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

Sugar Love

ngm.nationalgeographic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 66 posts

Re: Sugar Love

#31

Post by eshvk »

crazygringo wrote: post #24

> The solution? Stop eating so much sugar. When people cut back, many of the ill effects disappear. I understand the article focuses just on sugar, but when it starts getting to the health effects, the focus shouldn't be on just sugar but rather all high-glycemic-index foods, including bread, pasta, potatoes, and so on -- at least from what I understand. It doesn't do much good to cut back on sugar if you replace it…

Sure. I don't disagree on being more careful with high glycemic foods. However, the other extreme which I am seeing more and more these days (especially with the popularity of things like atkins/keto) is to switch to the other extreme and claim that carbohydrates in general are evil. There is a place for them. How much and in what percentage depends on you, your genetics and your requirements (do you weightlift?, are you genetically insulin resistant? etc )

Re: Sugar Love

#32

Post by whyme »

wmil wrote: post #30
crazygringo wrote: post #24

> The solution? Stop eating so much sugar. When people cut back, many of the ill effects disappear. I understand the article focuses just on sugar, but when it starts getting to the health effects, the focus shouldn't be on just sugar but rather all high-glycemic-index foods, including bread, pasta, potatoes, and so on -- at least from what I understand. It doesn't do much good to cut back on sugar if you replace it…

It's still disputed, but there's a lot of evidence the problem is fructose, not glucose. Meaning that bread and potatoes aren't particularly bad on their own. Here's "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" that lays out the theory. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

I'm pretty sure, in that video, the argument was that while glucose is still really bad for you, fructose[1] is much, much worse - it's a poison that's causing an epidemic.

1. And specifically the manufactured fructose isolates vs. natural fructose found in fruit.

Edit: rather glucose in high quantities as noted in response below.

Re: Sugar Love

#33

Post by Psyonic »

syntheticnature wrote: post #13
001sky wrote: post #7

Americans are fat because they eat too much and exercise too little. But they eat too much and exercise too little because they’re addicted to sugar, which not only makes them fatter but, after the initial sugar rush, also saps their energy, beaching them on the couch. “The reason you’re watching TV is not because TV is so good,” he said, “but because you have no energy to exercise, because you’re eating too much sug…

The whole gluten free kick fries my brains. It exists because some people have an actual problem with gluten, but lots of people have jumped on the bandwagon since if it's on the label it must be for general health reasons. (Where are the "nut-free" folks? How about the folks that only eat things labelled "New and Improved?") Actual gluten issues have existed for a while -- I found a cookbook for those with Celiac di…

While you may find it annoying, the upside of this is awareness. More people are aware of gluten intolerance than ever before, and for people with celiac's and serious gluten intolerance, life is now much easier.

Re: Sugar Love

#34

Post by a8da6b0c91d »

wmil wrote: post #30
crazygringo wrote: post #24

> The solution? Stop eating so much sugar. When people cut back, many of the ill effects disappear. I understand the article focuses just on sugar, but when it starts getting to the health effects, the focus shouldn't be on just sugar but rather all high-glycemic-index foods, including bread, pasta, potatoes, and so on -- at least from what I understand. It doesn't do much good to cut back on sugar if you replace it…

It's still disputed, but there's a lot of evidence the problem is fructose, not glucose. Meaning that bread and potatoes aren't particularly bad on their own. Here's "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" that lays out the theory. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Lustig is a crackpot.

http://www.andrewkimblog.com/2013/02/quick-commentary-on-dr-...

Re: Sugar Love

#35

Post by _delirium »

whyme wrote: post #32
wmil wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's still disputed, but there's a lot of evidence the problem is fructose, not glucose. Meaning that bread and potatoes aren't particularly bad on their own. Here's "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" that lays out the theory. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

I'm pretty sure, in that video, the argument was that while glucose is still really bad for you, fructose[1] is much, much worse - it's a poison that's causing an epidemic. 1. And specifically the manufactured fructose isolates vs. natural fructose found in fruit. Edit: rather glucose in high quantities as noted in response below.

> And specifically the manufactured fructose isolates vs. natural fructose found in fruit.

Is there an explanation as to why this would be the case (if it is)? With a lot of vitamins the argument is over absorbability of different forms, e.g. there are various forms of dietary calcium, and various kinds of calcium supplements, and they may not be equivalent. But my understanding was that fructose in fruit is pretty much just fructose, readily absorbable just like the isolated version is. The only plausible difference I can come up is concentration; there's a limit on how much fructose you can get from fruits because the average person is not going to scarf down a half-dozen pears in a sitting. But if high concentrations are the issue, it would also apply to concentrated "natural" fructose, e.g. the pear-juice concentrate that some "naturally sweetened" products use.

Re: Sugar Love

#36

Post by a8da6b0c91d »

grannyg00se wrote: post #28
crazygringo wrote: post #24

> The solution? Stop eating so much sugar. When people cut back, many of the ill effects disappear. I understand the article focuses just on sugar, but when it starts getting to the health effects, the focus shouldn't be on just sugar but rather all high-glycemic-index foods, including bread, pasta, potatoes, and so on -- at least from what I understand. It doesn't do much good to cut back on sugar if you replace it…

Would a 100 calorie quantity of bread not be better than a 100 calorie quantity of sugar cereal? Assuming of course that you don't buy bread with sugar in it. "Although the Glycemic Index provides some insights into the relative diabetic risk within specific food groups, it contains many counter-intuitive ratings. These include suggestions that bread generally has a higher glycemic ranking than sugar and that some po…

The glycemic index is a totally broken concept. Your body and tissues are made to happily work with surges of insulin and there is absolutely nothing problematic about that.

From a weight loss perspective sugars, such as in fruit juice, are superior to starches for two reasons. The fructose is thermogenic and raises base metabolic rate. Secondly, starches tend to reach lower lengths of the intestine undigested where they can feed bacteria that generate endotoxins.

Low starch, high sugar, low fat, and 80 grams of protein a day is a very good formula for weight loss.

Re: Sugar Love

#37

Post by a8da6b0c91d »

whyme wrote: post #32
wmil wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's still disputed, but there's a lot of evidence the problem is fructose, not glucose. Meaning that bread and potatoes aren't particularly bad on their own. Here's "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" that lays out the theory. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

I'm pretty sure, in that video, the argument was that while glucose is still really bad for you, fructose[1] is much, much worse - it's a poison that's causing an epidemic. 1. And specifically the manufactured fructose isolates vs. natural fructose found in fruit. Edit: rather glucose in high quantities as noted in response below.

> glucose is still really bad for you

Every cell in your body runs on glucose. To say glucose is "bad for you" is simply idiotic.

Re: Sugar Love

#38

Post by whyme »

a8da6b0c91d wrote: post #37
whyme wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure, in that video, the argument was that while glucose is still really bad for you, fructose[1] is much, much worse - it's a poison that's causing an epidemic. 1. And specifically the manufactured fructose isolates vs. natural fructose found in fruit. Edit: rather glucose in high quantities as noted in response below.

> glucose is still really bad for you Every cell in your body runs on glucose. To say glucose is "bad for you" is simply idiotic.

yeah, i should have said in high quantities, but I was just paraphrasing the video. The point was, in the video, he did not say it was just fructose, glucose can also be a problem.

Re: Sugar Love

#39

Post by hristov »

whyme wrote: post #32
wmil wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's still disputed, but there's a lot of evidence the problem is fructose, not glucose. Meaning that bread and potatoes aren't particularly bad on their own. Here's "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" that lays out the theory. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

I'm pretty sure, in that video, the argument was that while glucose is still really bad for you, fructose[1] is much, much worse - it's a poison that's causing an epidemic. 1. And specifically the manufactured fructose isolates vs. natural fructose found in fruit. Edit: rather glucose in high quantities as noted in response below.

I don't think so. The video says that there is nothing wrong with glucose, it is the fuel of life. Fructose is the problem. More specifically, refined fructose.

This by the way reflects real life. You can find populations that live on mostly bread and pasta, or mostly rice and noodles and they do not have obesity problems. It is only when refined sugar enters the diet that obesity shows up.

Re: Sugar Love

#40

Post by a8da6b0c91d »

_delirium wrote: post #35
whyme wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure, in that video, the argument was that while glucose is still really bad for you, fructose[1] is much, much worse - it's a poison that's causing an epidemic. 1. And specifically the manufactured fructose isolates vs. natural fructose found in fruit. Edit: rather glucose in high quantities as noted in response below.

> And specifically the manufactured fructose isolates vs. natural fructose found in fruit. Is there an explanation as to why this would be the case (if it is)? With a lot of vitamins the argument is over absorbability of different forms, e.g. there are various forms of dietary calcium, and various kinds of calcium supplements, and they may not be equivalent. But my understanding was that fructose in fruit is pretty m…

There is absolutely no explanation. It's just neo-puritanical mystical thinking. The only problem with eating refined sugars is the paucity of vitamins and minerals. Fruit juice is loaded with both of these, yet the lustigites still try to claim fruit sugars without the fiber are bad for you, with no sound basis.
Post reply on HN