Live data from Hacker News

The Sugar Conspiracy

theguardian.com

351–360 of 362 posts

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm of the exact same dietary philosophy as yourself. I derived it through reading and experimentation before paleo was even a thing, as it appears Jack Lalanne did as well. Most people who attack a simple sensible diet like this are really just exposing their own insecurities and desire to not give up the crap they injest themselves.

Lol, this isn't to do with insecurities - more to do with science. I get that to many, science is a boogeyman - but come on, we're meant to be better than that on HN, since you know, so many of do actually have science backgrounds? My parents owned a sheep property growing up, and I went to an agricultural school - the whole point of modern agriculture, and husbandy pratcises is that we do intentional thinks to manip…

You are attacking an invisible bogeyman you concocted yourself. No one said anything about being anti-science. Your reactionary stance is anti-science. I'm not sure what your wife's profession or crazies she met or anything else you've said has to do with the topic at hand.

There are a thousand choices you can make when it comes to diet. It's not an all or nothing, democrat or republican, us vs them proposition. What the previous poster was getting at is that typically, for each choice you can make with your diet, a good rule of thumb is that the less processed a food is, the more likely it is to be better for you. That doesn't mean it's always true in every case, or that occasionally a bit of processed food will kill you, or whatever other straw man you are chasing after.

In any case, there IS plenty of science backing up the negative health effects of processed foods:

http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/eating-too-much-added-sug...

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-prevention-source/obesit...

http://ns.umich.edu/new/releases/22693-highly-processed-food...

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/news/news/world-health-organiza...

http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/di...

http://www.ewg.org/research/bpa-canned-food

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/transfats/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olestra#Side_effects

Plenty of linked studies here as well:

https://authoritynutrition.com/9-ways-that-processed-foods-a...

Do you have any science to back up your claims?

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Stop blaming corporations (which are just made up of people) The market is an emergent phenomenon. A market is indeed made up of corporations which is made up of people, but this does not mean that "just made up of people" is an adequate answer.

No way, you are just wrong. Markets existed well before capitalism and well before corporations, and they exist where neither of those things exist.

You're right, but your point doesn't negate my point that dissecting an emergent phenomenon to 'simply' be the sum of its parts is a comprehensible way to understand the phenomenon.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lol, this isn't to do with insecurities - more to do with science. I get that to many, science is a boogeyman - but come on, we're meant to be better than that on HN, since you know, so many of do actually have science backgrounds? My parents owned a sheep property growing up, and I went to an agricultural school - the whole point of modern agriculture, and husbandy pratcises is that we do intentional thinks to manip…

You are attacking an invisible bogeyman you concocted yourself. No one said anything about being anti-science. Your reactionary stance is anti-science. I'm not sure what your wife's profession or crazies she met or anything else you've said has to do with the topic at hand. There are a thousand choices you can make when it comes to diet. It's not an all or nothing, democrat or republican, us vs them proposition. What…

You have just confirmed my point.

It isn't an all or nothing stance.

And the whole black-and-white "Don't eat processed foods" rule is exactly what I'm arguing against.

I don't think it's a good rule of thumb - you need to actually put some thought and consideration into what you're eating - e.g. read the food labels!

Everybody's personal stance is difference. For example, I eat heaps of "processed foods" - heck, I eat Soylent (https://www.soylent.com/) which is about as processed as you can possibly get.

Please also read the parent I was replying to - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11444941#

Also, with regard to the articles that you spammed your post with (I assume you just keep a notepad with these around grins):

1. Article 1 (Too much added sugar is bad for you, and can lead to heart disease) - not to put a fine point on it, but no sit sherlock? Like, seriously? It doesn't matter whether it's processed or not (e.g. "natural" sugar, or say, honey), if you drizzle sugar all over your food, to the point of excess, yes, it's going to make you fat and at higher risk of heart disease. 2. Article 2 (Diet Quality) - There are two paragraphs (or clustered paragraphs) that reference "processed" in this article - the first refers to eating less red meat and less processed meat - so yes, I'm guessing that too much "natural" steak, or too much spam isn't great for you. I don't think anybody ever regarded spam as a health food (although I could be wrong, spam was before my time). There are ways to process meat and have it be healthy - the tradeoff, is I suppose you don't get the awesome taste of spam (lol), or the incredibly long shelf-life. The second point is that whole grains are better for you, as they are digested more slowly - you get the full grain, as opposed to just the tasty part. 3. Article 3 (Processed food can be addictive) - Reading the article, we learn that processed foods in this case is code for foods like "chocolate, French Fries, pizza, and ice cream" - umm, I think the point of those foods it that they taste good? As in, nobody ever said, gee, I feel like health food, let me get some of that pizza or ice cream. sigh*. The whole damn point of these foods is that they're engineered to taste food - they're not exactly marketed as "health foods", so it's not exactly like pizza or ice cream companies are misleading you. Also, chocolate is interesting, in that it can be very "natural" - but still very addictive.

I'm not going to go through and decipher/debunk every single one of your articles.

But my point is simple - there's very little in the way of a blanket "don't eat processed foods" in the links you posted.

For some people, they might think it a useful guideline - but I suspect in this case, they're throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

For myself - I just read the food label, and exercise some common-sense. If it's confectionery, or it's a "treat" food (whether processed or natural - although to be honest, it's more a spectrum of how processed, since nearly any food you can legally buy is processed to some degree), I exercise moderation.

With 5 minutes of Googling, I can find similar analogues to argue that so-called "organic" or natural food is bad or even toxic for you:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/httpblogss... http://www.elephantjournal.com/2013/03/eating-organic-may-be...

In general - I think modern agriculture and food techniques have been a boon for humanity - they've given us safe, large-scale food production to feed the masses. We've eradicated pests/diseases from our crops, and also engineered our crops to be more pest/disease resistant, have higher-yields and taste better. So we've been "processing" food for a long time. And we've moved from salting/drying things, to more modern preservation techniques, that preserve the nutritional content and taste of our food as well, and prolong shelf-life and packability of foodstuffs.

But of course, then we have modern inventions like the Twinkie, or the . I honestly hope people aren't arguing these are health foods. But if you argue that "processed" foods are bad, because they also gave us the Twinkie - well, you're basically throwing out all the added benefits (convenience, low-cost, shelf-life) of modern foods.

Even the fresh fruits/vegetables we buy are quite "processed" - I actually prefer this to so-called organic food-stuffs, because I know the food safety regulations around your supermarket fruit/vegetables are so much stricter than for organic farms. And I'm also fine with buying a pre-packaged salad in a sealed plastic bag, even though it's processed, because I know it was probably washed by machine, and they have health and safety checks in the processing pipeline, to ensure pathogens are at acceptable levels. (although I do confess to occasionally rinsing them again, for possibly irrational reasons).

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are attacking an invisible bogeyman you concocted yourself. No one said anything about being anti-science. Your reactionary stance is anti-science. I'm not sure what your wife's profession or crazies she met or anything else you've said has to do with the topic at hand. There are a thousand choices you can make when it comes to diet. It's not an all or nothing, democrat or republican, us vs them proposition. What…

You have just confirmed my point. It isn't an all or nothing stance. And the whole black-and-white "Don't eat processed foods" rule is exactly what I'm arguing against. I don't think it's a good rule of thumb - you need to actually put some thought and consideration into what you're eating - e.g. read the food labels! Everybody's personal stance is difference. For example, I eat heaps of "processed foods" - heck, I e…

it's really hard maintaining this discussion, as your responses keep dragging in things that have nothing to do with what I said. I have nothing against science, modern agriculture, selective breeding, basic packing and cleaning techniques, etc.

And calling "rule of thumb" black and white indicates that you aren't familiar with the typical usage of the term, which is the opposite of "black and white".

If you can't conceive of the concept of processing as being a spectrum of more or less transformation of the initial food item, then there isn't any reason to further this discussion. If you think that cleaning lettuce is the same as using a bioreactor to change the chemical structure of a food, you are just plain wrong.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#355
post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow! Do you know of any specific labels made using fish guts? This sounds interesting.

It's not fish guts, but one of the fining agents used is made from chitin from shrimp: https://winemakermag.com/26-a-clearer-understanding-of-finin...

In that same article isinglass is listed as a fining agent, it is collagen from fish swim bladders.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#356
post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No real difference between a "Dark Age" where info is cloistered for the few and a blindingly "Light Age" where the signal is buried in noise of conflicting interests. The beauty of this puzzle for most people can be solved with a modicum of info, simple maths and listening to their body. Treating indigestion, constipation and other irritants with magic pills only masks the symptoms of bigger problems, most of which…

Yes there is. People use can and do use networks of trust to navigate the latter. It's messy, but it works to an extent. In the former you have no such option. As a species we're becoming more knowledgable at a staggering pace right now. If you think the non-academic world is not benefitting from having access to the Internet you are crazy.

I concur on the potential, quite staggering infos. However, the key word here is "can". It is very interesting to me to monitor progress of the young nerdlings I cross paths with regularly. There is hope, but there is also a shit-ton of distractions and general malaise. Where human nature + freedom of will are concerned, the difference is, again, "can". For better or worse the die is cast. To say nothing else, the digital renaissance makes for very interesting times.

edit: typos & clarity

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#357
post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> costs for increased health care Smokers are net over-contributors in most countries, cigarette taxes vastly exceed health care costs, in no small part to shorter lifespans of smokers and often quick deaths. > health impacts on non-smokers Maybe if you work in a smoking bar/restaurant (which is your choice) or live with someone who smokes inside. > the simple impact it has on the happiness of those subjected to your…

I don't think that's unreasonable. Honestly, there's nothing you can say to bring me 100% on-board. I'll never believe that someone's right to smoke is greater than my right not to be subject to smoke and that the burden should be on the one who acts/smokes. I can agree that someone should be free to smoke in their house, provided they have no dependents. Again, I don't have a strong opinion, probably because [in par…

> someone's right to smoke is greater than my right not to be subject to smoke

From where do you derive that "right"?

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#358
Mexico successfully increased their tax on sugary beverages, and companies threw relatively few hissy fits. I think a large part of the country's willingness to shoulder that tax, and the lack of push back from industry, came about as a result of positive leadership from Mexico's president at that time and the recognition that diabetes was becoming an epidemic.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kefir culture, which contains both types of microbe, is perfectly happy turning sugar into alcohol into vinegar inside a sealed vessel. If you wanted to stop it, you would need to evacuate the vessel or fill it with an inert gas. If you also had a microbe in there that split water into H2 and O2, you'd have no chance at all at more than about 0.5% alcohol by volume in there. I'm not aware of any existing kefir cultur…

Yes, we are. Kefir is made acidic by the lactic acid, not acetic acid. Lactic acid is indeed produced in wine. Fermentation produces so much CO2 that it quickly fills up the vessel and pushes any remaining oxygen out. People didn't know where yeast comes from until recently. You're making it far more complicated than it is.

Kefir most definitely has vinegar in it, especially if you're getting towards the bottom of the batch, after all the sugars are gone. That's what takes it from "just a bit tart" to "whoa, that's sour".

Though it depends a lot on your culture. The "kefir" sold commercially in the US does not have yeast in the culture, and therefore no alcohol or vinegar. It doesn't really qualify as real kefir. You have to acquire cultures and make your own to get the full experience. You also have to acquire a taste for it.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have just confirmed my point. It isn't an all or nothing stance. And the whole black-and-white "Don't eat processed foods" rule is exactly what I'm arguing against. I don't think it's a good rule of thumb - you need to actually put some thought and consideration into what you're eating - e.g. read the food labels! Everybody's personal stance is difference. For example, I eat heaps of "processed foods" - heck, I e…

it's really hard maintaining this discussion, as your responses keep dragging in things that have nothing to do with what I said. I have nothing against science, modern agriculture, selective breeding, basic packing and cleaning techniques, etc. And calling "rule of thumb" black and white indicates that you aren't familiar with the typical usage of the term, which is the opposite of "black and white". If you can't co…

Err, what exactly are you against?

You said:

> I'm of the exact same dietary philosophy as yourself. I derived it through reading and experimentation before paleo was even a thing, as it appears Jack Lalanne did as well. Most people who attack a simple sensible diet like this are really just exposing their own insecurities and desire to not give up the crap they injest themselves.

> a good rule of thumb is that the less processed a food is, the more likely it is to be better for you".

The things you have just named are processing - so it may make more sense if you actual clarify what exactly it is you are against?

What does it mean for a food to be "less" processed, then?

Post reply on HN