14 ms·

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 i

by 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.
  - oh_sigh 11y ago
    Okay, so instead of 1000 people seeing the exact links, now 1000 people all have to do a search and find them themselves.
maerF0x0 11y ago
Do you happen to know the thresholds at which added sugar become detrimental? I wonder if a tsp a day in my coffee is too much, how about a bubble tea, how about honey nut cheerios once a week etc etc. Without some framework to judge how much is ok we're also left with FUD about any sugar at all.
- bsilvereagle 11y ago
  A ketogenic diet recommends less than ~30g of carbohydrates a day. A gram of sugar is a gram of carbohydrates. Ketosis is a multifaceted, complex, biological process that depends on many variables. However, it is potentially somewhere to start investigating a 'critical limit' to judge how much sugar can be processed by your body.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - pierrec 11y ago
    30g of carbohydrates a day seems extremely low. The ketogenic diet is not a general-purpose diet, it's a therapeutic diet used to treat specific medical conditions. Also, sugars are only a specific type of carbs, so carbohydrate intake should not be compared directly to sugar intake.
    - toomuchtodo 11y ago
      > The ketogenic diet is not a general-purpose diet, it's a therapeutic diet used to treat specific medical conditions. https://www.reddit.com/r/keto https://www.reddit.com/r/keto would disagree with you. I myself stay below 20g of carbohydrates per day, and I lose ~3lbs a week on the diet, while eating cheese, meat, and green vegetables. I feel phenomenal, still get to eat food I enjoy, and wouldn't go back to a traditional carbohydrate-heavy diet if I was paid to.
      - cossatot 11y ago
        I don't have any opinions on the diet itself, but if you're losing 3 lbs a week, this means that either you started out very obese or haven't been on the diet for very long. I'm glad it's working for you now but this doesn't necessarily mean that the diet will be the optimal for 10+ years.
leshow 11y ago
You certainly aren't upholding your own statements by defending your position properly. I find that the added sugar=bad position is backed up with a lot of studies that don't control for total calories between groups (meaning the total calories are the culprit), or macronutrient ratios not being controlled between groups (meaning lower protein or higher carbohydrates are the culprit). There are a 'massive cloud' of studies which have both of those 2 errors present. Aside, I realize the study in question did control for total calories, I'd have to read through the full study to be able to comment on it. However, drawing conclusions on the population at large from obese kids with metabolic syndrome and abnormally high sugar consumption isn't exactly "another point" in my books. I don't think anybody is arguing that any level of sugar consumption is fine, but it's unfair and intellectually dishonest to say 'sugar is bad' or 'sugar is unhealthy'
- pierrec 11y ago
  Who is being "unfair and intellectually dishonest"? The idea is not that 'sugar is bad' or 'sugar is unhealthy', but that sugar is bad and unhealthy as it is being used in our current society. I thought this was pretty clear in the first comment. This is why much of the research that comes up uses the HFS for reference levels. I agree about my laziness (making my own literature review would be a lot of work), however, controlling for total calories as you suggest could be misleading, because sugar provides lots of calories but often does not reduce hunger: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/254512.php http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/254512.php
  - pmelendez 11y ago
    > however, controlling for total calories as you suggest could be misleading, because sugar provides lots of calories but often does not reduce hunger I don't see how could it be misleading. You trade sweat treats for fullness, and you could even add low calories side meals to balance the count. That's what a lot of diet regimes do and have been proved to work.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
agentPrefect 11y ago
Ya, it's the usual HN comment section crap. Everybody's an expert.
yodsanklai 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. It's the kind of topic where it's very hard to prove your point because you need to rely on external references that can always be discredited. Also, people are very passionate because it involves strong political opinions (remember when Mayor Bloomberg tried to ban big gulps of soda in NYC), and also personal feelings (overweight people addicted to sugar). It's not unlike the discussions on climate change.

by pierrec 11y ago

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.
- oh_sigh 11y ago
  Okay, so instead of 1000 people seeing the exact links, now 1000 people all have to do a search and find them themselves.

maerF0x0 11y ago

Do you happen to know the thresholds at which added sugar become detrimental? I wonder if a tsp a day in my coffee is too much, how about a bubble tea, how about honey nut cheerios once a week etc etc. Without some framework to judge how much is ok we're also left with FUD about any sugar at all.

bsilvereagle 11y ago
A ketogenic diet recommends less than ~30g of carbohydrates a day. A gram of sugar is a gram of carbohydrates. Ketosis is a multifaceted, complex, biological process that depends on many variables. However, it is potentially somewhere to start investigating a 'critical limit' to judge how much sugar can be processed by your body.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- pierrec 11y ago
  30g of carbohydrates a day seems extremely low. The ketogenic diet is not a general-purpose diet, it's a therapeutic diet used to treat specific medical conditions. Also, sugars are only a specific type of carbs, so carbohydrate intake should not be compared directly to sugar intake.
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    > The ketogenic diet is not a general-purpose diet, it's a therapeutic diet used to treat specific medical conditions. https://www.reddit.com/r/keto https://www.reddit.com/r/keto would disagree with you. I myself stay below 20g of carbohydrates per day, and I lose ~3lbs a week on the diet, while eating cheese, meat, and green vegetables. I feel phenomenal, still get to eat food I enjoy, and wouldn't go back to a traditional carbohydrate-heavy diet if I was paid to.
    - cossatot 11y ago
      I don't have any opinions on the diet itself, but if you're losing 3 lbs a week, this means that either you started out very obese or haven't been on the diet for very long. I'm glad it's working for you now but this doesn't necessarily mean that the diet will be the optimal for 10+ years.

leshow 11y ago

You certainly aren't upholding your own statements by defending your position properly. I find that the added sugar=bad position is backed up with a lot of studies that don't control for total calories between groups (meaning the total calories are the culprit), or macronutrient ratios not being controlled between groups (meaning lower protein or higher carbohydrates are the culprit). There are a 'massive cloud' of studies which have both of those 2 errors present. Aside, I realize the study in question did control for total calories, I'd have to read through the full study to be able to comment on it. However, drawing conclusions on the population at large from obese kids with metabolic syndrome and abnormally high sugar consumption isn't exactly "another point" in my books. I don't think anybody is arguing that any level of sugar consumption is fine, but it's unfair and intellectually dishonest to say 'sugar is bad' or 'sugar is unhealthy'

pierrec 11y ago
Who is being "unfair and intellectually dishonest"? The idea is not that 'sugar is bad' or 'sugar is unhealthy', but that sugar is bad and unhealthy as it is being used in our current society. I thought this was pretty clear in the first comment. This is why much of the research that comes up uses the HFS for reference levels. I agree about my laziness (making my own literature review would be a lot of work), however, controlling for total calories as you suggest could be misleading, because sugar provides lots of calories but often does not reduce hunger: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/254512.php http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/254512.php
- pmelendez 11y ago
  > however, controlling for total calories as you suggest could be misleading, because sugar provides lots of calories but often does not reduce hunger I don't see how could it be misleading. You trade sweat treats for fullness, and you could even add low calories side meals to balance the count. That's what a lot of diet regimes do and have been proved to work.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]

agentPrefect 11y ago

Ya, it's the usual HN comment section crap. Everybody's an expert.

yodsanklai 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. It's the kind of topic where it's very hard to prove your point because you need to rely on external references that can always be discredited. Also, people are very passionate because it involves strong political opinions (remember when Mayor Bloomberg tried to ban big gulps of soda in NYC), and also personal feelings (overweight people addicted to sugar). It's not unlike the discussions on climate change.