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

501–510 of 623 posts

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#501

Post by woodandsteel »

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…

I cut out refined carbohydrates and lost 50 pounds, and have kept it off for the last four years. I eat all I, I just make sure it is reasonably healthy.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#502

Post by sleighboy »

Karunamon wrote: post #416
sleighboy wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would not say that is dramatic or even meaningful. The findings are full of statements on how the the studies they considered were "of moderate quality, but of limited quantity". And they conclude with saying basically that they have no conclusion.

I think we may have read different studies. From the conclusions on the second link: From the evidence available, it can be concluded that fluoridation of public water supplies does prevent caries and is associated with fluorosis. Personally speaking, I'd call 15-25% reductions "dramatic".

From the summary: "The authors were surprised by the small amount of work identified. In particular, there were very few studies that followed the same individuals longitudinally, there was lack of analysis of confounding variables and there was failure to undertake appropriate statistical analysis."

The whole report has a tone of being the best they could conclude with poor data which is stressed repeatedly. Those numbers put in context of the opinions of the source data makes them not so impressive.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#503

Post by lolc »

PieterH wrote: post #353
bad_user wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is reductionist thinking, the same kind of thinking that led to the low-fat fad, which unfortunately lasted decades. Fruits don't deliver just fructose, the also deliver nutrients, vitamins, antioxidants and fiber. As a consequence we digest fruits differently compared with processed sugar, as the absorption of fructose when eating fruits is slowed down. And our taste buds love sugar because our bodies crave for…

Lol, our big brains developed long after we left our jungle environment, and are fueled above all by protein (meat, so hunting). Our taste buds love sugar because fructose is a drug that plants evolved to get our ancestors working as seed dispersal machines. And I believe if you eat grapes or oranges or apples, the juice (and fructose) is barely wrapped in fibre if at all. Chewing an orange, you have extracted the fr…

Our brain runs on sugar mostly.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#504

Post by paulcole »

muddyrivers wrote: post #396
PieterH wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My mother (1973, Edinburgh) bought "Pure, White, and Deadly," and we all read it. I was ten or so. Yudkin attacked white flour, white (processed) fat, and above all white sugar. It made perfect sense to us all, and cutting back on sugar became a slow, yet consistent part of our lifestyle. We never ate that much anyhow. I stopped eating sugar entirely at 15. I still recall the book's cover. Edit: it took me a lot long…

I wonder if the tolerance, and then the love, of highly sweet things is acquired. And mostly probably, it is acquired when one is a child. I have met and worked with many East Asians and Europeans who came to American in their 20's or older. Almost everyone of them thought American pastry and deserts are unbearably sweet. Most of them shun from soda drinks and other "food" containing high amounts of sugar. If they dr…

Americans saying that foods are too sweet is quickly becoming the new "I don't have a TV." It's a humblebrag to show off status.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#505

Post by paulcole »

PieterH wrote: post #331
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.

Many of my extended family got sick and some died from adult-onset diabetes brought on by eating too much sugar. My father and grandfather suffered and died from low-fat diets (where sugar was never a concern because doctors were obsessed with eliminating dietary fat, period). Even if the outcome isn't obviously fatal, the accumulated damage does not go away and it carries real health risks until death. And please do…

>adult-onset diabetes brought on by eating too much sugar

Genetics is a much bigger component of T2 than sugar intake.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#506

Post by cm2012 »

kbutler wrote: post #481
cm2012 wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surgery works with a 5 year timeline too, for the average person. The average person does not succeed any other way. It's not impossible - 5% of people in these studies succeed - which is why you see anecdotes like yours.

I didn't think this was true, but apparently it is: "This study of isolated gastric bypass with a 5.5-year follow-up rate of 88.6% revealed a success rate of 93% in obese or morbidly obese patients and 57% in super-obese patients. " (note that this is a specific type of gastric bypass) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1421028/

Yep

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#508

Post by ejstronge »

PieterH wrote: post #353
bad_user wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is reductionist thinking, the same kind of thinking that led to the low-fat fad, which unfortunately lasted decades. Fruits don't deliver just fructose, the also deliver nutrients, vitamins, antioxidants and fiber. As a consequence we digest fruits differently compared with processed sugar, as the absorption of fructose when eating fruits is slowed down. And our taste buds love sugar because our bodies crave for…

Lol, our big brains developed long after we left our jungle environment, and are fueled above all by protein (meat, so hunting). Our taste buds love sugar because fructose is a drug that plants evolved to get our ancestors working as seed dispersal machines. And I believe if you eat grapes or oranges or apples, the juice (and fructose) is barely wrapped in fibre if at all. Chewing an orange, you have extracted the fr…

As the sibling poster stated, brains run almost exclusively on glucose outside starvation or ketogenic diets.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#509

Post by paulcole »

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'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 wrong.

I said this in another comment, but he's just humblebragging. It's just like someone saying they don't have a TV. He's showing how cultured and refined he is compared to the rest of us who enjoy sweet foods.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#510

Post by smitherfield »

cm2012 wrote: post #500
antisthenes wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No diet I ever tried had any similar effect. Have you tried eating 20% less every day with no effect? I have real trouble believing that. A diet isn't just a change in what you eat, it's also a change in the amount.

Read point 4

It's quite a bit more psychologically difficult for a heroin addict to stop doing heroin, but we don't consider that a valid excuse to continue doing heroin.
Post reply on HN