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

471–480 of 537 posts

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

#471

Post by llm_nerd »

jibe wrote: post #410
astura wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Milk is not high satiety, come on now.

Drink a glass of whole milk, then drink a cup of skim milk and tell me there is no difference. Try the same with full fat yogurt and non-fat yogurt. Big difference in satiety, but more importantly blood sugar response. Roughly the same amount of fat in a glass of whole milk as 1/4 pound burger.

>Big difference in satiety, but more importantly blood sugar response.

There is a negligible difference in glycemic index / glycemic load between the variations of M.F. milk products. Some analysis has skim milk as having a lower GI.

Unflavoured Milk is not relevant to the GI conversation.

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

#472

Post by llm_nerd »

Merrill wrote: post #386
aldarion wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They will however recommend sugar, just by calling it something else. See "carbohydrates", "complex carbohydrates", "integral grain" and so on. Quite frankly, plain sugar from fruit is less dangerous than the complex carbs from grains. But fructose is still dangerous, just less so.

Starch is the preferred carbohydrate, since digestion depolymerizes it to pure glucose which can be used directly by cells. Cane sugar, a disaccharide, is split by digestion into its constituent glucose and fructose molecules, and the latter must be further processed by the liver. It is 50% fructose. High fructose corn syrup is 55% fructose. A variety of other sugars, such as maltose and lactose occur naturally in a…

>High fructose corn syrup is 55% fructose.

HFCS is from 42% - 55% fructose (the glucose obviously filling the remainder). Many uses are on the lower end.

A lot of people think the "high fructose" part of the name is relative to sucrose's 50:50. In reality it's relative to corn syrup which is almost entirely glucose, but some of the glucose can be processed to fructose to more closely match the sucrose that people are accustomed to. They go a little higher on the fructose because it is perceived as sweeter, so with a 55% ratio they can use less for the same sweetness.

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

#473

Post by lfliosdjf »

NoPicklez wrote: post #437
fercircularbuf wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 neglec…

Its optimal to solve all the constraints or requirements of needs of the body. But we don't fully understand the requirements as a whole and conflicting information from expertsh. So the rational thing is to rely on the historical data and make judgements on the probability.

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

#474

Post by denverllc »

hinkley wrote: post #254
SoftTalker wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> hard to hear amongst all the noise of corporate messaging The one I like are the sodas that tout "made with real sugar" as if that's better for you than HF syrup.

Turns out the phosphoric acid breaks down the sucrose within a matter of months on the shelf.

Given soda ph around 2.5, temperature 25C, phosphoric acid 0.05% and sucrose 10% gives a half life around 4 years. Or only 7% over 6 months.

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

#475

Post by aziaziazi »

GuB-42 wrote: post #200
alphazard wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is a lot of speculation that we will soon see a new food pyramid that is inverted. Pretty much everyone I know understands that the food pyramid is the product of various lobbies coming together and does not represent a legitimate theory of diet or nutrition. That is independent of their politics or opinions about RFK. I don't think a change to the food pyramid would change anyone's actions, people haven't ta…

I consider the traditional food pyramid, with grain at the base, to make a lot of economic sense. The question is not "what's best for you", but "how to keep as many people as possible well fed and reasonably healthy". And an important part of it is that everyone gets enough calories, even the poor, and even during hard times. Grain is an efficient source of calories, and grain products tend to have a good shelf life…

> a significant amount of bookkeeping [...] for the general population

True, but not really more or less than a diet including animal products: in both cases they'll be good by varying the sources of macronutrients. In fact most long-term, healthy vegans don't bother bookkeeping what they eat. Some athletes and weight-loss seeker does but it's not particular to plant-based diet.

Vegan bookeeping is a common fallacy. A while ago I had an odd conversation with a doctor that went like that:

- It's complicated, you'll need to count everything ! - Is it different with animal products ? - Oh yes no count I advise 1-2 serve of red meat every 2 weeks, 2-4 serve of fish per week, 1 serve of seafood once in a while 2 serves of chicken per week, adjusted if you workout. Also 2 diary product per day but avoid salty cheeses too often or in large quantity. - I count 1 pill of b12 per day.

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

#476

Post by game_the0ry »

kenferry wrote: post #178
game_the0ry wrote: post #141

That industry can lobby for and basically "purchase" scientific outcomes that affect health standards should be a defcon 1 red alert. People should be lose their careers over this, at the very least imo. And the fact that people do not care is just as, if not more, concerning. This is how you get MAHA, which I support bc of this, craziness included.

Er, how does putting your faith in literally vibes (MAHA) follow. Just complete rejection of expertise and science.

Bc that "expertise" was bought and paid for which is why we have a food pyramid that does more harm good.

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

#477

Post by astura »

jibe wrote: post #410
astura wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Milk is not high satiety, come on now.

Drink a glass of whole milk, then drink a cup of skim milk and tell me there is no difference. Try the same with full fat yogurt and non-fat yogurt. Big difference in satiety, but more importantly blood sugar response. Roughly the same amount of fat in a glass of whole milk as 1/4 pound burger.

>Drink a glass of whole milk, then drink a cup of skim milk and tell me there is no difference

Ok, there's no different.

Beyond that, Minor differents in glycemic load are irrelevant if you're consuming milk with a meal, like the kids in school are doing.

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

#478

Post by ceejayoz »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #425
ceejayoz wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't disagree, but it appears Duke did investigate in that case, and was unable to prove intentional wrongdoing. I am glad it takes more than mere suspicion for the government to go search my private writings and possessions.

> it appears Duke did investigate in that case, and was unable to prove intentional wrongdoing They also kept the grant money. The university investigating itself isn’t meaningful.

> They also kept the grant money.

Is that not the reasonable response if an investigation didn't turn up wrongdoing?

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

#479

Post by ceejayoz »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #394
ceejayoz wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Skim/lowfat milk just... takes the cream out. The same rule changes tightened the rules on added sugar.

For the milk you don't add sugar directly, but you end up adding more carbs to the rest of the meal when you take out nothing but fat from the milk.

Whole milk is 4% milkfat, to skim's 0%. We're not talking much here.

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

#480

Post by overgard »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #440
overgard wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ter…

People are on ketogenic diets for years and even decades with no adverse affects. There's nothing wrong with getting energy from other sources, your body can manage it fine.
Post reply on HN