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

Was there ever really a “sugar conspiracy”?

science.sciencemag.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 230 posts

Re: Was there ever really a “sugar conspiracy”?

#41

Post by croon »

John_KZ wrote: post #17

The industry maliciously amplifies our innate tendency to find a "one-fits-all" solution. The bogeyman used to be fat, now it's sugar. Soon, people will realize that getting 90% of your caloric intake from protein powders is bad, the industry will get ahold of the new trend, and they'll start going back to "healthy carbs" or something stupid like that, and people will forget the meat rush of the 2010s and move onto s…

> The industry maliciously amplifies our innate tendency to find a "one-fits-all" solution. The bogeyman used to be fat, now it's sugar.

That isn't a fad though, that is progress.

> Soon, people will realize that getting 90% of your caloric intake from protein powders is bad

This is obviously already true. You would get protein poisoning very quickly long before you hit your TDEE.

> the industry will get ahold of the new trend, and they'll start going back to "healthy carbs" or something stupid like that

No they won't. "Healthy carbs" will be a part of moderate diets for a long time, but sugars or white flour won't come back as your main caloric source through any reputable study. Mark my words.

There will always be fads, but let's not pretend that blaming fats decades ago was the same as blaming sugars now. Also notice that it's explicitly sugars, not carbs. Breakthroughs always lead to regular people overcompensating when swinging over, so you get things like your mentioned "meat rush", and people eating bearnaise sauce and pork belly with their bacon wrapped broccoli or whatever.

But let's not portray the underlying studies that led to this swing as merely fads. It's progress, and while it's not solved, it's a lot better than just 10 years ago.

Edit: I was reminded of this article "The Relativity of Wrong" [1] by Isaac Asimov. TL;DR: An analogy is the flat earth. We went from thinking the earth was flat into thinking it was round, which isn't correct either since it's an oblate spheroid. But we can all agree that "round" is a lot "more correct" than flat.

[1] http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm

Re: Was there ever really a “sugar conspiracy”?

#42

Post by pharrington »

montyf wrote: post #10

The statements "sugar is bad", "fat is bad", "fat is good" are all equally simplistic and misleading. Fruits are high in naturally-occurring sugars and they are among the healthiest things you can eat. Turns out that nutrition is a pretty complicated science, and there existing various political and special interests influencing the science doesn't help. It's 2018 and I don't think there's even remotely a scientific…

> Fruits are high in naturally-occurring sugars and they are among the healthiest things you can eat.

Can you be precise about what you mean by this, or at least qualify this statement? Modern fruit obviously pushes the definition of "natural" to it's absolute limits, but more importantly, it's at least deeply unintuitive that something that consists mostly of fructose, a little fiber, trace metals, the rare vitamin, and next to no protein or fat could be considered healthy.

Re: Was there ever really a “sugar conspiracy”?

#43

Post by perl4ever »

starpilot wrote: post #23
keymone wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While it is tricky with fats, sugar is never good for you (unless some genetic disease where you die if you don’t consume sugar?). Fruits are to various degrees beneficial but not in unlimited amounts. Fruits also don’t have a lot of sugar, see the watermelon comment in the other thread. The problem with sugar is how easy it is in our diets to consume ridiculous amounts of it and how nobody understands that even a li…

Why did we evolve to enjoy the taste of sugar?

Same reason we evolved to have brain receptors for nicotine?

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotinic_acetylcholine_recept...

I noticed my ears have a notch that appears to be specifically designed to fit the cord of my earbuds.

Re: Was there ever really a “sugar conspiracy”?

#44

Post by stevenwoo »

montyf wrote: post #15
amriksohata wrote: post #2

Refined sugar and processed fatsare bad, naturally occuring fats like coconut oil have been lumped together with other fats as bad due to bad science

If you're in the US or Europe, you don't have access to fresh coconuts. The oil you buy comes from far away (do you even know from where?), was processed under God knows what conditions, likely melted and resolidified several times as it changed hands in transit, only to sit in a store for who knows how long and what corners they cut. And this is healthier than eating locally-produced oils that your body is more gene…

Coconuts are commonly available in Asian markets in the USA. Heck, half the fruits and veggies in grocery stores in fall/winter have South American labels.

Re: Was there ever really a “sugar conspiracy”?

#45

Post by Arn_Thor »

starpilot wrote: post #23
keymone wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While it is tricky with fats, sugar is never good for you (unless some genetic disease where you die if you don’t consume sugar?). Fruits are to various degrees beneficial but not in unlimited amounts. Fruits also don’t have a lot of sugar, see the watermelon comment in the other thread. The problem with sugar is how easy it is in our diets to consume ridiculous amounts of it and how nobody understands that even a li…

Why did we evolve to enjoy the taste of sugar?

We enjoy the taste of sweetness because it tends in nature to indicate that the thing we're eating contains a lot of energy, such as fruits and sweet vegetables. And we underestimate how finely attuned this sense is. Chew on wheat for a little bit and it will begin to taste sweet as the starch breaks down in your mouth and turns into sugar.

Sugar is ridiculously sweet. Anyone who's laid off sweets for a few weeks or months and goes back to eating a muffin or having a soda tends to find it offputtingly sweet. We've taken this evolutionary benefit and exploited it for pleasure, which is quite alright in moderation. But the natural pleasure we feel from the sweetness of fruit is set in overdrive with concentrated sweetness such as powder sugar.

Re: Was there ever really a “sugar conspiracy”?

#46

Post by pharrington »

keymone wrote: post #14
montyf wrote: post #10

The statements "sugar is bad", "fat is bad", "fat is good" are all equally simplistic and misleading. Fruits are high in naturally-occurring sugars and they are among the healthiest things you can eat. Turns out that nutrition is a pretty complicated science, and there existing various political and special interests influencing the science doesn't help. It's 2018 and I don't think there's even remotely a scientific…

While it is tricky with fats, sugar is never good for you (unless some genetic disease where you die if you don’t consume sugar?). Fruits are to various degrees beneficial but not in unlimited amounts. Fruits also don’t have a lot of sugar, see the watermelon comment in the other thread. The problem with sugar is how easy it is in our diets to consume ridiculous amounts of it and how nobody understands that even a li…

You need carbohydrates for energy. Glucose is the primary source of energy for almost every food consuming organism. Too much sugar is harmful, yes, but don't say things that aren't true.

Re: Was there ever really a “sugar conspiracy”?

#47

Post by ec109685 »

pharrington wrote: post #46
keymone wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While it is tricky with fats, sugar is never good for you (unless some genetic disease where you die if you don’t consume sugar?). Fruits are to various degrees beneficial but not in unlimited amounts. Fruits also don’t have a lot of sugar, see the watermelon comment in the other thread. The problem with sugar is how easy it is in our diets to consume ridiculous amounts of it and how nobody understands that even a li…

You need carbohydrates for energy. Glucose is the primary source of energy for almost every food consuming organism. Too much sugar is harmful, yes, but don't say things that aren't true.

You don’t need to consume carbohydrates for energy. You can live off of fat and protein.

Re: Was there ever really a “sugar conspiracy”?

#48

Post by narag »

John_KZ wrote: post #17

The industry maliciously amplifies our innate tendency to find a "one-fits-all" solution. The bogeyman used to be fat, now it's sugar. Soon, people will realize that getting 90% of your caloric intake from protein powders is bad, the industry will get ahold of the new trend, and they'll start going back to "healthy carbs" or something stupid like that, and people will forget the meat rush of the 2010s and move onto s…

Nutrition isn't a solved problem and it won't be for many decades.

"Problem" can refer to something you need to think to solve or to something you also need to do something to solve. General effects of different diets in health is known because before gobalization, every country had its own.

The real problem is how to deal with food production for billions, with different cultures and with huge companies using their money to manipulate science.

Re: Was there ever really a “sugar conspiracy”?

#49

Post by vezycash »

soneca wrote: post #28
montyf wrote: post #10

The statements "sugar is bad", "fat is bad", "fat is good" are all equally simplistic and misleading. Fruits are high in naturally-occurring sugars and they are among the healthiest things you can eat. Turns out that nutrition is a pretty complicated science, and there existing various political and special interests influencing the science doesn't help. It's 2018 and I don't think there's even remotely a scientific…

Fruits are artificially high in naturally-occurring sugars. Fruits we have today are all fruits of artificial selection of the most sweet. Fruits arent that good because of this.

Fruits are good. Fruit juice is bad.

Why?

The fibre content in fruits make consumption self regulated.

With juices however, refinement concentrates the sugars and removes fibre.

Example: You'd need to eat bags of coca leaves to feel high. A few pinches of cocaine?

It's difficult to eat half a stick of sugar cane. But trivial to eat 50 sticks worth of refined sugar.

Basically, overdose due to concentration by refinement is the killer.

Re: Was there ever really a “sugar conspiracy”?

#50

Post by keymone »

pharrington wrote: post #46
keymone wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While it is tricky with fats, sugar is never good for you (unless some genetic disease where you die if you don’t consume sugar?). Fruits are to various degrees beneficial but not in unlimited amounts. Fruits also don’t have a lot of sugar, see the watermelon comment in the other thread. The problem with sugar is how easy it is in our diets to consume ridiculous amounts of it and how nobody understands that even a li…

You need carbohydrates for energy. Glucose is the primary source of energy for almost every food consuming organism. Too much sugar is harmful, yes, but don't say things that aren't true.

> You need carbohydrates for energy

no you don't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluconeogenesis

> Glucose is the primary source of energy for almost every food consuming organism

yeah, those carnivores consume so much carbohydrates!

> Too much sugar is harmful, yes, but don't say things that aren't true.

the problem is with public perception of what is "too much" - it has to be lowered significantly and people have to start counting starches as sugar.

but in any case, you could always argue that fruits are good or starchy vegetables are good in moderation, but none of it will ever apply to table sugar.

Post reply on HN