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

381–390 of 623 posts

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#381

Post by malz »

adrianggg wrote: post #182

I rarely say anything is black and white in this world but sugar is in my opinion. Without any doubt in my mind. Recently in the last 3 months I gave up sugar, hard core, it's hard but the benefits are out of this world. I was healthy and active. I ate healthy, or so I thought. Boy was I wrong and mis informed. I had heard theories so I decided to check them out. I went all out to avoid sugar for a couple of weeks ju…

Have you cut back on carbohydrates too? I'm just curious, since I've eliminated sugary drinks, but I find it harder to cut back on bread, pasta and so on.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#382

Post by brianbreslin »

grecy wrote: post #347
nikmobi wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 can understand it being too sweet to your now adjusted taste buds, but calling it the most disgusting thing imaginable is just plain wrong. Try the 'ol "Grandma Test" on it: If you had served your Grandma (or maybe great-Gramdma) with a glass of fizzy black liquid, that you poured out of a shiny metal container, do you think she would have drunk it? I mean, honestly, that would be like putting a glass of used eng…

Pretty sure my grandma would have consumed a glass of Guinness had it been presented to her ;-)

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#383

Post by markus2012 »

ThrustVectoring wrote: post #129
timewarrior wrote: post #13

It took almost 50 years to starting to debunk health issues created by Sugar. It took decades to accept the health issues created by Lead and Asbestos. Sometime I wonder if chemicals from bottled water, radiation from Cellular/Wifi/Bluetooth pose health risks and we will find it out decades later.

Cellular, wifi, and bluetooth radiation poses zero risk. You can stand inside the path of a microwave communication dish and receive many orders of magnitude more radiation, and what it'll do is make you warm. That's it. Soviet soldiers used to do that in Siberia to keep themselves warm, and the only risk is the dish outputting too much power and cooking you instead.

The first day in radar class the instructor put a piece of steel wool in front of a small dish and it instantly melted white and dropped molten metal onto the floor.

It always made me nervous when the class goofballs turned the horns on other people so you could feel the microwaves.

Goofball 1: 'accidentally' radiates goofball 2 Goofball 2: What? What are you doing? Oh, I'll show you - just watch me increase the power on this baby...

It turns out your testicles and eyes are a bad place to receive microwaves.

I submit to anyone thinking of attempting this: you are probably going to get the power calculations wrong and cooking human cells is not fun at all.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#384

Post by dredmorbius »

nightski wrote: post #295
dredmorbius wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Little of that life expectancy had to do specifically with worse nutritional quality of food. Access to food, nutritional understanding, and food spoilage, yes. Much had to do with a lack of awareness of germ theory, with waste disposal -- both human and trash -- with pollution of water supplies, and with poor or limited public health measures against community-propogating infectious disease. The highest mortality ra…

I already knew all of this, yet it doesn't really affect my opinion. It provides no evidence whatsoever that going out into nature and picking random naturally occurring foods is more healthy than our food system today.

It addresses the specific criticism you'd offered of eating older rather than newer cultivars: there's little evidence your specific criticism has merits.

Neither of us have addressed the underlying question of whether or not present cultivars and crops are themselves intrinsically healthier or less healthy than older ones. There are some theoretical bases for beliving either way. The arguments against many specifically processed foods are rather stronger.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#385

Post by oldmanjay »

grecy wrote: post #362
kmonsen wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what did you actually eat? It seems like sugar is everywhere these days.

The easiest way to eat healthy is to only buy things in the supermarket that have one ingredient. Pretty soon you'll notice you're only buying fruit, vegetables, pasta, rice, beans & non-processed meat. Disclaimer: of course you could buy pure sugar or pure lard - so don't do that :)

Do yourself the favor, buy the lard and leave the pasta for the people who believe the broken gov't recommendations.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#386

Post by dredmorbius »

prewett wrote: post #286
dredmorbius wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Incorrect. Arsenic is an element . Elemental arsenic, as with elemental carbon, or hydrogen, or any other element, is made of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Its chemical properties are defined largely by its valence electrons, and atomic mass. There is no more carbon in arsenic than there is sound in light. They are different things. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenic

Your parent poster was well aware of that, and also assumed his parent was aware of that as well. His post was a subtle version of "arsenic can't be 'organic' because cannot be composed of carbon chains because it is an element which is not carbon." The advantage of his version (especially in spoken conversation) is that you can tell someone they are wrong, and typically if they have such a gross misunderstanding, it…

Whoosh!

Yeah, I managed to miss that.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#387

Post by malz »

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 can agree entirely with this. I used to drink Snapple iced teas like they were water. After cutting back on sugar, I can't stomach the stuff now. I like sweetness: I'll add a splash of lemonade to unsweetened iced tea. But the presweetened stuff is 10x sweeter than my palate tolerates now.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#389

Post by [deleted] »

Practicality wrote: post #376
cm2012 wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

[deleted]

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#390

Post by DenisM »

maxxxxx wrote: post #49
logicallee wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is almost certainly wrong. (That nothing can be blamed.) I can't eat much sugar for medical reasons, so that means that entire aisles are basically unavailable to me. things like cereals, cookies, cakes, lots of delicious stuff. But there is something or someone (or some process or some state of affairs) to blame here. Because check it out: stevia is delicious, and with splenda and all sorts of other zero-calori…

I also get headaches, fever and joint pain from taking in any sugar. It would be so nice to find cereals where I can add sweetener as needed. In theory they should be cheaper since they don't have to add sugar but in reality they don't even exist.

Steel-cut oats. Add water and salt, microwave on medium for 12 minutes. Doesn't get any easier, or cheaper.
Post reply on HN