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

Reducing sugar in packaged foods can prevent disease in millions

eurekalert.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 176 posts

Re: Reducing sugar in packaged foods can prevent disease in millions

#71

Post by worik »

EamonnMR wrote: post #3
guerrilla wrote: post #2

But if sugar is addictive, as it seems it is, this would cost a significant fraction of annual revenue to food producers, so there's no way they'd do it. Even if it's not literally addictive, it's clearly attractive and they'd take a big hit.

What baffles me is that artificial sweeteners exist and yet there is enough (imo) unfounded FUD about them that leads people to instead choose Sugar or Nothing (which inevitably translates to Sugar because of the pseudo-addictiveness you mention.) Is wireheading bad? Maybe, but if I'm going to be doing it either way I'd rather reduce the harm.

Artificial sweeteners are not getting to the root of the problem. What people expect their food to taste like.

Why not dial back on the sweetness? Is it really that addictive? Why not drink water rather than cans of genuine or artificial sugar water.

FUD, sure. Personally I am uneasy about tricking my body that it is getting sugar when it is not. I am not waiting for scientific evidence.

The hippies were right. Eat food. Mostly plants. As close to raw as practical and tasty. If your great grand mother would not recognise it, it is not food.

Re: Reducing sugar in packaged foods can prevent disease in millions

#72

Post by andrewl »

betwixthewires wrote: post #64
paraph1n wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hold on a second, the linked research is about sugar. I've seen a lot of similar studies suggesting sugar consumption is a problem. Is salt consumption also unhealthy? I was under the impression that it's not.

From what I understand excess consumption causes increase in blood pressure and subsequent cardiovascular problems. Definitely nowhere near as dangerous as sugar, and you die without salt, not so with sugar, but Americans do consume too much of it.

Very much so. I just saw this article the other day:

Super Simple: Drinking Enough Water Could Prevent Heart Failure

https://scitechdaily.com/super-simple-drinking-enough-water-...

Re: Reducing sugar in packaged foods can prevent disease in millions

#73

Post by sjwalter »

ck2 wrote: post #33

Except in the United States that will never be done voluntarily by the manufacturers or most consumers, we just had two years now proving "freedumbs". The only "solution" is the cigarette model, all food now has an "added sugar" nutrition label, add a dollar to price for every added gram. Those dollars go towards health care fund for sugar based diseases. If you don't eat sugar-added foods, great for you and you don'…

IMO this is attacking it from the wrong angle.

What I want is a change to insurance industry regulations to make it so fat people and sedentary people can start paying their fair way and not be subsidized by those of us who maintain their health.

Could be done a number of ways. Life insurance already sometimes requires a physical at signup. Why not for health insurance too? Could also just be a discount. Could even, e.g., partner with Peloton--you work out 5 days a week? Actuarial table shows you're XX% cheaper to insure.

If it's opt-in like that, all the healthy people will opt-in, and all the unhealthy people (NOT pre-existing conditions, just things within people's own power to control that some do well and others ignore--exercise and diet, primarily) will pay more.

No need to tax the sugar, tax the actual impact, healthcare.

Re: Reducing sugar in packaged foods can prevent disease in millions

#74

Post by TedDoesntTalk »

ravenstine wrote: post #43

> Product reformulation efforts have been shown to be successful in reducing other harmful nutrients, such as trans fats and sodium. Trans fats are harmful (well except some natural ones), but how can sodium be a harmful nutrient unless you have existing cardiovascular or renal issues? Seems like a strange statement.

When I read things like this, I feel that a nutrition class should be required in US high school. Not a unit about nutrition during health class, but a full semester on nutrition.

Salt (sodium) is terrible for blood pressure. Just search keywords “salt blood pressure”. And if you don’t know why high blood pressure is bad for you, that’s ok. Spend 2 minutes reading about it, that’s all you need.

Re: Reducing sugar in packaged foods can prevent disease in millions

#75

Post by C19is20 »

nn3 wrote: post #49
asciimov wrote: post #40

I usually keep to a low carb diet. Recently I had a burger from a local burger joint bun included. The entire time I’m eating this burger I keep thinking this is the best damn burger I’ve had in forever. I chalk it up to being hungry. At the end of the burger I had bite of bun left that was bare of toppings. I ate it and realized this white bread bun is so sweet it tastes more like cake than bread… no wonder I though…

There was a story here about the Irish tax authority classifying Subway bread as a sweet, not as bread, due to the high sugar content. I think that's an accurate description of a lot of american breads. https://www.npr.org/2020/10/01/919189045/for-subway-a-ruling... Usually when I buy bread in the bread isle i discard all that have added sugars. But it's been getting hard recently.

"Irish tax authority"..."bread isle".

Re: Reducing sugar in packaged foods can prevent disease in millions

#76

Post by TedDoesntTalk »

hn8788 wrote: post #23
EamonnMR wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What baffles me is that artificial sweeteners exist and yet there is enough (imo) unfounded FUD about them that leads people to instead choose Sugar or Nothing (which inevitably translates to Sugar because of the pseudo-addictiveness you mention.) Is wireheading bad? Maybe, but if I'm going to be doing it either way I'd rather reduce the harm.

I don't know how true it is, but one thing I've heard about artificial sweeteners is that your body thinks it's sugar, and will make your body feel hungrier because it expects it to have the same calories as regular sugar. I still prefer them because I hate the sticky feeling sugary products leave on my teeth, but I've talked to people who think artificial sweeteners are pointless from a calories-in/calories-out POV…

> your body thinks it's sugar

Look for an artificial sweetener with a glycemic index of 0. For example, stevia (made from plants), erythritol, or mannitol. Xylitol has an index of 7, others even higher.

Re: Reducing sugar in packaged foods can prevent disease in millions

#77

Post by andrewl »

worik wrote: post #62
moneywoes wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any alternatives? I’m guessing olive oil is a good substitute?

Beef fat. Truly delicious and very cheap. Ahhh... But not in USA. It will be full of "get fatter" hormones(?) I am not sure organically grown beef fat is available, or as cheep. Where I live, where it is illegal to feed grow drugs to cattle, I do a lot of cooking with beef fat.

You could try bison fat, although I believe bison are, on average, less fatty than other cattle. The USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) forbids the use of hormones and antibiotics in farm-raised bison:

Q: Can hormones and antibiotics be used in bison raising?

A: Antibiotics and growth hormones are not given to bison.

Source: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/food-safety/safe-food-handling-and...

Re: Reducing sugar in packaged foods can prevent disease in millions

#78

Post by TedDoesntTalk »

sjf wrote: post #57
yellow_lead wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, they also taste pretty bad to some people.

I am one of those people. If even sip something with stevia in it I am going to be trying to get the taste out of mouth for hours. It makes me want to scrap my tongue off. It was truly the worst thing I have ever consumed. It has only happened a couple of times, now I am literally traumatized and check the ingredients on anything that is likely to have it. For context, I am not a picky eater, there are things I don't…

There are many others on the market now besides stevia. If added sugar is important to you, try the others because they all taste a little different. There’s also just plain maple syrup which is better than using pure sugar.

Re: Reducing sugar in packaged foods can prevent disease in millions

#79

Post by TedDoesntTalk »

dannyw wrote: post #63
TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> yogurt I don’t think unflavored yogurt has much sugar, does it?

No, but most yoghurt I see people buy are the sweetened kinds.

Buy unsweetened! If you can’t stand it, mix some pre-puréed fruit from baby jars intended for infants ($1 or less each).

Re: Reducing sugar in packaged foods can prevent disease in millions

#80

Post by james4k »

sjwalter wrote: post #70
moneywoes wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any alternatives? I’m guessing olive oil is a good substitute?

The parent comment "should reduce oils" is silly. Oils as a category are hugely important to good health. Presumably, eliminating the bad oils is the way to go. The way I do it is to have a palette of base ingredients for each of fat, acid, and heat. You can create a lot of beautiful, artful meals with a very limited palette. My fat palette, for instance, is primarily rendered animal fats (pork lard, then beef tallow…

What do you think oil is? It's processed food. And I never said you have to get rid of it entirely. But there's no doubt we use too much of it. Why is that controversial?

And there is too much consensus around saturated fat being involved in both cardiovascular disease and diabetes for me to say animal fats are a good substitute. It's a step in the wrong direction, even. The only thing worse might be palm oil.

Post reply on HN