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

Sugar industry influenced researchers and blamed fat for CVD (2016)

ucsf.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 537 posts

Re: Sugar industry influenced researchers and blamed fat for CVD (2016)

#431

Post by snicky »

mcmoor wrote: post #408
prmph wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet you are unavoidably eating micro-plastics too, which have been linked to adverse CV events. Also: - If you are eating more fish (as opposed to eating meat), you are likely consuming more mercury. - If you are eating more fresh veggies you are probably ingesting more pesticides. - If you are easting dark chocolate for its health benefits, you are also ingesting cadmium and other heavy metals. So all the above shou…

Funnily I've heard that one reason why obesity is prevalent is that we have too many variations of food. Seems like our hunger controller suspends satiety when we eat a food too much, but when we eat few of lots of different foods, it's broken. It'd be funny if lots of fad diets actually works because people are forced to eat a single type of food and that's entirely enough for it.

It could also explain why most of us can eat like pigs in all-you-can-eat buffets.

Re: Sugar industry influenced researchers and blamed fat for CVD (2016)

#432

Post by fercircularbuf »

NoPicklez wrote: post #423
lfliosdjf wrote: post #340

Has any one successfully code with same focus after cutting sugar? Seems sugar is really important for focus. Whats your experience?

Why are you cutting out sugar, unless you mean reduce. But you shouldn't stop eating sugar, its required, just not in excessive amounts.

Not required to eat any sugar at all. Your body will actually produce its own glucose if and when needed through gluconeogenesis [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluconeogenesis

Re: Sugar industry influenced researchers and blamed fat for CVD (2016)

#433

Post by lowbloodsugar »

lfliosdjf wrote: post #340

Has any one successfully code with same focus after cutting sugar? Seems sugar is really important for focus. Whats your experience?

If you're addicted to cocaine, then cocaine is really important for focus. Same for sugar. If sugar is really important for focus for you, then you're likely heading for diabetes type 2.

Re: Sugar industry influenced researchers and blamed fat for CVD (2016)

#434

Post by D-Machine »

antiframe wrote: post #417
D-Machine wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, lamination can be done with almost any fat, but the more you laminate (more layers / folds), the more that liquid fats sort of absorb into the dough, and stop having the desired separating effect. So while oil layering works well for e.g. paratha-style roti, scallion pancakes, and things that only really get one or two "layers" or "folds", oil is just fine. But when you get to something like a croissant, or even…

Okay, so as expected liquid fats are much harder to work with and lead to an inferior flake. But, I assumed it was nigh impossible to do. If I can get 20% of the way there with olive oil I would be at least willing to try.

You can definitely get to 20% without much trouble, maybe even 30-50%, if you do some freezing tricks. Though what such percentages mean is highly subjective.

I am thinking if an ideal butter croissant has some flaky fluffiness (perhaps if we define it as "trapped volume" between flakes), and we define this ideal flakiness to be 100%, then you can extremely easily get to 20% with just olive oil. Frankly I think you might even get close to 50% (defined in this way) provided you also start with a trustworthy recipe by mass and that aims for proper hydration (e.g. https://www.seriouseats.com/croissants-recipe-11863500) and work quickly with lots of chilling.

Just, subjectively, you might realize that 20-50%, defined this way, isn't much like a proper French croissant, and is more like a cheap doughy supermarket chain croissant—which I do still frankly enjoy sometimes anyway!

Re: Sugar industry influenced researchers and blamed fat for CVD (2016)

#435

Post by D-Machine »

themk wrote: post #426
matthewkayin wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if this is because it has less to do with fat and carbs and more to do with processed foods. The Mediterranean diet is regarded as quite healthy by many health professionals but, it is also high in carbs and fat. But these are healthy, unprocessed carbs and fats. Whole grains and olive oil. People going for high fat, low carb / low fat, high carb are usually doing so while also sticking to real foods.

When people say "fat" is bad for you, they mean saturated fat. Mediterranean diet is quite low on saturated fat, while still having the good fats.

Cochrane systematic reviews should make you seriously question whether the Mediterranean diet really is much good at all - hard data is inconclusive and low quality [1].

In general we really even barely have enough nutritional knowledge to say if the term 'good fats' even makes much scientific sense, but broad and vague things like "Mediterranean diet" are just total nonsense, from the standpoint of serious nutrition science.

[1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6414510/

Re: Sugar industry influenced researchers and blamed fat for CVD (2016)

#436

Post by NoPicklez »

jqpabc123 wrote: post #193

Which will make you fatter? A) Eating a pound/kg of fat B) Eating a pound/kg of refined sugar Correct answer: B Sugar enters your blood stream almost immediately --- starting in your mouth. Unless you're doing heavy exercise and burning lots of calories, your body has to store most of this excess energy --- as fat. The only way to get consumed fat into your bloodstream is to first convert it into sugar --- which itse…

There's more nuance to this.

Yes sugar enters your blood stream almost immediately which isn't a bad thing, but not all of it. A large amount of that sugar gets stored in the liver as glycogen and any of that not used becomes body fat.

But also

Yes when you consume fat, it is converted to be used by the body as energy however the excess of that similar to sugar is also converted into body fat.

Importantly, 1kg of fats and carbs have wildy different energy levels with 1kg of fat representing 7,700 calories and 1kg of carbs being around 4,000 calories. So yes it burns energy to convert fat into energy, but you have a lot more energy to burn for the same amount eaten.

This is why carbs and fats have different recommended daily intake levels. Therefore, most of what causes CVD is actually due to overconsumption rather than a balanced meal that doesn't take you into constant excess of either carbs or fats.

Re: Sugar industry influenced researchers and blamed fat for CVD (2016)

#437

Post by NoPicklez »

fercircularbuf wrote: post #432
NoPicklez wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are you cutting out sugar, unless you mean reduce. But you shouldn't stop eating sugar, its required, just not in excessive amounts.

Not required to eat any sugar at all. Your body will actually produce its own glucose if and when needed through gluconeogenesis [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluconeogenesis

Yes it can and it does that when there is an absence of available glycogen provided through carbohydrates, it is not to replace but to support in addition to appropriate sugar intake. It is a less efficient source of glucose, does not provide a large enough amount for exercise and also uses amino acids from muscle to help. Do this long enough and you end up in ketosis which is a whole other kettle of fish.

Why neglect one aspect of our bodies digestive energy systems for just gluconeogenesis. Wouldn't you be better off eating a balanced meal of complex carbohydrates and unsaturated fats. Our bodies have multiple pathways to producing energy, focusing on using only one is silly and not the right approach because it wasn't designed to be that way.

Just because our bodies can survive doing a particular thing in the absence of another, doesn't mean that thing we're absent of isn't required.

Re: Sugar industry influenced researchers and blamed fat for CVD (2016)

#438

Post by D-Machine »

siliconc0w wrote: post #109

This isn't really a correct narrative. Diets high in saturated fat are correlated with CVD. Sugar is also correlated with poor metabolic health which is also correlated with CVD. Both are bad. Best data is still Mediterranean- nuts, fruits vegetables, olive or avocado oil, and lean protein.

Mediterranean diet is nonsense. Ill-defined, doesn't have clear evidence of a relation to CVD in hard studies. Bad that people still believe this.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6414510/

Re: Sugar industry influenced researchers and blamed fat for CVD (2016)

#439

Post by themk »

tsimionescu wrote: post #349
jorblumesea wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Says you? because that's not what cardiologists, nutritionists and doctors say. around the world. there's a ton of real, good science from many countries that show a very clear link between increased saturated fat intake, CVD and LDL-C levels. It's not really in question. You are essentially hand waving away 80+ years of scientific studies and data because...you said so? > you really shouldn't trust a doctor about an…

In any other domain, I would agree with you 100%. But nutrition science really is that bad, in my experience and opinion. With some exceptions (e.g. the need for vitamins to avoid things like scurvy, or the relationship between salt intake and blood pressure), even long-standing nutrition beliefs and practices have been overturned (e.g. consumption of cholesterol, or the discovery of the role of dietary fiber), and s…

Dietary cholestrol hasn't really been overturned, but sure there is some nuance. Some people do respond badly to dietary cholestrol (like you said, individual advice is sometimes required), but dietary cholestrol is also not a linear response afaiu. That is, if you eat one egg a day, you may as well eat 4, but if you can completely eliminate dietary cholestrol it could make a difference. So, many guidelines don't bother with suggesting it, because it's too hard to eleminate it to the point of mattering for the average person.

All that to say, the science isn't wrong, but the practicalities influence the advice.

Re: Sugar industry influenced researchers and blamed fat for CVD (2016)

#440

Post by fc417fc802 »

overgard wrote: post #416
fasterik wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That has nothing to do with whether excesses of those nutrients cause cardiovascular disease, though. The general consensus is that the healthiest diet is one with 5-10% of total calories from saturated fat. For most people, it's necessary to restrict saturated fat to land in that range. We also need to distinguish between sugar and carbohydrates. Again, the general consensus is that intake of sugar and refined carbo…

Carbohydrates are sugars (from the first sentence on wikipedia): "A carbohydrate (/ˌkɑːrboʊˈhaɪdreɪt/) is a sugar (saccharide) or a sugar derivative." Saying you need "50-75% of your energy from [sugar]" illustrates why that is a somewhat odd statement. Yes, glucose is much better than fructose, but eating a ton of glucose will still lead to high insulin spikes and inflammatory diseases. Complex carbohydrates are bet…

GP was talking specifically about calories, not other nutrients. My impression is when a vegetable provides significant calorie content it tends to be in the form of carbohydrates.

You have to get your calories (ie raw energy) from somewhere. If you limit saturated fat to 10% then what's left for the other 90% is (roughly speaking) unsaturated fat, simple sugars, carbohydrates (ie complex sugars), and protein. In terms of long term habits converting protein to calories is probably not a great choice for your health. If you decide to go for complex carbohydrates over various oils then vegetables that provide those are a good option.

Post reply on HN