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

371–380 of 623 posts

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#371

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#374

Post by Kenji »

ianamartin wrote: post #80

Of course this happened. Duh. It's still happening today. I'm not saying where because I don't know where. But if you do the simple math about how many people are working as scientists, it's not hard to figure out that there are companies who could benefit from positive scientific findings--no matter how wrong--and realize that some of what we're reading in original research was paid for and not really true. I wish p…

The less political the subject, the better the science about it. That's why I love maths. Nobody bribes a set of mathematicians to incorrectly claim the Collatz Conjecture has been proven.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#375

Post by MichaelGG »

awqrre wrote: post #161
MichaelGG wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SLS is organic.

There's plenty of organic compounds that are toxic to humans (not saying that this one is or isn't) ...

Sure, just saying that "an organic toothpaste" doesn't rule out SLS.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#376

Post by Practicality »

cm2012 wrote: post #309
at-fates-hands wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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.

That is a myth. Every legitimate long term study of non surgical weight loss shows that it doesn't happen for the vast, vast majority of people. 1) ["In controlled settings, participants who remain in weight loss programs usually lose approximately 10% of their weight. However, one third to two thirds of the weight is regained within 1 year, and almost all is regained within 5 years. "]( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p…

I lost 20% 10 years ago and haven't gained it back (295->225 lbs.). On the other hand I am still overweight and would like to lose more.

I did it by just exercising an insane amount every day. (Like 6 hours of cardio+strength training every day) Most people just aren't going to do that.

No diet I ever tried had any similar effect.

It did do a complete reset of my metabolism to the new weight though. I kind of think it has to be something drastic to have the effect people want.

The only problem is that it's really easy to injure yourself being drastic (that and you have have the right confluence of factors to have the free time to pull it off).

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#377

Post by sethammons »

grexe wrote: post #372

see also the really well done movie "That Sugar Film" ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3892434/ ) where exactly this connection is laid out in the first part.

It is available on Amazon Prime last I checked. I've recommended it many times over to friends.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#378

Post by Broken_Hippo »

ntaenta wrote: post #305
mary_fortran wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you had 20 pounds to lose, you weren't healthy. You were fooling yourself. Healthy people aren't carrying around 20 extra pounds of fat.

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.

Your numbers are good for males. Often women have issues if they drop to the 5-6% range... missed periods, decreased fertility, hormonal changes, and other such things. Weirdly, some of the same issues people have with anorexia, only to a healthier extreme. I'm pretty sure they recommend women to have at least 9-11% body fat if they are muscular.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#379

Post by Normal_gaussian »

wutbrodo wrote: post #355
Normal_gaussian wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sugar that occurs naturally in foods are often complex. Complex sugars are larger molecules that can be broken into simple sugars (lactose, fructose, glucose). There is actually very little sugar in fruit, and they are full of vitamins and minerals which are good for you. If you cut artificial (added sugar) foods from your diet you will likely find that other foods taste sweeter as your taste becomes more sensitive.

> There is actually very little sugar in fruit Whoever told you this did you a disservice, because it's completely untrue. I think coke is a pretty good posterchild for "a shocking amount of sugar", and an 8 oz bottle of coke has about the same sugar content as an apple or a navel orange (and the orange has half the calories, making the comparison even less favorable). The difference between the two is that the coke…

You are mostly right. The mostly part is this:

gram for gram Apples and coke are about the same, however an 8oz coke has over twice the sugar content of an apple.

Secondly, on the disservice, you are particularly correct. I have done myself a disservice by not correctly interpreting my own research. Two years back, when switching to become a vegetarian, I calculated macros for loads of foods. For sugar I used a calculation based on the food's glycemic index.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#380

Post by biot »

hammock wrote: post #310
biot wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you, I appreciate the links. So triclosan is: not (safe and effective) || insufficient data From a cursory reading, I gather that it can/does cause harm during developmental years, making it unsuitable for children or pregnant/nursing mothers. However, I'm not sure how to evaluate the level of harm it introduces in something like toothpaste. Is it a similar level of harm as, say, aspirin or tea tree oil which a…

Wow now I'm wondering about tea tree oil which I use myself. Have any links you can share?

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/lavender-tea-t...

“The results of our laboratory studies confirm that pure lavender and tea tree oils can mimic the actions of estrogens and inhibit the effects of androgens,” said Korach. “This combinatorial activity makes them somewhat unique as endocrine disruptors.”

The referenced study: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa064725

Abstract:

"Most cases of male prepubertal gynecomastia are classified as idiopathic. We investigated possible causes of gynecomastia in three prepubertal boys who were otherwise healthy and had normal serum concentrations of endogenous steroids. In all three boys, gynecomastia coincided with the topical application of products that contained lavender and tea tree oils. Gynecomastia resolved in each patient shortly after the use of products containing these oils was discontinued. Furthermore, studies in human cell lines indicated that the two oils had estrogenic and antiandrogenic activities. We conclude that repeated topical exposure to lavender and tea tree oils probably caused prepubertal gynecomastia in these boys."

Post reply on HN