugar is how easy it is in our diets to consume ridiculous amounts of it and how nobody understands that even a li…

sugar is never good for you Sources? I mean, I always thought just like with most things out there, in moderation it's not harmfull. But you are saying any amount is not good? Also by that logic fruit is also bad because it does contain a certain amount ('not a lot') of sugar, no? tldr; I don't completely get the point you are making due to possibly incorrect definitions (what types of sugar?) and seemingly contradic…

> Sources?

https://www.google.de/search?q=sugar+insulin+resistance+pubm...

> in moderation it's not harmfull

define "in moderation".

Re: Was there ever really a “sugar conspiracy”?

#32

Post by croon » Tue, Feb 20, 2018, 8:43 AM UTC

chepaslaaa wrote: post #20

ggg9990 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where is the evidence that “processing” or “refining” makes anything worse? In what way is 300 calories of table sugar worse for you than 300 calories of watermelon?

The body has a much harder time digesting sugar (and other nutriments too) without fiber, the refining process removes the fiber from the plants that contain sugar.

I think you mean easier. Being hard (taking a lot of time) to digest is good.

Re: Was there ever really a “sugar conspiracy”?

#33

Post by dalbasal » Tue, Feb 20, 2018, 8:44 AM UTC

John_KZ wrote: post #17

The industry maliciously amplifies our innate tendency to find a "one-fits-all" solution. The bogeyman used to be fat, now it's sugar. Soon, people will realize that getting 90% of your caloric intake from protein powders is bad, the industry will get ahold of the new trend, and they'll start going back to "healthy carbs" or something stupid like that, and people will forget the meat rush of the 2010s and move onto s…

Nutrition isn't a solved problem

This is very true, and a fact that we have trouble digesting, pardon the pun. This jumping around between completely contradictory nutritional prescriptions is nuts. Then a moderate minded person comes in and hedges their bets with an impossibke compromise (reduce both fat and carbs).

Meanwhile disproven myths like nutricional cholesterol still affect people's eating habits.

It just does not seem possible to doctors, health nuts and everyone else that we just dont know much about nutrition. It seems like we should and that our best theories should be reasonably certain, but they just aren't.

Re: Was there ever really a “sugar conspiracy”?

#34

Post by croon » Tue, Feb 20, 2018, 8:45 AM UTC

endless1234 wrote: post #16

keymone wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about the fact that you have to eat a kilogram of watermelon to get 300cal but less than tenth of that with sugar?

So why is a kilogram of watermelon better than 75 grams of sugar?

Because one will leave you wanting more while the other one will leave you full, so you don't get (or at least get less) fat.

Re: Was there ever really a “sugar conspiracy”?

#35

Post by slampig » Tue, Feb 20, 2018, 8:45 AM UTC

gerardnll wrote: post #26

Want a simple nutrition tip? Just eat the food that you can recognise at simple sight, the ingredients it's made from. And lower meat consumption to 30% of your diet. Avoid ultraprocessed food and eat what you'll burn.

Why would eating processed food be bad? What does it matter if the ingredients are recognizable.

Re: Was there ever really a “sugar conspiracy”?

#36

Post by mnm1 » Tue, Feb 20, 2018, 8:49 AM UTC

montyf wrote: post #10

The statements "sugar is bad", "fat is bad", "fat is good" are all equally simplistic and misleading. Fruits are high in naturally-occurring sugars and they are among the healthiest things you can eat. Turns out that nutrition is a pretty complicated science, and there existing various political and special interests influencing the science doesn't help. It's 2018 and I don't think there's even remotely a scientific…

So there's no scientific consensus on what's healthy or not, but surely hamburgers are not healthy? Isn't that a contradiction? Hamburgers can be very healthy. Maybe that's why people make such eating decisions--there isn't enough good information and everyone thinks they have it figured out when they don't.

Re: Was there ever really a “sugar conspiracy”?

#37

Post by seren » Tue, Feb 20, 2018, 8:53 AM UTC

slampig wrote: post #35

gerardnll wrote: post #26

Want a simple nutrition tip? Just eat the food that you can recognise at simple sight, the ingredients it's made from. And lower meat consumption to 30% of your diet. Avoid ultraprocessed food and eat what you'll burn.

Why would eating processed food be bad? What does it matter if the ingredients are recognizable.

It seems to increase the risk of cancer by 10%, even if the exact mechanism or cause, is still unknown.

http://www.bmj.com/content/360/bmj.k322

Re: Was there ever really a “sugar conspiracy”?

#38

Post by sgift » Tue, Feb 20, 2018, 8:55 AM UTC

alecco wrote: post #8

amriksohata wrote: post #2

Refined sugar and processed fatsare bad, naturally occuring fats like coconut oil have been lumped together with other fats as bad due to bad science

Actually, extracted coconut oil is as bad as butter. But whole coconut is good. Probably because of all the fiber it has.

> extracted coconut oil is as bad as butter

So, it's great as there's no evidence that butter is bad.

Re: Was there ever really a “sugar conspiracy”?

#39

Post by gerardnll » Tue, Feb 20, 2018, 8:55 AM UTC

John_KZ wrote: post #17

The industry maliciously amplifies our innate tendency to find a "one-fits-all" solution. The bogeyman used to be fat, now it's sugar. Soon, people will realize that getting 90% of your caloric intake from protein powders is bad, the industry will get ahold of the new trend, and they'll start going back to "healthy carbs" or something stupid like that, and people will forget the meat rush of the 2010s and move onto s…

That's because people expect the food industry to solve the same nutrition problems they put you into.

Nutrition is solved if you take veggies, fish, meat, etc. Whole foods, not ultraprocessed. And make exercise. But that doesn't give them money and does not attach you to ultraprocessed foods like a drug (yes, simple sugars found in ultraprocessed foods keep you attached at them like a drug. It has been proved to affect your mood.). Nutrition is hard nowadays because we have a supermarket full of bad nutrition value. We wouldn't be that fat without ultraprocessed food or fast food chains.

Also, it's your choice if you just eat eggs or take protein shakes because you want to look like Arnold. You want fast and unrealistic results without working hard. That's not a balanced diet and I'm sure it will take a toll on your body.

I've gone from 82kg (20% fat) to 75-76kg (17,88% fat) in 6 months, taking it easy, without doing exercise, just lowering my daily intake of calories and mostly avoiding ultraprocessed foods. I enjoy weekends by having great meals at restaurants or at home. Of course I also take a chocolate bar or another other sweet ultraprocessed food, because drugs (sugar) are hard to keep away.

Now I exercise an hour twice a week and I expect to keep loosing fat and gaining muscle, I don't want to hurry, I'm trying to create a lifestyle not something I'll keep doing intermittenly. I don't take any suplement as I want to make progress by my own effort and in a natural and healthy way as if my daily life was more physical.

Re: Was there ever really a “sugar conspiracy”?

#40

Post by gerardnll » Tue, Feb 20, 2018, 8:57 AM UTC

slampig wrote: post #35

gerardnll wrote: post #26

Want a simple nutrition tip? Just eat the food that you can recognise at simple sight, the ingredients it's made from. And lower meat consumption to 30% of your diet. Avoid ultraprocessed food and eat what you'll burn.

Why would eating processed food be bad? What does it matter if the ingredients are recognizable.

I said ultraprocessed, not processed. It's not the same a can of chickpeas than a 'chocolate' bar.

What I said about the ingredients It's just an easy tip to differentiate ultraprocessed foods from just processed or healthy ones. Another 'rule' could be avoiding food with more than 4-5 ingredients.