7 ms·

Also, this very important piece of title is omitted: "...with obesity and metabolic syndrome". Sugar is getting too much bad press already (along with meat, whi

by annnnd 11y ago

Also, this very important piece of title is omitted: "...with obesity and metabolic syndrome". Sugar is getting too much bad press already (along with meat, white bread and computer games). Nothing is just black & white. </rant>

graeme 11y ago
That completely changes the story. The HN title should be edited.
- annnnd 11y ago
  Exactly. Also: "...comparable percentages of protein, fat, and carbohydrate as their self-reported diet". Self-reported? That must be really reliable, let's just skip control group... The problem is that the HN title is sensationalistic without merit.
  - wutbrodo 11y ago
    Self reported is unfortunately very common in nutritional studies, for obvious reasons. I don't think it makes sense to dismiss a single study for having the same flaws as most others, as opposed to the general recognition that nutritional science findings are baseline less robust.
    - annnnd 11y ago
      I wouldn't cut them so much slack. The study is either reliable or it isn't. And it wouldn't take them much more effort to make the results significant in some way. In this case, I think that just giving these children the self-reported diet would yield massive effects on their health, sugar or no sugar. I am quite sure children with obesity problems don't know their real diet - not because they are dishonest, but because we (as people) are very efficient at hiding the uncomfortable truths from ourselves.
roymurdock 11y ago
Title should be: "Substitution of starch for added sugars improves health of children suffering from obesity, metabolic syndrome, and high habitual added sugar consumption." But then it seems slightly less groundbreaking.
- BlackJack 11y ago
  I think the result is still interesting. There's a whole lifestyle called "IIFYM" or If It Fits your Macros which suggests that the macronutrient breakdown (% carbs/fat/protein) is the main factor in growth/health, and that you can eat whatever IIFYM. This study contradicts that by showing health improvement while maintaining macronutrient breakdown, albeit in obese kids. Is this replicable in adults and/or normal weight people? Who knows? Still a pretty interesting result IMO.
  - donkeyd 11y ago
    AFAIK, IIFYM also notes that you need vitamins etc. They don't try to make it seem like you can eat sugar cubes, chicken breast and avocado and be healthy.
    - brandonmenc 11y ago
      > They don't try to make it seem like you can eat sugar cubes, chicken breast and avocado and be healthy. Most of the people I see practicing IIFYM believe exactly this. They routinely top off with donuts and candy to hit the high carb count needed to gain weight. It's way easier than trying to choke down a pound of brown rice every day. IIFYM is probably not a bad diet for a teenage boy or steroid user trying to pack on weight while doing a high volume of work. Everyone else will put on a lot of unwanted fat.
      - jtuente 11y ago
        >IIFYM is probably not a bad diet for a teenage boy or steroid user trying to pack on weight while doing a high volume of work. Everyone else will put on a lot of unwanted fat. That would depend on both your total calorie count and your macro breakdown. IIFYM determines what percentage of your calories should come from each of carbs, fats and proteins. So if your calorie count is suitable for your height, weight and activity level, then your macro breakdown isn't going to cause you to gain weight. If your breakdown is out of whack, then you're going to end up feeling tired, hungry or otherwise malnourished, but it shouldn't cause you excessive weight gain outside of water retention. The calorie counting needs to be more accurate than the macro breakdown.

by annnnd 11y ago

graeme 11y ago

That completely changes the story. The HN title should be edited.

annnnd 11y ago
Exactly. Also: "...comparable percentages of protein, fat, and carbohydrate as their self-reported diet". Self-reported? That must be really reliable, let's just skip control group... The problem is that the HN title is sensationalistic without merit.
- wutbrodo 11y ago
  Self reported is unfortunately very common in nutritional studies, for obvious reasons. I don't think it makes sense to dismiss a single study for having the same flaws as most others, as opposed to the general recognition that nutritional science findings are baseline less robust.
  - annnnd 11y ago
    I wouldn't cut them so much slack. The study is either reliable or it isn't. And it wouldn't take them much more effort to make the results significant in some way. In this case, I think that just giving these children the self-reported diet would yield massive effects on their health, sugar or no sugar. I am quite sure children with obesity problems don't know their real diet - not because they are dishonest, but because we (as people) are very efficient at hiding the uncomfortable truths from ourselves.

roymurdock 11y ago

Title should be: "Substitution of starch for added sugars improves health of children suffering from obesity, metabolic syndrome, and high habitual added sugar consumption." But then it seems slightly less groundbreaking.

BlackJack 11y ago
I think the result is still interesting. There's a whole lifestyle called "IIFYM" or If It Fits your Macros which suggests that the macronutrient breakdown (% carbs/fat/protein) is the main factor in growth/health, and that you can eat whatever IIFYM. This study contradicts that by showing health improvement while maintaining macronutrient breakdown, albeit in obese kids. Is this replicable in adults and/or normal weight people? Who knows? Still a pretty interesting result IMO.
- donkeyd 11y ago
  AFAIK, IIFYM also notes that you need vitamins etc. They don't try to make it seem like you can eat sugar cubes, chicken breast and avocado and be healthy.
  - brandonmenc 11y ago
    > They don't try to make it seem like you can eat sugar cubes, chicken breast and avocado and be healthy. Most of the people I see practicing IIFYM believe exactly this. They routinely top off with donuts and candy to hit the high carb count needed to gain weight. It's way easier than trying to choke down a pound of brown rice every day. IIFYM is probably not a bad diet for a teenage boy or steroid user trying to pack on weight while doing a high volume of work. Everyone else will put on a lot of unwanted fat.
    - jtuente 11y ago
      >IIFYM is probably not a bad diet for a teenage boy or steroid user trying to pack on weight while doing a high volume of work. Everyone else will put on a lot of unwanted fat. That would depend on both your total calorie count and your macro breakdown. IIFYM determines what percentage of your calories should come from each of carbs, fats and proteins. So if your calorie count is suitable for your height, weight and activity level, then your macro breakdown isn't going to cause you to gain weight. If your breakdown is out of whack, then you're going to end up feeling tired, hungry or otherwise malnourished, but it shouldn't cause you excessive weight gain outside of water retention. The calorie counting needs to be more accurate than the macro breakdown.