Live data from Hacker News

Are sugar substitutes healthier than the real thing?

economist.com

31–37 of 37 posts

Re: Are sugar substitutes healthier than the real thing?

#31

This topic is the perpetual motion machine of journalism: every few months I see an article about how artificial sweeteners are bad and then another article that states the opposite. Makes me want to make sure my body is donated to science as a data point to help settle this.

One of the main techniques of click bait is the counter-intuitive truth statement.

"The thing you thought was good is bad! The thing you thought was bad is good!". Articles are clicked on, and if you are lucky therein lies more nuance. Often not.

As long as we have the online ad economy, you are going to see articles like this.

Re: Are sugar substitutes healthier than the real thing?

#34
post #17

I think people need to realize instead that moderation is a better answer than continuing to be gluttanous over dubiously "better" alternatives. There are plenty of people who have a healthy relationship with sugar. One might ask why they can't be one of those people instead of trying to find a compound that avoids having to face the music with a behavioral change. Then again if such an idea were so widespread, there…

A moral position made with no argument. I find it emptier than the calories you condemn. And of worse character than the people you so impugn upon. Why? Why not make a more enjoyable world? Why insist in denial? It's so confusing to me that such bitterness and aggressive zeal, such negative energies, go so unchecked. And for what? I hate to drag an innocent into my countrr-tirade, but Paul Ford writing about mounjaro…

>Why? Why not make a more enjoyable world? Why insist in denial?

At that point, forget the glp-1. Eat as much as you want, of whatever you want, and simply purge, like the elite in the Hunger Games. People have to realize these things aren't miracle workers. What are they doing in practice? Making you less hungry. So you might forget to eat breakfast. Or feel full before you finish your plate and stop eating. But again, think about what this is actually doing. Nothing you can't do yourself. Merely trading conscious willpower for unconscious convenience. A hand slapping at yours going for the cookie jar without you needing to realize there is hand there at all and feeling cheated or glum about it.

I just don't understand the cognitive dissonance required to realize this, accept it for what it is as you use the drug, but also not see it for what is and that one can merely do the same things off the drug if they decided to put forth the effort. The hand feeds the mouth. The brain controls the hand. All the levers are in your possession, should you really feel motivated. Taking these drugs, to me, amounts to a sort of tacit acceptance that one lacks any free will entirely. And where does that line in the sand stop? Do we accept this, lean into hedonism to satisfy dopamine cravings, or do we try and have some agency over some of our actions in our waking life? I think we all put a line somewhere in the sand. Just some of us draw that line at a point where weight is more in control. And there is no reason why one couldn't redraw a line for themselves.

Re: Are sugar substitutes healthier than the real thing?

#35
post #23
post #17

I think people need to realize instead that moderation is a better answer than continuing to be gluttanous over dubiously "better" alternatives. There are plenty of people who have a healthy relationship with sugar. One might ask why they can't be one of those people instead of trying to find a compound that avoids having to face the music with a behavioral change. Then again if such an idea were so widespread, there…

Modern culture seems to encourage "hacking" more than cultivating self-discipline.

Hacking can be sold. Self discipline has to come from within. Most of the noise we are subjected to are from people trying to make money off of us. The true altruists don't often have the financial backing to see their voices carry very far.

Re: Are sugar substitutes healthier than the real thing?

#36
post #29
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is easy to get off soda once you get off it already and drink water. As when you do eventually get back to it and go "Maybe I'll have a coke" what you will find will be severely disappointing. Mouthfeel is terrible. Every sip you try and get that taste in your imagination of what you think is coke but you end up just tasting fructose concoction and carbonation. Makes you feel dehydrated after, like you have to chu…

I was off it for 6mo or so while I lost the weight. It wasn’t especially hard to stop, but water is in no way a replacement for it in any way. It’s the thing I prefer. Don’t like chocolate or really other sweet things in general. Even full sugar soda is far too sugary for me, outside of some niche drinks out of Europe. The available scientific evidence on fake sugars tends to skew towards “fairly safe, but not entire…

If you think an ice cold diet coke is nice, wait till you try ice cold water after working hard. Ambrosia. Clean on the teeth feeling too. Happy chemicals firing off in your head. Besides, what you really need are carbs at this point for recovery. This is why people riding bikes 100 miles are eating straight up honey packets. Or filling a spare water bottle with sugar water, like actual home mix table sugar and water. Carbs are your actual fuel for that sort of thing. But again you have to match the carb load to the effort or risk calories in/out imbalance and weight gain. No issue for cyclists of course on that front.

Dealing with boredom with a shot of anything probably isn't a healthy coping mechanism if we are being honest. Better to train to have the resolve to steel over this sort of thing than to form some Pavlovian dependency.

Re: Are sugar substitutes healthier than the real thing?

#37
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A moral position made with no argument. I find it emptier than the calories you condemn. And of worse character than the people you so impugn upon. Why? Why not make a more enjoyable world? Why insist in denial? It's so confusing to me that such bitterness and aggressive zeal, such negative energies, go so unchecked. And for what? I hate to drag an innocent into my countrr-tirade, but Paul Ford writing about mounjaro…

>Why? Why not make a more enjoyable world? Why insist in denial? At that point, forget the glp-1. Eat as much as you want, of whatever you want, and simply purge, like the elite in the Hunger Games . People have to realize these things aren't miracle workers. What are they doing in practice? Making you less hungry. So you might forget to eat breakfast. Or feel full before you finish your plate and stop eating. But ag…

I feel like I should preface this by noting that I haven't used any of these drugs. There's no one whose told me they are using it.

I'm here because I just don't see what the problem is, and I think people should be allowed to make choices that work for and help them, and I feel like if we are going to start trying to controls people's lives or make character judgements against them there better be real harms real dangers, real reason.

> can merely do the same things off the drug if they decided to put forth the effort

Except their body is responding totally different, sending them totally different messages. Very unpleasant awful messages, for some people! Some people feel hunger very differently, and their challenge is very different than maybe you or I's.

> Taking these drugs, to me, amounts to a sort of tacit acceptance that one lacks any free will entirely.

I see it as taking control and making a decision. That is freedom to me.

(I see what you are doing as shattering free will and respect, as needlessly forming and broadcasting harmful dangerous rude control over other people.)

> And where does that line in the sand stop? Do we accept this, lean into hedonism to satisfy dopamine cravings, or do we try and have some agency over some of our actions in our waking life?

I'm all for control. But I think this is a ridiculous viewpoint to hold against people, to begrudge them this as the sliding scale, as some core thing which must hold, which you must do by yourself without help or aid. It doesn't add up to me. There's a lot of dangers with lack of agency, we are in strong agreement on that! But to let your fears and uncertainties grip you into making arbitrary lines that have to apply to everyone, making this broad judgement calls, that demonize and that deny people their will? Yeah, count me out.

FUD must always be wielded with caution, most of all with what judgements we let form within ourselves.

We are a couple years into a brand new capability opening up, to our options before us being bigger and wider than they were. To having more control and options than ever. It's just so wild to me how people can look at this, and go, oh no! Bad! Options! Yes, there will be some downsides! That usually seems inevitable. But my opinion is that conservatism usually makes things far worse with their aversions and judgementalisms, with the politics of fear, that takes root and propogates fear, makes it arise out of endless nothingburgers.

This is so so young a possibility, and we should at least have a couple decades of maybe, possibly, let's see, before we descend into harshly judging what is still at this point such a strong unknown. Especially for an unknown that has helped so many take back control over their lives.

Post reply on HN