301–310 of 397 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In most cases you could eat multiple pastries and still have significantly less sugar than a soda.
pastries also have fat though and parent was talking about enjoyment per kcal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wouldn't the insulin w/o sugar cause a drop, instead?
>> Wouldn't the insulin w/o sugar cause a drop, instead? In the short term, but as I understand, the constant insulin response would also cause insulin resistance over time.
But I understood parent as doing immediate measurements and expecting blood sugar increase despite insulin produced with no carb intake.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are many alternatives, but what is important here isn't what you recommend, it is what people choose.
> what is important here isn't what you recommend, it is what people choose Do we have any evidence soda drinkers sub Coke for alcohol? I'd have guessed artifically-sweetened soft drinks would have been the substitute.
As for other substitutes, we've seen highly sweetened coffee drinks as the common one, to the point where soda taxes started to face accusations that they are actually thinly veiled classism due to exclusion of more white collar "Starbucks" type drinks. Rightfully or wrongly they have a point about it at least looking bad.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
First you should take a few long minutes and think hard about why you drink this shit in the first place.
Cuz it tastes good? Because I’m addicted? Because the caffeine is great. Because I hate the taste of coffee. Because I can? I dunno.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well still different, as I could never possibly drink 300ml of honey, without choking or something worse. On the other hand, grape juice, while not 100% natural, I’m not sure how it fares against cola (just considering sugar, not the rest of the junk) Once I drunk some not-still-done wine, basically grape juice where the fermentation started, and so some bubbles were present. That was the most natural and delicious s…
When in human history could you drink 1L+ of fruit juice for $2 every single day regardless of the season?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a risky way of thinking to reduce every act to a moral choice. ie I could have used the energy that I burned making this post, to hand out a dollar to a homeless person. Beyond how ridiculously reductive this becomes, it's impractical. You have to have carbs for your brain to run.
no you don't. You have to have glucose for your brain to run. Understand the difference.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think citric acid is better than phosphoric acid (e.g. for your bones and kidneys), though both can dissolve tooth enamel. OJ also has more vitamin C than typical sodas. Milk has more calories/ounce than soda, but it also has protein, fat, and calcium. Anecdotally, I find juice more filling than soda, milk even more so.
Milk actually has a ridiculous amount of sugar. 11g per cup! That makes it hard to drink if you're trying to cut back on sugar.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe sucrose and fructose are processed differently — specifically fructose is processed by the liver so can have the same issues as alcohol there.
Sucrose is 50% fructose. HFCS is typically 42-55% fructose. They are essentially indistinguishable to your liver.
Interesting. I think folks in the comments here maybe missed this paper is way more about the beverages part making it important. The research is around sugar sweetened beverages (SSBs). If I'm reading it right, the SSBs have a differentmetabolic effect. "Due to their liquid form, SSBs are rapidly consumed and digested, resulting in lower satiety, higher caloric intake and weight gain. High doses of rapidly digested…
About 15 years ago, I stopped drinking soda. Not out of a desire to be healthy or loose weight but simply because it dawned on me that for the same amount of sugar in one soft drink that I drink without any afterthought, I could enjoy a really good pastry that I can slowly savor. I do the same for fats. The way I look at it, I want to maximize the "enjoyment per kcalorie". :) More recently, I'm starting to apply this…
We are increasingly moving away from looking at fat as an indulgence, towards understanding it as an essential nutrient, with a large variance in fat types and their benefits. E.g. some people would avoid eating nuts, because they are high in fat, and not as tasty as something similarly fatty, like a pastry. This seems wrong both intuitively, but also from empirical findings about the impact of certain omega-3 fatty acids (such as in nuts) versus that of, say, omega-6 fats, which are way overrepresented in our diets due to being so cheap.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your comment kind of illustrates his point though, there's a complete lack of mechanistic empiricism[0] in the discussion of nutrition. What is the metric for 'eas[iness] to overeat and whether it pays its rent in nutritional content.'? I agree with the premise, but it is ill-defined. e.g. consider: A baked potato, with salt and butter vs. an equivalent weight of potato chips. They are essentially identical post-mast…
Re: mechanistic empiricism, I don't know if you're doing this, but it seems that some people have this mindset that if you can't tell me specifically how X is bad for you, then I have to assume it is not harmful by default, even if it's a thing that is relatively novel. I find myself leaning heavily in the other direction these days. If it's not something that has a long history and (I'm not already dying anyway), I'…
Speaking for myself, its a matter of how my brain works. Setting aside rational considerations like cost-benefit analysis or Bayesian likelihoods: if there isn't a generalizable logic to 'what (is harmful)' and 'how (it is)' I just get a 404.
It's not that I don't (or do) believe potatoes chips are harmful it's that the e.g. statement 'ultra-processed foods are bad for you' is literally devoid of meaning. Might as well be baby-speak.
As such, any attempt to incorporate that information[0] into my decision making process goes nowhere: I can't categorize a food as to it's degree of ultra processed-ness nor can I assess whether another foods/foods/etc might cause harm like UPF's are purported to do. Ergo: no basis for a behavioral modification, no new pros or cons to weigh.
[0]not even getting into the reliability of e.g. a paper's conclusions