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

Industry pushes sugary products, while obfuscating the health hazards

ucsf.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 132 posts

Re: Industry pushes sugary products, while obfuscating the health hazards

#61

Post by b_tterc_p »

solveit wrote: post #60
will_brown wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>They then keep following up with references to diabetes, as if diabetes is obviously a sugar consumption problem, but I understand that that's not the case In good faith anyone talking about sugar consumption being the cause of diabeties is obviously talking about type 2. Your linked articles is muddying the waters and introducing type 1 highlighting people are born with type 1...no one thinks type 1 has anything to…

The link I included specifically says: > With Type 2 diabetes, though we know sugar doesn’t directly cause Type 2 diabetes, you are more likely to get it if you are overweight. You gain weight when you take in more calories than your body needs, and sugary foods and drinks contain a lot of calories. It's misleading to talk about sugar when the problem is obesity. I don't have answers to your questions as I am not an…

It’s misleading to deflect from sugar onto obesity when consumption of sugary foods is a primary driver of obesity.

Re: Industry pushes sugary products, while obfuscating the health hazards

#62

Post by hrez »

oblib wrote: post #27

Sugar, all by itself is bad (awful bad), but when you add "Red 40" to the mix children go into instant hyperactive-overdrive. They start bouncing off the walls and you might as well be feeding them crack cocaine. I spent a total of 24 days watching our grandkids this year and everyone of them was a battle over what they'd eat. I could not get the oldest (11 years old now) to take a single bite of real food during the…

caffeine is more likely the culprit

Re: Industry pushes sugary products, while obfuscating the health hazards

#63

Post by will_brown »

solveit wrote: post #60
will_brown wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>They then keep following up with references to diabetes, as if diabetes is obviously a sugar consumption problem, but I understand that that's not the case In good faith anyone talking about sugar consumption being the cause of diabeties is obviously talking about type 2. Your linked articles is muddying the waters and introducing type 1 highlighting people are born with type 1...no one thinks type 1 has anything to…

The link I included specifically says: > With Type 2 diabetes, though we know sugar doesn’t directly cause Type 2 diabetes, you are more likely to get it if you are overweight. You gain weight when you take in more calories than your body needs, and sugary foods and drinks contain a lot of calories. It's misleading to talk about sugar when the problem is obesity. I don't have answers to your questions as I am not an…

>It's misleading to talk about sugar when the problem is obesity.

Really because plenty of skinny people have type 2 and plenty of obese people do not have type 2...but everyone who has type 2 has overconsumed sugar that is regulated in the blood by insulin and their bodies has stopped responding to insulin and most who have type 2 can reverse it by cutting out sugar consumption that requires insulin and making other lifestyle changes. No one is saying obesity isn’t linked to higher rates of type 2, but it’s not dispositive like type 2 and sugar consumption.

Re: Industry pushes sugary products, while obfuscating the health hazards

#64

Post by Gibbon1 »

solveit wrote: post #44

The article, while making copious allusions to damning research, is light on actual damning research and heavy on rhetoric. The linked website ( http://sugarscience.ucsf.edu ) is also full of references to studies that are suggestive but nothing conclusive. What's really worrying is the constant refrain that they just "knew" something had to be wrong. Doesn't exactly inspire confidence in their research. They then ke…

So here are some facts:

Type II diabetes used to be rare. Obesity was not uncommon however the incidence was stable.

Now both have become prevalent in the last 50 years.

You know what I do when faced with a poorly understood system that used to behave before a bunch of changes were made but now does not?

I revert back all the suspicious changes.

Re: Industry pushes sugary products, while obfuscating the health hazards

#65

Post by abaldwin7302 »

b_tterc_p wrote: post #61
solveit wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The link I included specifically says: > With Type 2 diabetes, though we know sugar doesn’t directly cause Type 2 diabetes, you are more likely to get it if you are overweight. You gain weight when you take in more calories than your body needs, and sugary foods and drinks contain a lot of calories. It's misleading to talk about sugar when the problem is obesity. I don't have answers to your questions as I am not an…

It’s misleading to deflect from sugar onto obesity when consumption of sugary foods is a primary driver of obesity.

It's an important distinction though. It's possible to consume sugary foods and not be obese. See twinkie diet.

Re: Industry pushes sugary products, while obfuscating the health hazards

#66

Post by Gibbon1 »

maxxxxx wrote: post #5

It's mind boggling how much sugar is in everything. Just looked at my girlfriend's Starbucks Chai tea container. 100g sugar! She would be better off drinking a bottle of Coke. And Starbucks are supposed to be good guys . On a related note: how do they get that much sugar into these drinks? If I made a liter of Chai tea and poured 100g sugar into it I don't think it would be drinkable.

Get this the American Heart Association which is noted for focusing on fat as the cause heart disease has a recommended daily allowance for sugar.

For women it's 25g/day.

Re: Industry pushes sugary products, while obfuscating the health hazards

#67

Post by will_brown »

Puer wrote: post #51
nradov wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure that's adjusted for serving size?

I would also be interested in this. Many soft drink recipes are well-established and rarely adjusted because even small, well-intentioned changes can damage the brand and customer loyalty. Furthermore, it seems counterintuitive that producers would increase sugar content by as much as 1.57 times because that would inherently cost them significantly more money over time.

Well it’s also the type of sugar. Before the 70’s HFCS didn’t exist and it didn’t hit mainstream until the early 80’s. Soft drinks are now predominately made with HFCS which includes multiple sugars, some that are broken down in the liver and others that go into the blood steam and require insulin.

Keep in mind one of the reasons most foods include HFCS is because it’s subsidized and cheaper than say cane sugar, so they could probably add 1.57 times the HFCS and still save money compared to cane sugar.

Re: Industry pushes sugary products, while obfuscating the health hazards

#68

Post by cowmoo728 »

bhousel wrote: post #22
maxxxxx wrote: post #5

It's mind boggling how much sugar is in everything. Just looked at my girlfriend's Starbucks Chai tea container. 100g sugar! She would be better off drinking a bottle of Coke. And Starbucks are supposed to be good guys . On a related note: how do they get that much sugar into these drinks? If I made a liter of Chai tea and poured 100g sugar into it I don't think it would be drinkable.

Lots of people don't realize that 1 cup milk has 13g sugar from the lactose. For comparison, a typical sugar packet is 2-4g. (This is why cereal + milk is probably just about the unhealthiest thing possible to start your day). It's a good idea to switch from the sugary/milky Starbucks drinks to anything else - like cold brew, or black coffee where you add trace amounts of sugar/cream yourself, if any.

I don't think lactose is nearly as bad because it doesn't go through the same liver digestion process that causes insulin resistance and fatty liver disease. Lactose is broken into glucose and galactose before it ever enters the bloodstream, and then galactose is digested in the liver but doesn't produce triglyceride byproducts as far as I can tell.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galactose#Metabolism

Re: Industry pushes sugary products, while obfuscating the health hazards

#69

Post by Ologn »

In a desire to eat healthier, I decided instead of eating candy as a snack, I would eat dried mangoes. It naturally contains fiber, Vitamin C and natural sugars.

When I go to the supermarket and look at the labels, I see most of the brands don't just have the mango's natural sugar, but add extra sugar as well. If I go that route, I might as well have a candy bar. Luckily, one brand I found does not add extra sugar.

Re: Industry pushes sugary products, while obfuscating the health hazards

#70

Post by ryanobjc »

skilled wrote: post #50
NikolaeVarius wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, your argument is that on a healthy diet, you can eat whatever you want. Got it. And the fallacy that organic food = healthy is absolutely mind boggling to me. Study after study has shown that there is minimal difference in the nutritional quality of "organic" vs "non-organic" foods. It doesn't matter, and also the perceived benefit to the environment is nil. And whats wrong with canned and long shelf-life food? A…

The funny thing is that I have no reason to talk out of my butt. I am just expressing my personal experience with food. My idea of a healthy diet is fruit, seeds, nuts, and occasional grains / legumes. The 'Steve Jobs' diet if you will. It's honestly surprising to see how much lighter and energetic you become once you drop meat and huge blocks (carbs) of crap that makes you feel like you ate something worthwhile.

Given Steve jobs prematurely died due to his diet, I feel like that wasn't a wise choice in anecdotes.

Funny thing is how much more energy and lighter I became when I only ate meat. So much for dropping meat.

Post reply on HN