25 ms·

Cutting Back Sugar Improves Obese Children's Health in Just 10 Days

546 points by imjk 11y ago

iSnow 11y ago
>The proposed changes have been strongly opposed by the food industry as unscientific. The Sugar Association, a trade group, said the F.D.A. was “making assertions that lack adequate scientific evidence,” and the Grocery Manufacturers Association criticized the standards the agency used to establish the daily value as being “inadequate.” That's the tobacco industry smoke-screening evidence about the dangers of smoking all over again.
- antsar 11y ago
  Not to mention just how wrong the name "Grocery Manufacturers Association" sounds.
- adventured 11y ago
  Throw in that two of the world's largest corporations are little more than glorified sugar pushers - Coke and Pepsi - and you have a replay of the 90's tobacco scene. Just Coke and Pepsi together represent a sugar ecosystem worth perhaps half a trillion dollars globally (their market caps + companies directly dependent on them + retail). The upside is, those companies are slowly dying. Coke's sales the last three years: $48 billion > $46.8b > $45.8b We can add trash like McDonald's into this, their last three years of sales: $27.5 billion > $28.1b > $27.4b These types of companies will continue to bleed sales and struggle in the next decade as consumers seek alternatives.
  - punee 11y ago
    Alternatives like Diet Coke? But don't hesitate to put your money where your mouth is and buy Coke put options.
    - drumdance 11y ago
      I recently cut out sugar and also quit diet drinks. I've heard that aspartame can have sugar-like effects, particularly triggering food cravings. I used to drink two, three sometimes more 7-11 style Big Gulps every day. Cutting them out has made a difference in my subjective quality of life but it's hard to describe.
      - ascagnel_ 11y ago
        A Big Gulp is 40 oz; I'd imagine cutting out 120 oz daily of anything would have a notable impact on your overall state. For comparison, the most current recommendation I could find was for 64 oz of water a day -- about half of your prior soda intake.
        drumdance 11y ago
        I only drank diet drinks. 0 calories but lots of aspartame.
      - simplexion 11y ago
        Are your teeth ruined?
        drumdance 11y ago
        No. I haven't had a cavity in at least ten years.
    - billmalarky 11y ago
      >consumers seek alternatives >Buy put coke options What if coke is able to change their business and provide those healthy alternatives? A big what if, admittedly, since the dopamine hit provided by sugar is what drives excess consumption of the product. But never say never.
      - punee 11y ago
        Then I guess Coke won't "continue to bleed sales and struggle" as the parent suggested? Note that Coke ALREADY provides "healthy alternatives" (they sell bottled water if that's your thing). And also note that the parent has no idea what part of Coke's product line the dip in sales was caused by, whether it's an industry-wide phenomenon or not, etc. etc. That's because the parent is just some armchair financial analyst spouting nonsense.
- Grue3 11y ago
  But also sounds like, for example, producers of vaccines arguing against that one study that vaccines cause autism. Just because they have an ulterior motive in defending their product doesn't mean they're wrong.
  - ch4s3 11y ago
    Every medical researcher argues that vaccines don't cause Autism. There is literally no study published in any serious peer reviewed journal that suggests otherwise.
    - PepeGomez 11y ago
      You mean, except that one study which started it... It's crazy to start freaking out over something just because of one small study, especially if it's something that didn't seem to have any observable negative effects until then.
  - iSnow 11y ago
    But vaccine producers can also point to a long list of independent studies to underline their arguments. Probably there are also some studies that fail to find any correlation between high sugar intake in kids and negative health signals. But I doubt those are very many or very thorough studies.
    - kevin_thibedeau 11y ago
      By the same token, there are lots of skinny people who consume sugar with no ill effects. There isn't money to be made off of them since they aren't paying for obesity related medical services or supporting the dieting industry. Medical research isn't done on healthy people because it doesn't pull in the big grant money nor do they buy pharmaceuticals. The media doesn't report on them because there isn't anything sensational about normal people doing normal things. There is a huge confirmation bias against all sorts of "bad" foods because the people who are unaffected by them are systematically ignored.
  - nommm-nommm 11y ago
- PepeGomez 11y ago
  No it isn't. It's the proposed changes being unscientific. It really hard to explain how sugar could be the culprit when its consumption didn't increase. Edit: I would just add that the name makes the result even more suspect, he seems to be the only person pushing this fructose hypothesis. I wouldn't take the results seriously until it's replicated by somebody with no connection to him.
- joonoro 11y ago
  I just watched a documentary [0] about sugar last weekend and they also compared it extensively to the tobacco industry. The sugar industry is just trying to spread enough FUD ("doctors agree, smoking is good!") so that while none of them can definitely prove that sugar is harmless, they can at least make sure that there isn't a common consensus on the issue which prevents further action. Oh, and the "adequate scientific evidence" that they are looking for is something absurd like a study where you would give kids sugar and follow their daily lives for 40 years and then see if it has negatively impacted their health. We don't even have that strong scientific evidence against tobacco to date. [0] http://sugarcoateddoc.com/ http://sugarcoateddoc.com/
- billmalarky 11y ago
  The obesity epidemic is clearly the new tobacco epidemic, but the health effects are worse, and unhealthy food is harder to avoid than smoking ever was. You can't abstain from eating like you can smoking, and ask any addict how hard it is to stay clean when everyone around you isn't. Plus at least tobacco was attractive though right guys? /s https://36.media.tumblr.com/a31b0a77b878143a5f3b3904c2a012d9/tumblr_mgmyg6gjsn1ryw4p4o1_500.jpg https://36.media.tumblr.com/a31b0a77b878143a5f3b3904c2a012d9...
bruu_ 11y ago
I feed my kid Sprinkled Donut Capn Crunch because it improves his cognitive performance in just 5 minutes. Usually after finishing the bowl he jumps up from his chair and screams "I LOVE IT!!!" and gives me a big high five and does a "victory lap" around the living room. No, we are not considering treatment for ADHD
- Synaesthesia 11y ago
  Yes but how is he 45 minutes later?
- martinko 11y ago
  > Usually after finishing the bowl he jumps up from his chair and screams "I LOVE IT!!!" Cocaine has a similar effect on me, so its probably healthy, since I love it.
  - monksy 11y ago
    Its a hell of a drug.
- ch4s3 11y ago
  Please try to comment constructively. The HN community enjoys lively debate and discussion, but this type of comment doesn't add much.
  - reddytowns 11y ago
    Are you being self-referential or what?
- Gibbon1 11y ago
  A funny comment I saw on a talk by the author. He said metabolically normal kids get the sugar high and zoom around after you give them sweets. The ones with metabolic disease just want more sugar.
sgt101 11y ago
Note : the study selected children who were considered to be "particularly high risk of diabetes and related disorders. All the subjects were black or Hispanic and obese, and had at least one or more symptoms of metabolic syndrome, a cluster of risk factors that includes hypertension, high blood sugar, abnormal cholesterol and excess body fat around the waist." I did not read that there was a control group.
- hyperpape 11y ago
  Wait, the original study didn't mention a control group, or the NYTimes didn't mention it? Those are very different.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- cryoshon 11y ago
  Great catch. It's possible that participating in a study of high risk people has a subtle influence on eating behavior such that these biomarkers might be altered over a 10 day time course anyway. I'm pretty sure that this change wouldn't be as large as the experimental group's results, but you never know.
- cle 11y ago
  The paper discusses this: However, there are some limitations to our paradigm. Athough inclusion of a separate external control group would have been optimal, it would have presented novel challenges of its own, such as: 1) if subjects under- or over-estimated their baseline fructose consumption, then providing them their reported daily fructose content would be problematic; 2) altering each subject's diet while trying to maintain the baseline fructose content would require changes in liquid versus solid, which may also result in caloric change, altered absorption, and altered satiety; and 3) our participants were all patients in an obesity program. We did not believe that maintaining fructose at the same level, even within a study, is commensurate with the message that the change in macronutrient composition is important for their health, and in order to use the study as an “educational moment.” Furthermore, others have looked longitudinally at children with obesity over time without any intervention, but still within the confines of a study, and had seen no changes in metabolic outcomes [39]. Rather, each participant served as his or her own control. Our paradigm of dietary sugar and fructose restriction, which included mid-study dietary adjustments to compensate for weight loss, resulted in a 4% decrease in percentage of calories from carbohydrate, a 2% increase in percentage of calories from protein, and a small increase in dietary fiber, which could have reduced macronutrient absorption [18], flux of fructose to the liver, and also increased satiety. Recognizing that consumption data by recall is routinely underestimated [24], we made every effort to maintain our participants' baseline weight throughout the 10-day study interval, and even increased the caloric allotment partway through the cohort, yet a decline of 0.9 ± 0.2 kg was noted during the 10 days.
lasryaric 11y ago
I completely removed added sugar from my diet for the past 6 months. It is hard to describe how my life changed. I am much better at swimming, less tired, I eat a lot less. I lost weight the first 3 months and now my weight is very stable. Cutting added sugar is not very hard but it requires some willingness. The food producers put sugar everywhere: bread, red beans, smoked salmon, yogurt, etc. You just need to read the ingredients to avoid it. You will quickly learn which type of product is ok and which type is not. Today I am more attracted to a fruit than a cup cake or an ice cream, and it feels good :)
- lasryaric 11y ago
  One more thing: I did that because I wanted to eat all the time. When I learned than sugar is addictive, I stopped.
  - jzawodn 11y ago
    This. 100 times. I've had the same experience (and a few relapses, but I do know better).
  - hristov 11y ago
    I would like to back that up. I used to be the guy that ordered miltiple additional portions of fries all the time. I thought I really liked fries. Eventually I figured out it was the sugar filled ketchup that was doing it to me. Now I eat fries without ketchup and do not usually order additional portions (unless I am really hungry). Best of all, I do not feel like I am starving myself. When I do not have ketchup, I do not get the desire to eat more.
    - lasryaric 11y ago
      Very similar stories on my side... I used to need a lot of food to feel "satisfied" or "full". Now, a regular meal, like my wife who has always eat small portion and healthy food, and I am good until the next meal.
    - brewdad 11y ago
bluedino 11y ago
I can almost understand why Soylent makes headlines here, but articles about sugar being bad for you and bacon being bad for you? There are a hundred other places online I can read about this.
- vixen99 11y ago
  It's not about you; it's about getting the message to those who need it. And that's an awful lot of people who are over-indebted to the success and productivity of the food producing industries worldwide.
tomkinstinch 11y ago
Here is a link to the actual journal article on the study, since the NYTimes omitted it for some reason (currently free to access): http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.21371/abstract http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.21371/abstrac... PDF: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.21371/pdf http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.21371/pdf Lustig, R. H., Mulligan, K., Noworolski, S. M., Tai, V. W., Wen, M. J., Erkin-Cakmak, A., Gugliucci, A. and Schwarz, J.-M. (2015), Isocaloric fructose restriction and metabolic improvement in children with obesity and metabolic syndrome. Obesity. doi: 10.1002/oby.21371 As an aside, it's very strange that the article is not cited in the NYTimes post. A journalist should at least give the DOI at the bottom if there is not a link to the article in the body of the text. Edit: I left this same comment on the NYTimes article and the text now links to the journal (though my comment was not approved). Seems like a win! NYTimes editorial staff: thank you!
- cle 11y ago
  It constantly frustrates me how news articles never cite research articles, they always just mention "a study" and the author, leaving me to fumble around for 10 minutes to find the actual study. Does anyone know why this is SOP?
  - debacle 11y ago
    Because most news organizations are not rigorous and care more about clicks than journalism.
  - kragen 11y ago
    Because journalism is a systematically dishonest profession populated largely by people who do not want their readers to be able to catch their mistakes and do not want to give credit to the researchers who made the discovery that earned the clicks for the news article. They care about entertaining, not informing; the truth or falsehood of what they are writing is irrelevant to them, except as a constraint that might impede the telling of a sensational story (all else being equal, a story is more sensational if it is true than if it is fiction). Like PageRank-hungry SEO scum, they will only name sources if they think some of that the source's credibility will rub off on their article, never vice versa.
vox_mollis 11y ago
Critical omission from title: obese children. These are kids whose livers are already suffused with fatty tissue, not average kids.
- jonlucc 11y ago
  Mean age is 13.3 ± 2.7 and the mean body weight is 93.0 ± 22.1 (~205lbs) at study start. That's pretty big for a 13 year-old.
  - DanBC 11y ago
    the CDC says 50th percentile is about 100 lbs. https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-average-weight-of-a-13-year-old-boy https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-average-weight-of-a-13-yea... http://www.cdc.gov/growthcharts/data/set1clinical/cj41c021.pdf http://www.cdc.gov/growthcharts/data/set1clinical/cj41c021.p... 93 kg puts them at something like 90th / 95th percentile.
  - mfoy_ 11y ago
    So the mean height would have to be around 5'11 for them to just be "overweight" and not "obese". Which seems unlikely for a group of young teens.
    - nols 11y ago
      The study was on obese children. The paper says on day 0 they had a mean BMI of 35.6 ± 6.4.
    - nommm-nommm 11y ago
      Obesity in children is measured a bit differently. They use BMI-for-age percentiles, not Straight BMI. From the CDC: Overweight is defined as a BMI at or above the 85th percentile and below the 95th percentile for children and teens of the same age and sex. Obesity is defined as a BMI at or above the 95th percentile for children and teens of the same age and sex.
- tootie 11y ago
halotrope 11y ago
When experimenting with intermittent fasting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermittent_fasting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermittent_fasting) I have also observed that my lust for sweets and other "unhealthy" foods completely disappeared. Somehow after a grace period the taste (In my subjective experience) gets much more aligned to foods that we know are considered healthy. I think adjusting ones diet to minimise sugar and highly processed food can do wonders for ones general health and well-being.
gloves 11y ago
I'm not sure how this is news to anyone these days. There are a billion and one places you could go on the web, see on TV, read in books, or even speak with neighbours and the same advice would be given. Lots of sugar = bad. Less sugar = generally good. The human body is quite remarkable in it's ability to adapt, the only thing this article adds is the '10 days' portion (pun intended), but even that isn't too surprising!
dekhn 11y ago
This article has all the hallmarks of poor science: 1) very small study size 2) very short study period 3) self reported consumption 4) marginal p-values 5) highly biased first author.
- thrownaway2424 11y ago
  Agreed on 1-4 but you lost me at #5. Explain?
  - dekhn 11y ago
    You should always consider the bias of the author of a paper when evaluating it. THe author has a vested interest in seeing an outcome. Many authors permit their bias to allow themselves to overanalyze a poorly designed study. Lustig has a history of doing this, for example he published papers previously where the evidence led to a different conclusion; in particular, he selectively analyzed his data to support his conclusion, but direct analysis showed the opposite.
    - awolf 11y ago
      >for example he published papers previously where the evidence led to a different conclusion I did not know this. Could you share the papers you're talking about?
      - dekhn 11y ago
        http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0057873 http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.... read the paper carefully.
- ibejoeb 11y ago
  I'm curious what the consensus is around Lustig and his work. He seems to have impeccable credentials in medicine and nutrition. He seems forthright with the science, but I don't have the requisite biochemistry skills to evaluate it myself. I'm don't know if he's biased or just right. I'm happy to hear a refutation of his arguments. For those unfamiliar, here's the talk the probably gave rise his noteriety: https://youtu.be/dBnniua6-oM https://youtu.be/dBnniua6-oM. It's long, but it's interesting.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
genuinejack 11y ago
Just in time for Halloween!
CIPHERSTONE 11y ago
I believe it (not having read the article). I went Paleo when my blood sugar finally went from borderline diabetic to your blood sugar is now diabetic, you either get results or go on pills at my doctors suggestion. Just had my three month bloodwork done and the reduction in blood sugar and cholesterol are staggering.
- Gibbon1 11y ago
  I saw a couple of videos' through the UCSF web portal by this guy (Lustig) a few years ago. I can summarize what he said about various diets. The Paleo and Atkins diets work not because what they include but by what they exclude; processed carbs, sugar, and booze. Another comment. Dr Lustig is a pediatric endocrinologist. If you start looking though the literature. Doctors, nutritionists, etc are all doing research to prove low fat diets work. And high fat diets are bad. And it's all about will power. The pediatric endocrinologists started working the processed carbs, sugar (fructose) are bad angle about ten to fifteen years ago. Probably about five years ago they became absolutely convinced this is correct.
suprgeek 11y ago
This is a very good first step - now we need more research into whether this holds for non-obese kids who are not Hispanic or black. I.e. does cutting out almost all added sugars from the diet of a normal weight kid improve health outcomes? Also note that the lead Author is Robert Lustig - I first ran into a lecture called "The bitter truth" by him against Sugar. So it seems to be a pet crusade of his (not that that invalidates the result).
malkia 11y ago
Sugar is the drug that makes us sick, but we keep it (and I love it in many different forms). I'm addicted to it...
sugarcube 11y ago
They don't mention any kind of blind? Maybe the kids just improved because they were receiving attention...
acd 11y ago
There is something called blue zone food, Okinawa islands. There have been a studies of the people who live longest and what they eat. The study concluded you should cut down on sugar and white flour. Use fresh locally produced food and avoid processed foods.
_superposition_ 11y ago
"the findings add to the argument that all calories are not created equal." Well pardon my french but no fcking sht. Anyone person/system who strictly counts calories and completely looks over the fact that there are literally millions of other organisms involved in the digestive/energy process gets no love from me. Unfortunately its not as simple as calories in/calories out.
- wnevets 11y ago
  You make it sound so obvious but there are many many people who still think in these terms. I recently had a comment in /r/science downvoted into oblivion for saying not all calories are created equal.
  - _superposition_ 11y ago
    I wonder how many of those people are counting the calories in their own feces to get an accurate measurement...
- jonlucc 11y ago
  I think the problem here is that of BMI. While it is true that BMI is not always accurate as a measure of fitness, it usually is for people who go around saying that BMI doesn't mean anything. It is only incorrect for people who are extremely muscular, and those people know they're fit enough because they have other measures (like precise measures of body composition) to tell them. So while it is true that not all calories are created equal, the people who most often seem to go around saying that seem to be the same people who refuse to pay attention to portion size and then bitch about not losing weight because they're only eating healthy foods.
  - billmalarky 11y ago
    >While it is true that BMI is not always accurate as a measure of fitness You're right. I've never seen a fit person complain about the inaccuracy of BMI in anything other than a joking manner. It isn't precise, but it's "good enough" for the majority of people. It's a heuristic. On the other hand, people who are clearly in poor shape love to scream up and down about how inaccurate BMI is at determining fitness levels. Ironic because BMI generally puts non-active people in a positive light. If we switched to body-fat percentage something tells me a lot of these folks would be clamoring to get BMI back since it under-reports people who have low enough mass to be not considered obese, but too high body fat to be healthy (thus are at greater risk for diabetes etc).
zubspace 11y ago
There's a very revealing and entertaining documentation about the rise of sugar in our lives, drawing parallels between the tobacco lobby and the sugar lobby: Sugar Coated (2015). Highly recommended. It was streaming on tvo, but somehow the stream does not work anymore. I only found a german version on arte. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4425138/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4425138/ http://www.arte.tv/guide/de/054774-000/die-grosse-zuckerluege http://www.arte.tv/guide/de/054774-000/die-grosse-zuckerlueg... http://tvo.org/video/documentaries/sugar-coated http://tvo.org/video/documentaries/sugar-coated (not working) In some ways, sugar is even harder to control than tobacco. Smoking is a choice, but sugar is essential for living. It plays a big role in our society. Remember the last birthday party/christmas/anything without sugar overdose?... Me neither.. And its hard to prove that over-consumption is unhealthy.
pierrec 11y ago
I'm seeing a lot of reactions that seem to imply the current situation with added sugar is okay, and that this research can be dismissed as being too specific in terms of sample subjects. Let's be clear, this research is specific, and all it does is add yet another point in a massive cloud of evidence pointing towards the current dietary disaster that is added sugar. But don't take my word for it, please, do your own quick research on the subject. Look up terms like Sugar+Diet or Sugar+Nutrition on Google scholar. Go through the abstracts, the literature reviews. And stop spreading baseless opinions, especially when it's potentially very harmful to the people reading them. When you see a comment that poorly defends a valid position, reply by defending it properly, not by pointing out the flaws and/or following up with FUD when you haven't done basic research on the subject.
- tshadwell 11y ago
  It would be great if you could back up your statements with citations so the burden of proof wasn't on me doing research in Google Scholar.
  - mrkurt 11y ago
    "Search for these terms on Google Scholar" is a pretty good citation.
    - pmelendez 11y ago
      It is actually less useful that sending people to the library. Google scholar is just an index and often points to papers that require a payment (without we knowing if the article is good or not). If instead OP would give a citation then one could go directly to that source.
      - mrkurt 11y ago
        His biggest point was "there's a tremendous body of research about X", though. Unless there's a magical meta paper that supports that, it's difficult to cite something specific.
joeyspn 11y ago
As an anecdote, 10 days ago I decided to try and go nuclear with sugar and high GI foods (bread, rice, etc) for a month after watching this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyeor3z9EdQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyeor3z9EdQ The first week I've been feeling odd and lethargic with the second day including flu-like symptoms. In little more than one week I've lost 1.5kg (~3 lbs). Now I start to feel more energetic and tomorrow I'll be hitting the gym for the first time since I started. If I manage to lose 10 lbs, I'll probably stick to the diet for some months more. (I needed to lose 40 lbs or so anyways)...
- drumdance 11y ago
  We're on almost the exact same timeline. The only added sugar I get right now is from about 2 grams in balsamic vinaigrette salad dressing. I've dropped roughly 10 pounds. My goal is to stay sugar free until Thanksgiving, then see how I feel after pigging out and the next couple days after. Edit: btw I was already in good shape. A little bit of belly fat but I can still wear slim clothes. So for me at least the effect is there despite starting in the normal weight range.
  - joeyspn 11y ago
    I have started with slight overweight, but I'm a regular in the gym so I'm in good (muscular) shape, I just need to drop some extra lbs. Before cutting sugar and high GI foods, I had to do 4-5 days of intensive cardio in order to drop 2 lbs in one week. Now I'm losing them almost without exercising (only walking here and there)... My goal is to adjust my diet to a minimum of sugar (complex carbs, fruits, raw honey, etc) that allows me to stay in my BMI and 6–13% BFP (I was at 5% in my early 20s!)
- ahallock 11y ago
  Counter anecdote: check out Durianrider. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W02aYmy1lcg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W02aYmy1lcg High-carb, low fat.
  - joeyspn 11y ago
damnmachine 11y ago
Sure, I noticed an immediate difference when I cut back on extraneous sugar content like soda and junk food. I also lost about 15 pounds over the course of a month. I noticed a mild withdrawal but once you get past that and as time goes on, you crave it less and less. The human body does need a certain amount to function but those amounts are easily obtained via a healthy diet with plenty of fruits and vegetables.
nekopa 11y ago
With all the discussion going on here, I would like to pop up a quick question: How can one go about learning about nutrition? I have tried many, many times to do this, but I always run into these problems: 1: I can't find a "big picture" overview of the field, and thereby learn which areas to focus on 2: Most of what I find seems to be anecdata, or poorly constructed studies "We followed these 7 people..." 3: The rest of which I find is always biased by what the author is trying to promote - Low Carbs! No Carbs! Water! Fruit fruit fruit!!! and suffers from points 1 and 2 above... I would really like some good recommendations for books on learning nutrition science. From the ground (coffee) up.
- wizeman 11y ago
  This is not a book, but could be a starting point: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/ http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/
  - nekopa 11y ago
    Thanks for the link! But I still have problem 1: A big picture view of the field. I am looking for a kinda Cliff's Notes of the nutrition field. Then I feel a lot of the sections on that site I would be better prepared to deal with in an informed way.
- fomoz 11y ago
  Start here: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/a-primer-on-nutrition-part-1.html/ http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/a-primer-on-nutri... http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/a-primer-on-nutrition-part-2.html/ http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/a-primer-on-nutri... Then explore the rest of the site: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition When you're ready, start reading LeanGains: http://www.leangains.com/2010/10/top-ten-fasting-myths-debunked.html http://www.leangains.com/2010/10/top-ten-fasting-myths-debun... http://www.leangains.com/2010/04/leangains-guide.html http://www.leangains.com/2010/04/leangains-guide.html
- ggregoire 11y ago
  I learned a lot by reading this site http://simplesciencefitness.com http://simplesciencefitness.com
dewarrn1 11y ago
Robert Lustig, first author on this paper, has written a very accessible book on the same topic titled "Fat Chance" [0]. I enjoyed it, although I can't vouch for all of the science. Full disclosure: I did stop eating sugary food after reading and watching some of Lustig's presentations, and I'm generally pleased with the results. [0] http://amzn.to/1S7LmQY http://amzn.to/1S7LmQY
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
c3534l 11y ago
Even the New York Times is not immune to the impulse towards click-baity, misleading article titles.
Nemant 11y ago
Great, so scientist are now telling me what my mom had been telling me for years. I guess I should listen to my mom more often.
godgod 11y ago
Sugar is bad for you. Quitting it obviously improves your health. Why is this science?
Justin_K 11y ago
Post a story like this on HN and of course the fat, Jolt drinking IT guys are going to revolt.
kazinator 11y ago
I cut back my kid's syntactic sugar, and he developed a Lisp.
brianmback 11y ago
Anyone's health
cdnsteve 11y ago
Go watch Forks over Knives on Netflix.
nichochar 11y ago
My mother always told me how angry it made her to see obese children. If you're an obese adult, it sucks and there are things to say, but whatever you do you. But kids don't know, kids need to be taught. And you're basically 100% responsible for any kind of extra weight on your child.
lasryaric 11y ago
I posted a comment earlier today describing my own experience. I never said that everybody should stop eating food with added sugar, I just said it worked for me. One main thing we don't mention in this thread is that sugar is addictive. Cutting sugar was hard like quitting somking was hard. If you never got addicted like I was, I guess it os hard to understand the problem. But when you are addicted it is hard to just know if you are hungry or not. So I choosed to go on the other extreme which works better for me.
fomoz 11y ago
Lustig just doesn't give up. He has already been crushed by Alan Aragon five years ago. http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/02/19/a-retrospective-of-the-fructose-alarmism-debate/ http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/02/19/a-retrospective-of-...
- knappador 11y ago
  Credentials would tend to support the practicing endocrinologist. Also, the data Lustig really had to go get was the causal inference where increasing fructose had a delayed response of increased metabolic syndrome. That study has been done now.
suneilp 11y ago
I read an interesting article on how excess sugar clogs the tiny blood vessels and tissues where there aren't really any blood vessels. Circulation in these areas won't be as great by the nature of things so clogging them up has a greater impact. It prevents nutrient/waste flow to tissues. Just think about that for a bit. Accumulating waste and blocking delivery of nutrients. Balancing sugar intake and moving around, even if it's just walking, on a regular basis will fix you up real fast.
lanceroll25 11y ago
cut sugar.. By the way,if any of you wants to lose belly fat, here is the Lin,daily bone broth drink and keep their health properly, It is not fat at all sure he could drink any of it, in this very calcium , is a protein which is essential for bodies For more information about bone broth Look at this site.-https://www.bonebroth.com/ https://www.bonebroth.com/

546 points by imjk 11y ago

iSnow 11y ago

>The proposed changes have been strongly opposed by the food industry as unscientific. The Sugar Association, a trade group, said the F.D.A. was “making assertions that lack adequate scientific evidence,” and the Grocery Manufacturers Association criticized the standards the agency used to establish the daily value as being “inadequate.” That's the tobacco industry smoke-screening evidence about the dangers of smoking all over again.

antsar 11y ago
Not to mention just how wrong the name "Grocery Manufacturers Association" sounds.
adventured 11y ago
Throw in that two of the world's largest corporations are little more than glorified sugar pushers - Coke and Pepsi - and you have a replay of the 90's tobacco scene. Just Coke and Pepsi together represent a sugar ecosystem worth perhaps half a trillion dollars globally (their market caps + companies directly dependent on them + retail). The upside is, those companies are slowly dying. Coke's sales the last three years: $48 billion > $46.8b > $45.8b We can add trash like McDonald's into this, their last three years of sales: $27.5 billion > $28.1b > $27.4b These types of companies will continue to bleed sales and struggle in the next decade as consumers seek alternatives.
- punee 11y ago
  Alternatives like Diet Coke? But don't hesitate to put your money where your mouth is and buy Coke put options.
  - drumdance 11y ago
    I recently cut out sugar and also quit diet drinks. I've heard that aspartame can have sugar-like effects, particularly triggering food cravings. I used to drink two, three sometimes more 7-11 style Big Gulps every day. Cutting them out has made a difference in my subjective quality of life but it's hard to describe.
    - ascagnel_ 11y ago
      A Big Gulp is 40 oz; I'd imagine cutting out 120 oz daily of anything would have a notable impact on your overall state. For comparison, the most current recommendation I could find was for 64 oz of water a day -- about half of your prior soda intake.
      - drumdance 11y ago
        I only drank diet drinks. 0 calories but lots of aspartame.
    - simplexion 11y ago
      Are your teeth ruined?
      - drumdance 11y ago
        No. I haven't had a cavity in at least ten years.
  - billmalarky 11y ago
    >consumers seek alternatives >Buy put coke options What if coke is able to change their business and provide those healthy alternatives? A big what if, admittedly, since the dopamine hit provided by sugar is what drives excess consumption of the product. But never say never.
    - punee 11y ago
      Then I guess Coke won't "continue to bleed sales and struggle" as the parent suggested? Note that Coke ALREADY provides "healthy alternatives" (they sell bottled water if that's your thing). And also note that the parent has no idea what part of Coke's product line the dip in sales was caused by, whether it's an industry-wide phenomenon or not, etc. etc. That's because the parent is just some armchair financial analyst spouting nonsense.
Grue3 11y ago
But also sounds like, for example, producers of vaccines arguing against that one study that vaccines cause autism. Just because they have an ulterior motive in defending their product doesn't mean they're wrong.
- ch4s3 11y ago
  Every medical researcher argues that vaccines don't cause Autism. There is literally no study published in any serious peer reviewed journal that suggests otherwise.
  - PepeGomez 11y ago
    You mean, except that one study which started it... It's crazy to start freaking out over something just because of one small study, especially if it's something that didn't seem to have any observable negative effects until then.
- iSnow 11y ago
  But vaccine producers can also point to a long list of independent studies to underline their arguments. Probably there are also some studies that fail to find any correlation between high sugar intake in kids and negative health signals. But I doubt those are very many or very thorough studies.
  - kevin_thibedeau 11y ago
    By the same token, there are lots of skinny people who consume sugar with no ill effects. There isn't money to be made off of them since they aren't paying for obesity related medical services or supporting the dieting industry. Medical research isn't done on healthy people because it doesn't pull in the big grant money nor do they buy pharmaceuticals. The media doesn't report on them because there isn't anything sensational about normal people doing normal things. There is a huge confirmation bias against all sorts of "bad" foods because the people who are unaffected by them are systematically ignored.
- nommm-nommm 11y ago
PepeGomez 11y ago
No it isn't. It's the proposed changes being unscientific. It really hard to explain how sugar could be the culprit when its consumption didn't increase. Edit: I would just add that the name makes the result even more suspect, he seems to be the only person pushing this fructose hypothesis. I wouldn't take the results seriously until it's replicated by somebody with no connection to him.
joonoro 11y ago
I just watched a documentary [0] about sugar last weekend and they also compared it extensively to the tobacco industry. The sugar industry is just trying to spread enough FUD ("doctors agree, smoking is good!") so that while none of them can definitely prove that sugar is harmless, they can at least make sure that there isn't a common consensus on the issue which prevents further action. Oh, and the "adequate scientific evidence" that they are looking for is something absurd like a study where you would give kids sugar and follow their daily lives for 40 years and then see if it has negatively impacted their health. We don't even have that strong scientific evidence against tobacco to date. [0] http://sugarcoateddoc.com/ http://sugarcoateddoc.com/
billmalarky 11y ago
The obesity epidemic is clearly the new tobacco epidemic, but the health effects are worse, and unhealthy food is harder to avoid than smoking ever was. You can't abstain from eating like you can smoking, and ask any addict how hard it is to stay clean when everyone around you isn't. Plus at least tobacco was attractive though right guys? /s https://36.media.tumblr.com/a31b0a77b878143a5f3b3904c2a012d9/tumblr_mgmyg6gjsn1ryw4p4o1_500.jpg https://36.media.tumblr.com/a31b0a77b878143a5f3b3904c2a012d9...

bruu_ 11y ago

I feed my kid Sprinkled Donut Capn Crunch because it improves his cognitive performance in just 5 minutes. Usually after finishing the bowl he jumps up from his chair and screams "I LOVE IT!!!" and gives me a big high five and does a "victory lap" around the living room. No, we are not considering treatment for ADHD

Synaesthesia 11y ago
Yes but how is he 45 minutes later?
martinko 11y ago
> Usually after finishing the bowl he jumps up from his chair and screams "I LOVE IT!!!" Cocaine has a similar effect on me, so its probably healthy, since I love it.
- monksy 11y ago
  Its a hell of a drug.
ch4s3 11y ago
Please try to comment constructively. The HN community enjoys lively debate and discussion, but this type of comment doesn't add much.
- reddytowns 11y ago
  Are you being self-referential or what?
Gibbon1 11y ago
A funny comment I saw on a talk by the author. He said metabolically normal kids get the sugar high and zoom around after you give them sweets. The ones with metabolic disease just want more sugar.

sgt101 11y ago

Note : the study selected children who were considered to be "particularly high risk of diabetes and related disorders. All the subjects were black or Hispanic and obese, and had at least one or more symptoms of metabolic syndrome, a cluster of risk factors that includes hypertension, high blood sugar, abnormal cholesterol and excess body fat around the waist." I did not read that there was a control group.

hyperpape 11y ago
Wait, the original study didn't mention a control group, or the NYTimes didn't mention it? Those are very different.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
cryoshon 11y ago
Great catch. It's possible that participating in a study of high risk people has a subtle influence on eating behavior such that these biomarkers might be altered over a 10 day time course anyway. I'm pretty sure that this change wouldn't be as large as the experimental group's results, but you never know.
cle 11y ago
The paper discusses this: However, there are some limitations to our paradigm. Athough inclusion of a separate external control group would have been optimal, it would have presented novel challenges of its own, such as: 1) if subjects under- or over-estimated their baseline fructose consumption, then providing them their reported daily fructose content would be problematic; 2) altering each subject's diet while trying to maintain the baseline fructose content would require changes in liquid versus solid, which may also result in caloric change, altered absorption, and altered satiety; and 3) our participants were all patients in an obesity program. We did not believe that maintaining fructose at the same level, even within a study, is commensurate with the message that the change in macronutrient composition is important for their health, and in order to use the study as an “educational moment.” Furthermore, others have looked longitudinally at children with obesity over time without any intervention, but still within the confines of a study, and had seen no changes in metabolic outcomes [39]. Rather, each participant served as his or her own control. Our paradigm of dietary sugar and fructose restriction, which included mid-study dietary adjustments to compensate for weight loss, resulted in a 4% decrease in percentage of calories from carbohydrate, a 2% increase in percentage of calories from protein, and a small increase in dietary fiber, which could have reduced macronutrient absorption [18], flux of fructose to the liver, and also increased satiety. Recognizing that consumption data by recall is routinely underestimated [24], we made every effort to maintain our participants' baseline weight throughout the 10-day study interval, and even increased the caloric allotment partway through the cohort, yet a decline of 0.9 ± 0.2 kg was noted during the 10 days.

lasryaric 11y ago

I completely removed added sugar from my diet for the past 6 months. It is hard to describe how my life changed. I am much better at swimming, less tired, I eat a lot less. I lost weight the first 3 months and now my weight is very stable. Cutting added sugar is not very hard but it requires some willingness. The food producers put sugar everywhere: bread, red beans, smoked salmon, yogurt, etc. You just need to read the ingredients to avoid it. You will quickly learn which type of product is ok and which type is not. Today I am more attracted to a fruit than a cup cake or an ice cream, and it feels good :)

lasryaric 11y ago
One more thing: I did that because I wanted to eat all the time. When I learned than sugar is addictive, I stopped.
- jzawodn 11y ago
  This. 100 times. I've had the same experience (and a few relapses, but I do know better).
- hristov 11y ago
  I would like to back that up. I used to be the guy that ordered miltiple additional portions of fries all the time. I thought I really liked fries. Eventually I figured out it was the sugar filled ketchup that was doing it to me. Now I eat fries without ketchup and do not usually order additional portions (unless I am really hungry). Best of all, I do not feel like I am starving myself. When I do not have ketchup, I do not get the desire to eat more.
  - lasryaric 11y ago
    Very similar stories on my side... I used to need a lot of food to feel "satisfied" or "full". Now, a regular meal, like my wife who has always eat small portion and healthy food, and I am good until the next meal.
  - brewdad 11y ago

bluedino 11y ago

I can almost understand why Soylent makes headlines here, but articles about sugar being bad for you and bacon being bad for you? There are a hundred other places online I can read about this.

vixen99 11y ago
It's not about you; it's about getting the message to those who need it. And that's an awful lot of people who are over-indebted to the success and productivity of the food producing industries worldwide.

tomkinstinch 11y ago

Here is a link to the actual journal article on the study, since the NYTimes omitted it for some reason (currently free to access): http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.21371/abstract http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.21371/abstrac... PDF: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.21371/pdf http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.21371/pdf Lustig, R. H., Mulligan, K., Noworolski, S. M., Tai, V. W., Wen, M. J., Erkin-Cakmak, A., Gugliucci, A. and Schwarz, J.-M. (2015), Isocaloric fructose restriction and metabolic improvement in children with obesity and metabolic syndrome. Obesity. doi: 10.1002/oby.21371 As an aside, it's very strange that the article is not cited in the NYTimes post. A journalist should at least give the DOI at the bottom if there is not a link to the article in the body of the text. Edit: I left this same comment on the NYTimes article and the text now links to the journal (though my comment was not approved). Seems like a win! NYTimes editorial staff: thank you!

cle 11y ago
It constantly frustrates me how news articles never cite research articles, they always just mention "a study" and the author, leaving me to fumble around for 10 minutes to find the actual study. Does anyone know why this is SOP?
- debacle 11y ago
  Because most news organizations are not rigorous and care more about clicks than journalism.
- kragen 11y ago
  Because journalism is a systematically dishonest profession populated largely by people who do not want their readers to be able to catch their mistakes and do not want to give credit to the researchers who made the discovery that earned the clicks for the news article. They care about entertaining, not informing; the truth or falsehood of what they are writing is irrelevant to them, except as a constraint that might impede the telling of a sensational story (all else being equal, a story is more sensational if it is true than if it is fiction). Like PageRank-hungry SEO scum, they will only name sources if they think some of that the source's credibility will rub off on their article, never vice versa.

vox_mollis 11y ago

Critical omission from title: obese children. These are kids whose livers are already suffused with fatty tissue, not average kids.

jonlucc 11y ago
Mean age is 13.3 ± 2.7 and the mean body weight is 93.0 ± 22.1 (~205lbs) at study start. That's pretty big for a 13 year-old.
- DanBC 11y ago
  the CDC says 50th percentile is about 100 lbs. https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-average-weight-of-a-13-year-old-boy https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-average-weight-of-a-13-yea... http://www.cdc.gov/growthcharts/data/set1clinical/cj41c021.pdf http://www.cdc.gov/growthcharts/data/set1clinical/cj41c021.p... 93 kg puts them at something like 90th / 95th percentile.
- mfoy_ 11y ago
  So the mean height would have to be around 5'11 for them to just be "overweight" and not "obese". Which seems unlikely for a group of young teens.
  - nols 11y ago
    The study was on obese children. The paper says on day 0 they had a mean BMI of 35.6 ± 6.4.
  - nommm-nommm 11y ago
    Obesity in children is measured a bit differently. They use BMI-for-age percentiles, not Straight BMI. From the CDC: Overweight is defined as a BMI at or above the 85th percentile and below the 95th percentile for children and teens of the same age and sex. Obesity is defined as a BMI at or above the 95th percentile for children and teens of the same age and sex.
tootie 11y ago

halotrope 11y ago

When experimenting with intermittent fasting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermittent_fasting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermittent_fasting) I have also observed that my lust for sweets and other "unhealthy" foods completely disappeared. Somehow after a grace period the taste (In my subjective experience) gets much more aligned to foods that we know are considered healthy. I think adjusting ones diet to minimise sugar and highly processed food can do wonders for ones general health and well-being.

gloves 11y ago

I'm not sure how this is news to anyone these days. There are a billion and one places you could go on the web, see on TV, read in books, or even speak with neighbours and the same advice would be given. Lots of sugar = bad. Less sugar = generally good. The human body is quite remarkable in it's ability to adapt, the only thing this article adds is the '10 days' portion (pun intended), but even that isn't too surprising!

dekhn 11y ago

This article has all the hallmarks of poor science: 1) very small study size 2) very short study period 3) self reported consumption 4) marginal p-values 5) highly biased first author.

thrownaway2424 11y ago
Agreed on 1-4 but you lost me at #5. Explain?
- dekhn 11y ago
  You should always consider the bias of the author of a paper when evaluating it. THe author has a vested interest in seeing an outcome. Many authors permit their bias to allow themselves to overanalyze a poorly designed study. Lustig has a history of doing this, for example he published papers previously where the evidence led to a different conclusion; in particular, he selectively analyzed his data to support his conclusion, but direct analysis showed the opposite.
  - awolf 11y ago
    >for example he published papers previously where the evidence led to a different conclusion I did not know this. Could you share the papers you're talking about?
    - dekhn 11y ago
      http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0057873 http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.... read the paper carefully.
ibejoeb 11y ago
I'm curious what the consensus is around Lustig and his work. He seems to have impeccable credentials in medicine and nutrition. He seems forthright with the science, but I don't have the requisite biochemistry skills to evaluate it myself. I'm don't know if he's biased or just right. I'm happy to hear a refutation of his arguments. For those unfamiliar, here's the talk the probably gave rise his noteriety: https://youtu.be/dBnniua6-oM https://youtu.be/dBnniua6-oM. It's long, but it's interesting.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

genuinejack 11y ago

Just in time for Halloween!

CIPHERSTONE 11y ago

I believe it (not having read the article). I went Paleo when my blood sugar finally went from borderline diabetic to your blood sugar is now diabetic, you either get results or go on pills at my doctors suggestion. Just had my three month bloodwork done and the reduction in blood sugar and cholesterol are staggering.

Gibbon1 11y ago
I saw a couple of videos' through the UCSF web portal by this guy (Lustig) a few years ago. I can summarize what he said about various diets. The Paleo and Atkins diets work not because what they include but by what they exclude; processed carbs, sugar, and booze. Another comment. Dr Lustig is a pediatric endocrinologist. If you start looking though the literature. Doctors, nutritionists, etc are all doing research to prove low fat diets work. And high fat diets are bad. And it's all about will power. The pediatric endocrinologists started working the processed carbs, sugar (fructose) are bad angle about ten to fifteen years ago. Probably about five years ago they became absolutely convinced this is correct.

suprgeek 11y ago

This is a very good first step - now we need more research into whether this holds for non-obese kids who are not Hispanic or black. I.e. does cutting out almost all added sugars from the diet of a normal weight kid improve health outcomes? Also note that the lead Author is Robert Lustig - I first ran into a lecture called "The bitter truth" by him against Sugar. So it seems to be a pet crusade of his (not that that invalidates the result).

malkia 11y ago

Sugar is the drug that makes us sick, but we keep it (and I love it in many different forms). I'm addicted to it...

sugarcube 11y ago

They don't mention any kind of blind? Maybe the kids just improved because they were receiving attention...

acd 11y ago

There is something called blue zone food, Okinawa islands. There have been a studies of the people who live longest and what they eat. The study concluded you should cut down on sugar and white flour. Use fresh locally produced food and avoid processed foods.

_superposition_ 11y ago

"the findings add to the argument that all calories are not created equal." Well pardon my french but no fcking sht. Anyone person/system who strictly counts calories and completely looks over the fact that there are literally millions of other organisms involved in the digestive/energy process gets no love from me. Unfortunately its not as simple as calories in/calories out.

wnevets 11y ago
You make it sound so obvious but there are many many people who still think in these terms. I recently had a comment in /r/science downvoted into oblivion for saying not all calories are created equal.
- _superposition_ 11y ago
  I wonder how many of those people are counting the calories in their own feces to get an accurate measurement...
jonlucc 11y ago
I think the problem here is that of BMI. While it is true that BMI is not always accurate as a measure of fitness, it usually is for people who go around saying that BMI doesn't mean anything. It is only incorrect for people who are extremely muscular, and those people know they're fit enough because they have other measures (like precise measures of body composition) to tell them. So while it is true that not all calories are created equal, the people who most often seem to go around saying that seem to be the same people who refuse to pay attention to portion size and then bitch about not losing weight because they're only eating healthy foods.
- billmalarky 11y ago
  >While it is true that BMI is not always accurate as a measure of fitness You're right. I've never seen a fit person complain about the inaccuracy of BMI in anything other than a joking manner. It isn't precise, but it's "good enough" for the majority of people. It's a heuristic. On the other hand, people who are clearly in poor shape love to scream up and down about how inaccurate BMI is at determining fitness levels. Ironic because BMI generally puts non-active people in a positive light. If we switched to body-fat percentage something tells me a lot of these folks would be clamoring to get BMI back since it under-reports people who have low enough mass to be not considered obese, but too high body fat to be healthy (thus are at greater risk for diabetes etc).

zubspace 11y ago

There's a very revealing and entertaining documentation about the rise of sugar in our lives, drawing parallels between the tobacco lobby and the sugar lobby: Sugar Coated (2015). Highly recommended. It was streaming on tvo, but somehow the stream does not work anymore. I only found a german version on arte. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4425138/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4425138/ http://www.arte.tv/guide/de/054774-000/die-grosse-zuckerluege http://www.arte.tv/guide/de/054774-000/die-grosse-zuckerlueg... http://tvo.org/video/documentaries/sugar-coated http://tvo.org/video/documentaries/sugar-coated (not working) In some ways, sugar is even harder to control than tobacco. Smoking is a choice, but sugar is essential for living. It plays a big role in our society. Remember the last birthday party/christmas/anything without sugar overdose?... Me neither.. And its hard to prove that over-consumption is unhealthy.

pierrec 11y ago

I'm seeing a lot of reactions that seem to imply the current situation with added sugar is okay, and that this research can be dismissed as being too specific in terms of sample subjects. Let's be clear, this research is specific, and all it does is add yet another point in a massive cloud of evidence pointing towards the current dietary disaster that is added sugar. But don't take my word for it, please, do your own quick research on the subject. Look up terms like Sugar+Diet or Sugar+Nutrition on Google scholar. Go through the abstracts, the literature reviews. And stop spreading baseless opinions, especially when it's potentially very harmful to the people reading them. When you see a comment that poorly defends a valid position, reply by defending it properly, not by pointing out the flaws and/or following up with FUD when you haven't done basic research on the subject.

tshadwell 11y ago
It would be great if you could back up your statements with citations so the burden of proof wasn't on me doing research in Google Scholar.
- mrkurt 11y ago
  "Search for these terms on Google Scholar" is a pretty good citation.
  - pmelendez 11y ago
    It is actually less useful that sending people to the library. Google scholar is just an index and often points to papers that require a payment (without we knowing if the article is good or not). If instead OP would give a citation then one could go directly to that source.
    - mrkurt 11y ago
      His biggest point was "there's a tremendous body of research about X", though. Unless there's a magical meta paper that supports that, it's difficult to cite something specific.

joeyspn 11y ago

As an anecdote, 10 days ago I decided to try and go nuclear with sugar and high GI foods (bread, rice, etc) for a month after watching this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyeor3z9EdQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyeor3z9EdQ The first week I've been feeling odd and lethargic with the second day including flu-like symptoms. In little more than one week I've lost 1.5kg (~3 lbs). Now I start to feel more energetic and tomorrow I'll be hitting the gym for the first time since I started. If I manage to lose 10 lbs, I'll probably stick to the diet for some months more. (I needed to lose 40 lbs or so anyways)...

drumdance 11y ago
We're on almost the exact same timeline. The only added sugar I get right now is from about 2 grams in balsamic vinaigrette salad dressing. I've dropped roughly 10 pounds. My goal is to stay sugar free until Thanksgiving, then see how I feel after pigging out and the next couple days after. Edit: btw I was already in good shape. A little bit of belly fat but I can still wear slim clothes. So for me at least the effect is there despite starting in the normal weight range.
- joeyspn 11y ago
  I have started with slight overweight, but I'm a regular in the gym so I'm in good (muscular) shape, I just need to drop some extra lbs. Before cutting sugar and high GI foods, I had to do 4-5 days of intensive cardio in order to drop 2 lbs in one week. Now I'm losing them almost without exercising (only walking here and there)... My goal is to adjust my diet to a minimum of sugar (complex carbs, fruits, raw honey, etc) that allows me to stay in my BMI and 6–13% BFP (I was at 5% in my early 20s!)
ahallock 11y ago
Counter anecdote: check out Durianrider. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W02aYmy1lcg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W02aYmy1lcg High-carb, low fat.
- joeyspn 11y ago

damnmachine 11y ago

Sure, I noticed an immediate difference when I cut back on extraneous sugar content like soda and junk food. I also lost about 15 pounds over the course of a month. I noticed a mild withdrawal but once you get past that and as time goes on, you crave it less and less. The human body does need a certain amount to function but those amounts are easily obtained via a healthy diet with plenty of fruits and vegetables.

nekopa 11y ago

With all the discussion going on here, I would like to pop up a quick question: How can one go about learning about nutrition? I have tried many, many times to do this, but I always run into these problems: 1: I can't find a "big picture" overview of the field, and thereby learn which areas to focus on 2: Most of what I find seems to be anecdata, or poorly constructed studies "We followed these 7 people..." 3: The rest of which I find is always biased by what the author is trying to promote - Low Carbs! No Carbs! Water! Fruit fruit fruit!!! and suffers from points 1 and 2 above... I would really like some good recommendations for books on learning nutrition science. From the ground (coffee) up.

wizeman 11y ago
This is not a book, but could be a starting point: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/ http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/
- nekopa 11y ago
  Thanks for the link! But I still have problem 1: A big picture view of the field. I am looking for a kinda Cliff's Notes of the nutrition field. Then I feel a lot of the sections on that site I would be better prepared to deal with in an informed way.
fomoz 11y ago
Start here: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/a-primer-on-nutrition-part-1.html/ http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/a-primer-on-nutri... http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/a-primer-on-nutrition-part-2.html/ http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/a-primer-on-nutri... Then explore the rest of the site: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition When you're ready, start reading LeanGains: http://www.leangains.com/2010/10/top-ten-fasting-myths-debunked.html http://www.leangains.com/2010/10/top-ten-fasting-myths-debun... http://www.leangains.com/2010/04/leangains-guide.html http://www.leangains.com/2010/04/leangains-guide.html
ggregoire 11y ago
I learned a lot by reading this site http://simplesciencefitness.com http://simplesciencefitness.com

dewarrn1 11y ago

Robert Lustig, first author on this paper, has written a very accessible book on the same topic titled "Fat Chance" [0]. I enjoyed it, although I can't vouch for all of the science. Full disclosure: I did stop eating sugary food after reading and watching some of Lustig's presentations, and I'm generally pleased with the results. [0] http://amzn.to/1S7LmQY http://amzn.to/1S7LmQY

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

c3534l 11y ago

Even the New York Times is not immune to the impulse towards click-baity, misleading article titles.

Nemant 11y ago

Great, so scientist are now telling me what my mom had been telling me for years. I guess I should listen to my mom more often.

godgod 11y ago

Sugar is bad for you. Quitting it obviously improves your health. Why is this science?

Justin_K 11y ago

Post a story like this on HN and of course the fat, Jolt drinking IT guys are going to revolt.

kazinator 11y ago

I cut back my kid's syntactic sugar, and he developed a Lisp.

brianmback 11y ago

Anyone's health

cdnsteve 11y ago

Go watch Forks over Knives on Netflix.

nichochar 11y ago

My mother always told me how angry it made her to see obese children. If you're an obese adult, it sucks and there are things to say, but whatever you do you. But kids don't know, kids need to be taught. And you're basically 100% responsible for any kind of extra weight on your child.

lasryaric 11y ago

I posted a comment earlier today describing my own experience. I never said that everybody should stop eating food with added sugar, I just said it worked for me. One main thing we don't mention in this thread is that sugar is addictive. Cutting sugar was hard like quitting somking was hard. If you never got addicted like I was, I guess it os hard to understand the problem. But when you are addicted it is hard to just know if you are hungry or not. So I choosed to go on the other extreme which works better for me.

fomoz 11y ago

Lustig just doesn't give up. He has already been crushed by Alan Aragon five years ago. http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/02/19/a-retrospective-of-the-fructose-alarmism-debate/ http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/02/19/a-retrospective-of-...

knappador 11y ago
Credentials would tend to support the practicing endocrinologist. Also, the data Lustig really had to go get was the causal inference where increasing fructose had a delayed response of increased metabolic syndrome. That study has been done now.

suneilp 11y ago

I read an interesting article on how excess sugar clogs the tiny blood vessels and tissues where there aren't really any blood vessels. Circulation in these areas won't be as great by the nature of things so clogging them up has a greater impact. It prevents nutrient/waste flow to tissues. Just think about that for a bit. Accumulating waste and blocking delivery of nutrients. Balancing sugar intake and moving around, even if it's just walking, on a regular basis will fix you up real fast.

lanceroll25 11y ago

cut sugar.. By the way,if any of you wants to lose belly fat, here is the Lin,daily bone broth drink and keep their health properly, It is not fat at all sure he could drink any of it, in this very calcium , is a protein which is essential for bodies For more information about bone broth Look at this site.-https://www.bonebroth.com/ https://www.bonebroth.com/