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

How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 623 posts

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#331

Post by PieterH »

at-fates-hands wrote: post #276
PieterH wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My mother (1973, Edinburgh) bought "Pure, White, and Deadly," and we all read it. I was ten or so. Yudkin attacked white flour, white (processed) fat, and above all white sugar. It made perfect sense to us all, and cutting back on sugar became a slow, yet consistent part of our lifestyle. We never ate that much anyhow. I stopped eating sugar entirely at 15. I still recall the book's cover. Edit: it took me a lot long…

>> lifelong damage to their health. It's only lifelong damage if you don't change your diet and lifestyle. The world is filled with people who were morbidly obese and have made the changes necessary to reverse the damage and live far more healthy lives now. The way you put it, it sounds like an irreversible course akin to a death sentence, which it most certainly is not.

Many of my extended family got sick and some died from adult-onset diabetes brought on by eating too much sugar. My father and grandfather suffered and died from low-fat diets (where sugar was never a concern because doctors were obsessed with eliminating dietary fat, period). Even if the outcome isn't obviously fatal, the accumulated damage does not go away and it carries real health risks until death.

And please don't use that weasel word "lifestyle" which the sugar industry wielded as a weapon against their victims. Oh, fatty, go and exercise some more! It's your lifestyle that's wrong, not the rubbish we've put on your table.

And we still see supermarkets with rows and rows of sugar-based junk foods. It's going to take decades to undo the cultural and educational damage let along the health damage.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#332

Post by JustSomeNobody »

nikmobi wrote: post #288
adrianggg wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A really smart guy said to me once something like, “if you are smart and have money and you don't eat well then you are not smart”. I can't remember the exact quote but the sentiment really stuck with me. Look I'm no expert but I'm telling you the results are outrageous. Please do your own research as I only really have a school boy understanding of how this affects the body. My skin cleared up, my ailments all disap…

I really like this response and I do truly believe that cutting out or minimizing sugar is a truly beneficial thing. But when I got to this: > I can't even drink a soda, I spit it out as the most disgusting thing imaginable I had a hard time taking the rest of your comment seriously. I can understand it being too sweet to your now adjusted taste buds, but calling it the most disgusting thing imaginable is just plain…

I don't know, I think it is a mental thing. Ten years or so ago I smoked. I finally quit by telling myself that they smelled and tasted disgusting (which, they do but smokers don't seem to mind while they're smoking). After a few weeks of that, one day I told myself, that's it, I'm done, this is gross and I'm not doing it anymore. So, I've not had one sense. But here's the kicker. Sometimes when I'm around smoke now, I want to vomit. I'm pretty sure it's because of the way I quit.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#333

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

barkbro wrote: post #188
SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For instance, For a long time diesel has promoted in Europe as greener than petrol. This is soon to change, because: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/27/diesel-engine-fum...

Diesel engines produces less CO2 by being slightly more efficient. Pretrol engines produce less nitrogen oxides and particulate matter. What's "greener" is just a matter of your definition of it.

> What's "greener" is just a matter of your definition of it.

What i means was that the "promoted" part is soon to change, because of the greater understanding of the drastic public health consequences.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#334

Post by sbov »

dredmorbius wrote: post #219
Cyph0n wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't get it: heart disease causes people to slip on ice?

Compromised health tends to make effective responses to hazardous environmental conditions more difficult. Heart disease can affect strength, balance, coordination, mental function, and any number of other responses, much as a cold or flu or pnemonia can. You might care to review the recent video footage of a notable candidate visibly collapsing whilst being aided into a waiting van for transport, as a consequence of…

If he had heart disease, it would make him more prone to slipping on ice. But because he slipped on ice (which perfectly healthy people do all the fucking time), does not mean he had heart disease, or was even in any other of the hundreds of conditions (some of which might speak to his health, others which might not such as being distracted by something) that might have made him more prone to slipping on ice.

So basically you've wandered into an "intro to critical thinking" level fallacy, which is especially ironic considering your last two sentences.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#336

Post by Broken_Hippo »

PieterH wrote: post #133
muzster wrote: post #8

RIP: British Scientist John Yudkin - The man who tried to warn us about the perils of sugar.. Source(s) : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/wellbeing/diet/10634081... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yudkin Edit: Lest we not forget his arch-enemy Ancel Keys

My mother (1973, Edinburgh) bought "Pure, White, and Deadly," and we all read it. I was ten or so. Yudkin attacked white flour, white (processed) fat, and above all white sugar. It made perfect sense to us all, and cutting back on sugar became a slow, yet consistent part of our lifestyle. We never ate that much anyhow. I stopped eating sugar entirely at 15. I still recall the book's cover. Edit: it took me a lot long…

I tried arguing the dangers of concentrated fruit sweeteners not so long ago.

There was some debate about whether candy prices were too low.. But the truth is folks get much more sugar from supposedly "healthy" items in the form of fruit juice and concentrates. It is in the bread most folks eat (and sometimes whole grain bread is higher to make it more palletable), they put it in savory foods, and fruit juices and people put it in their coffee and tea. Granola bars and yogurts and a myriad of other supposedly healthy things? High sugar. It would be one thing if the sugar was simply what was contained in the fruit, but often it is above that.

It is much better to eat the piece of fruit than drink some juice - and I think if folks started drinking non-sweetened drinks and quit adding it to so much food (expecially commercially prepared food) it would help quite a bit. Personally, I lost weight after doing the adjustment. My only normal, daily beverages are black coffee or water and have been for years.

The thing is that you do somewhat miss the sugar at first, but I didn't find it any worse than missing some foods after moving countries. Over time, your tastes adjust and it isn't a bad thing.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#337

Post by ntaenta »

whamlastxmas wrote: post #318
ntaenta wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not quite correct. The CDC recommends a body fat percentage between 18% to 25%, and it's generally acknowledged that athletes can drop down to around 5%-6% without adverse effects. So, given those numbers, most healthy adults are carrying at least 20 pounds that they could safely lose.

CDC recommends BMI of 18 to 25. Completely different from body fat percentage. 25% body fat is pretty fat. It's a noticeably protruding belly, drooping love handles, and sometimes breast tissue that could be classified as an A-cup. BMI is a pretty poor standard anyway, since it would classify anyone who does body building even recreationally as obese.

Oops, my mistake. I got confused by this table on the WebMD page below which does list 18-25% as an acceptable range for body fat percentage:

http://www.webmd.com/diet/features/body-fat-measurement#2

So my original numbers were actually correct, but instead of the CDC it's the American Council on Exercise, whatever that is. The page before has the CDC recommendations on BMI. I was surprised too that 25% is considered acceptable. I am aware of the difference between BMI and body fat percentage, and that the former is an inaccurate gauge of fitness.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#338

Post by chimeracoder »

djsumdog wrote: post #241
merpnderp wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be completely fair, he slipped on the ice likely as a complication from heart disease. His doctors swear that his arteries and heart were the healthiest they'd seen for someone that age except for the infected portion.

Why are you spreading this myth? >Atkins' widow and Dr. Stuart Trager, the spokesperson for Atkins Physicians Council, both contend Robert Atkins weighed less than 200 pounds at the time of his accident, claiming "During his coma, as he deteriorated and his major organs failed, fluid retention and bloating dramatically distorted his body and left him at 258 pounds at the time of his death, a documented weight gain of…

> When he was admitted to the hospital, he was totally healthy, except for the head injury. There was no sign of any heart problems, except for some controversial leaked reports.

He did have cardiomyopathy for a few years before that, and a cardiac arrest the year before he died.

He didn't die of a heart attack, but it's an overcorrection to say that there was 'no sign of any heart problems'.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#339

Post by xurukefi »

hx87 wrote: post #257
xurukefi wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't check the science, but I'm pretty confident that "feeling full" is a matter of volume and not of calories. At least in my personal experience a really dumb and easy way to lose fat without feeling hungry was to eat food with a low calorie density.

The goal isn't to "feel full", but to feel full and good for a long period of time. Otherwise, I might as well gorge myself on isotonic water.

I wasn't suggesting that feeling full is the goal. I was just trying to argue that calorie density is an important issue when it comes to obesity and overeating. Eating healthy food is, of course, important. But eating too much healthy food is not healthy ;).

If I had to choose between eating too much healthy food and eating enough unhealthy food, I would probably choose the latter. I think obesity is a bigger problem than poor nutrition.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#340

Post by WalterSear »

kentosi wrote: post #323
PieterH wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is true that many monkeys are tree dwellers and are heavy fruit eaters. Humans and other primates are neither. They will eat fruit as part of a mixed diet that is more omnivorous than anything. And wild fruit is not as rich in sugar as you imagine. It's mostly fibre. The stuff you buy in the supermarket is not a hallmark of a primate diet. Soft drinks are not a hallmark of a primate diet. Cakes and biscuits, they…

Genuinely curious as to what you mean by "other primates". What else is there apart from humans and monkeys?

Primates are monkeys. A monkeys isn't necessarily primate.
Post reply on HN