The Sugar Conspiracy • Hacker News Board

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#321

Post by julietcharlie » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 9:03 PM UTC

Synaesthesia wrote: post #3

Very interesting how people can all subscribe to an orthodoxy for so long, ignoring evidence to the contrary. Max Planck: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

Even with all our rules, science is not exempt from the (un)conscious bias of man- a new scientific truth affects the structure of the group that practices in that field. But according to Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, this resistance serves a purpose:

"By ensuring that the paradigm will not be too easily surrendered, resistance guarantees that scientists will not be lightly distracted and that the anomalies that lead to paradigm change will penetrate existing knowledge to the core."

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#322

Post by pc2g4d » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 9:11 PM UTC

torgoguys wrote: post #176

leonroy wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think some folk here are misinterpreting my original post (perhaps I wasn't clear enough). Neither I, nor I imagine Jack Lalanne were advocating we return to hunter gatherer foraging. Whilst Jack Lalanne's quote 'if man made it don't eat it' is simplistic it's basically saying go for the steak or the bag of salad leaves rather than the corn dog and powdered mash potato. This isn't about 'weird' foods like raw milk,…

I understand your sentiment. I'm pushing back against it being expressed in terms that promote a naturalistic fallacy. Why? Various reasons, but one is because the naturalistic fallacy is actively harmful, not just as it applies to food. >This isn't about 'weird' foods like raw milk, or taking things to the nth-degree. It's just common sense advice that humans seldom make a food healthier by tinkering with it. As clo…

Is the "naturalistic fallacy" really a fallacy? Is is it really just another of the many fallacious fallacies?

I think there's logic to regarding more recent food innovations with greater skepticism. Same with many innovations. Over a shorter time period, the long-term consequences of the innovations have not yet become fully apparent. With things that have been used for thousands of years we can assume that had a long-term issue arisen, the food or practice would likely have been abandoned.

Radium watches, DDT, hydrogenated vegetable oils, ....

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#323

Post by pc2g4d » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 9:17 PM UTC

CuriouslyC wrote: post #184

jawilson2 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it fails the "if man made it, don't eat it" test spectacularly. Basically everything you see there has been shaped by man. A (stunning) example: one species of plant, brassica oleracea, has been selectively (i.e., artificially) bred to produce a wide range of different cultivars including, cauliflower, cabbage, kale, broccoli, kohlrabi, brussel sprouts, and more. NONE of these produce items are "natural." You're ov…

There are highly processed food ingredients like whey protein and resistant corn starch, oat fiber, etc which have compelling health-promoting effects. The problem is that people are ignorant with regards to the purpose and effects of various food additives/ingredients, so they just take the simplified stance "more ingredients = bad" rather than do a little research. As a heuristic it might be fairly functional (you…

I would seriously doubt claims of health benefits of the incomprehensible ingredients on the ingredient list. Those things are there because of the constraints of "manufacturing" food that is appealing, stores well, ships well, etc. It's not about what's good for you---it's about what isn't acutely toxic and maximizes the company's profits.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#324

Post by ALee » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 9:18 PM UTC

leonroy wrote: post #94

Jack Lalanne (American fitness guru) stated "If man made it, don't eat it". I recall reading that and scratching my head at the sheer number of food products that encompassed. I thought it a rather presumptuous statement. Five years later and after many books and articles on nutrition I now fully agree with him. When I hit the grocery store I skip the middle aisles and head straight for the fish and meat counter or t…

I find there is cognitive dissonance here for a lot of folks - I personally agree that fresh, natural ingredients are good, but at the same time I'll drink soylent. I don't know where I stand on all this because I am afraid that in future years, I'll find out that I have small intestine cancer because of all the soylent I drink, but at the same time - we SHOULD be able to understand how the body works and that all things are knowable. Would just love to get folks thoughts on this.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#325

Post by cholantesh » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 9:35 PM UTC

brashrat wrote: post #296

leonroy wrote: post #94

Jack Lalanne (American fitness guru) stated "If man made it, don't eat it". I recall reading that and scratching my head at the sheer number of food products that encompassed. I thought it a rather presumptuous statement. Five years later and after many books and articles on nutrition I now fully agree with him. When I hit the grocery store I skip the middle aisles and head straight for the fish and meat counter or t…

You believe that humans evolved to eat certain foods, but you ignore that we also evolved to be lazy and avoid unnecessary exercise. Maybe we evolved to eat everything we could get our hands on and to live to 40 years old in order to propogate. What about the fact that we evolved to carry and support tons of parasites? (look up the guy who walked barefoot around latrines in the 3rd world to pick up worms which he car…

I disagree with the parent, but there are several issues with your post as well.

For starters, it's wrong to suggest that there's a direction or purpose to evolution[1]. The current shape of human life is no indication that we have 'progressed' from where we previously were, or where we will be in the future (as far as evo bio is concerned). As such, to suggest that we were 'supposed' to get smallpox because we did not evolve a natural immunity to it is not a statement that conforms to our understanding of evolution. Neither does it make sense that, because in the developed world, people have tended to become more sedentary, it is a desired end goal for humans to become 'lazier'. If that were the case, we should also be willing to argue that childlessness is the desirable state for living organisms, as the more education and wealth humans accumulate, the less likely they are to have children[2]. I don't fully follow your reasoning on exercise, but as it is intended to counteract the documented effects of overeating, I'm not sure it is a sound thesis to suggest it won't increase your lifespan.

1: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/teleology.html 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkSO9pOVpRM

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#326

Post by belovedeagle » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 9:36 PM UTC

leshow wrote: post #182

debacle wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see the "if you think fructose" is bad trope a lot, and I think it's dangerous. In a natural environment, the only real sources of fructose are either fiber-heavy (most fruits) or somewhat rare (honey, berries). Fructose is bad. It's certainly something that should be eaten in moderation. Your food is not being engineered to be better for you. It's being engineered to be cheaper and easier to produce and sell. Ther…

Fructose is not bad, no food is inherently bad. It's all a matter of degrees. If you consume 10 cans of coke a day, and you're over your maintenance caloric intake by 1000 calories daily. guess what? you'll get fat and probably not be healthy. if you overconsume sweet potatoes by 1000 calories over your maintenance intake daily. guess what? you'll get fat and probably not be healthy.

The article points out that there's no solid evidence suggesting a strong correlation between caloric intake and obesity.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#327

Post by ZeroFries » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 10:15 PM UTC

tdkl wrote: post #290

ZeroFries wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is going to be an unpopular opinion, but you don't even need to track calories. Just have a mindful sense when you eat, slow down, and ask "do I need to eat this? Will it make me healthier and stronger?" before most meals, and try to answer "yes" 90% of the time you actually eat.

This is like playing darts blindfolded.

The dart board is a moving target, anyways. All I care about is an average weight loss over a period of time. Maybe it's from experience, but I've never had problems consistently losing or gaining weight by eating by feel.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#328

Post by abawany » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 10:31 PM UTC

coldcode wrote: post #83

When I was taking nutritional chemistry in the late 70's the idea that serum cholesterol had little to do with consumed cholesterol was something our professor repeated over and over again. The next 40 years I heard the opposite over and over again. Now people are finally accepting this fact.

The book "Cholesterol is not the culprit" was an eye opener for me especially given how one never heard about alternative viewpoints and experiments on this topic.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#329

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 10:33 PM UTC

sirtastic wrote: post #270

Goronmon wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't always work. Many people, myself included can fail to lose weight on a restricted calorie diet. I spent 12 months eating below 1200 while working out religiously (4-6 days a week with 30sh mins of cardio followed by 45sh mins of weight lifting). In the beginning I lost weight and fast. At 5'9 I went from 240 down to 148 lbs in 7 months. You just described an example showing that a restricted calorie diet…

Not saying it isn't effective, just only that it doesn't work in some cases. It's a fallacy to say it's simply calories in vs out. As I said in my post, I lost weight but then I stopped losing weight and still haven't lost a large amount of weight using that method.

[deleted]

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#330

Post by sridca » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 10:40 PM UTC

ZeroFries wrote: post #246

funkyy wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very few public, true fitness instructors and dietitians are following the simplest rule ever - decrease calories to lose weight. This method is not that popular, its to tricky since it requires for person to calculate foods, which makes it unpopular for lazy. But it is absolutely the best method to lose weight fast, decrease calorie intake and create shortage.

This is going to be an unpopular opinion, but you don't even need to track calories. Just have a mindful sense when you eat, slow down, and ask "do I need to eat this? Will it make me healthier and stronger?" before most meals, and try to answer "yes" 90% of the time you actually eat.

> This is going to be an unpopular opinion, but you don't even need to track calories. Just have a mindful sense when you eat,[...]

I neither track calories, nor have "a mindful sense" when eating. My trick is to have no limitations in regards to the kind of food I eat with one rule: eat no more than one meal a day.