5 ms·

Another year, another demon food. It seems every few years we switch it up, now it's sugar, before it was glutten, then it was fats, then it was carbs. It seems

Another year, another demon food. It seems every few years we switch it up, now it's sugar, before it was glutten, then it was fats, then it was carbs. It seems like nobody really has a clue what is "good" for us. The only thing that makes sense to me anymore is eating a balanced diet from a variety of food sources while also maintaining a decent exercise regimen. Not over doing it, frequently, is also an important aspect. I've found it's OK to eat junk food once in awhile, as long it's not a habit.

mdgrech23 10y ago
Could not agree w/ this comment more. Writing a New York Times article suggesting people count calories, weigh their food, and exercise 3-5 times per week is boring and doesn't sell. The public is dying for a guru w/ a new methodology or academia to emerge w/ a new "scientific breakthrough" to save them from the obesity epidemic. The answer is simple but yet so many people refuse to believe eating less calories than their body needs is the cornerstone to weight loss.
- crikli 10y ago
  Agreed. You cannot outwork a shitty diet BUT refined sugar is the cornerstone of most shitty diets.
- zeta0134 10y ago
  Honestly, I think the reason most authors tend to have so much success with the new fad diet of the week is that for the month or whatever that they run the diet, they're actually monitoring their food intake and making an effort to eat more balanced meals. The diet itself seems almost irrelevant. Just the simple act of paying attention to what you eat (counting calories is an excellent starting point) will help more than anything, as you'll more easily recognize poor trends in your food choices, and the awareness will encourage you to diversify your diet.
- munificent 10y ago
  A couple of years ago, in a show of solidarity with my wife, I did a Whole 30. It's a 30 day elimination diet that cuts out all sugar (except for naturally occurring in whole fruit). I'm in my thirties and very slim. The Whole 30 lets you have as much fat, meat and calories as you want. I plowed through eggs, homemade mayo, meat, and other calorie dense food. I'm skinny enough that I don't have much weight to lose. Even so, I dropped ten pounds effortlessly. I don't know if this generalizes to other people and their physiques, but it was enough to convince me that sugar/simple carbs really do correlate more directly to my waistline than just counting calories does. I'm sure what the right metric to pay attention to is. My hunch is that it's glycemic load. Either way, I cut down on my sugar and carbs since then, and I've lost of a lot of the middle-aged Dad belly I was starting to develop. I don't count calories at all. It seems to work for me.
  - cheald 10y ago
    Honestly, I think it's just calories in vs calories out. There's all kinds of things to consider like glycemic load and digestion speeds and all that, but at the end of the day, you lose fat when you eat less than you burn (see: the Twinkie diet). I think way too many people focus on things like glycemic load and the "kinds" of calories they're eating as some kind of magical weight loss/gain formula, and lose track of the overall quantity. I've lost more weight just counting calories and ignoring micronutrients, glycemic load, etc than I ever did trying to micromanage glycemic load and micronutrients. Fats are a lot more satiating than carbohydrates (ie, sugars) - I could easily put away 4000 calories of goldfish crackers in an evening, but I would be insanely full, uncomfortable, and possibly even sick if I tried to eat 4000 calories of proteins or fats. My go-to craving-killer snack is peanuts - they're high calorie on the label, but a handful of them takes the edge off my craving in a way that chips and crackers and candy don't.
  - iopq 10y ago
    I'm in my thirties and I don't want to lose weight. I also ate several hundred grams of sugar every day in December. Didn't gain a single pound. This is because my calories were still about the same, only the composition changed.
  - chris_7 10y ago
- shorttime 10y ago
  Not sure why you're being downvoted but I agree with you.
zdean 10y ago
The dose makes the poison with sugar as with anything else. That being said, I think most people encounter sugar at doses that are clearly poisonous to their bodies: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/06/08/is-sugar-really-bad-for-you-it-depends/?_r=0 http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/06/08/is-sugar-really-bad... (see the section: Why is it a problem to have too much sugar?) However, I get your point. I think the conflicting (and often industry driven) public health messages we've gotten at least over my lifetime and probably for decades before have made people dubious of new health/health harm claims around whole classes of foods. For me, I like to follow Michael Pollans advice of "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." http://michaelpollan.com/reviews/how-to-eat/ http://michaelpollan.com/reviews/how-to-eat/
quickben 10y ago
Here is an actual, biochemical take on the subject of refined sugar: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM Here is probably what happened to advertise fat as bad in the first place: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-industry-shifted-blame-to-fat.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-ind... The first link I can't argue with, the second one maybe. We do need balanced diets, but, natural balanced diets. Throwing pure sugar into it, isn't making it balanced of any sort.
- victorhooi 10y ago
  Your first link is to a video from Robert Lustig. You should probably have mentioned that his viewpoints are quite controversial, and there's hardly yet a scientific consensus on them. You shouldn't post his videos as the gospel truth.
  - vixen99 10y ago
    Bottom line: fructose (50% of ordinary sugar) is not metabolized in the same way as glucose (the other 50%). The latter is used by just about every cell in the body whereas the liver is mainly responsible for handling fructose. This organ also metabolizes other things like alcohol and paracetamol. Overloading the liver is not a good idea. Anyone can read up on what 'overloading' means for any of those or other nutrients and go figure. None of this is controversial though the definition and effects of 'excess' fructose obviously are, for any individual.
  - quickben 10y ago
    I apologize but I do not track controversies that much as I don't have the time for all that. Also, I'm a programmer, not a biochemist, so: If I go to wikipedia, I get https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Lustig https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Lustig And I see nothing about controversies there. If I google about the term for a bit, I see no scientific rebuttals of his points in that video. I mean, it's biochemistry, if he's that much wrong (he seems quite educated) then some of his science is also wrong; would you be so kind to provide few links of rebuttals to his research papers or whatever you are reading. I would greatly appreciate if you stick to actual scientific papers, as I really don't have time to get dragged into the whole USA 'omg hes from <political party> and that's why he states his pro [trump/hilary] views. TLDR: I honestly don't know about any controversies streaming from that video, but would like to read the scientific rebutals, if any, with respect to that guy's work.
geoka9 10y ago
I think the article describes a good approach because it sets you on track to improve your diet overall, by making you used to the relative lack of sugar in unprocessed (healthier) foods.
psyc 10y ago
This seems like false equivalence. Has refined sugar ever not been considered harmful in the last few decades? I'm not aware of any controversy here.
- taeric 10y ago
  You'd be surprised. In general, I think sugar has been known as something that you had to consume "in moderation." But, this is akin to the false belief that moderation can fix most any problems. My favorite example is a survey that asked people which one saved more money, turning the lights out an hour earlier every day, or switching to higher efficiency lights. The vast majority thought turning lights out earlier would have higher impact, which is incredibly wrong. So, the same with sugar for many right now. Many think that they can get by with more "moderation" and skipping a desert.
  - mistermann 10y ago
    > The vast majority thought turning lights out earlier would have higher impact, which is incredibly wrong. Is it? Based on what timeframe and power cost? When I was last light bulb shopping it seemed to me not upgrading was more cost effective < 5 years at least.
    - taeric 10y ago
      If you add cost of bulbs, it gets a little closer. However, energy costs are laughable in the difference. From a sixty to hundred watt bulb to a nine to fourteen is a huge difference.
      - mistermann 10y ago
        You're right: 60 watts x 24 hrs/day = 1440 watt hrs = 1.44 kwh/day, @ $.10/kwh = $.15 / day $5/LED bulb / $.15/day = 33 days to pay off
        taeric 10y ago
overgard 10y ago
It's definitely confusing but let me put on my conspiracy hat here for the moment and point out that it's in the interest of a lot of multinational corporations to keep people confused. The science on things like artificial sweeteners is a jumbled mess. If you happen to believe a calorie is a calorie, triscuits seem as good as brocolli, in certain amounts. But triscuits are a lot tastier and a lot more profitable because they dont spoil. I guess my point here is every article you read on this subject, you have to be careful of what their motives are.
prodmerc 10y ago
> eating a balanced diet from a variety of food sources while also maintaining a decent exercise regimen Now you're talking crazy shit, son, how could that ever work?! /s
TACIXAT 10y ago
Celiac here, gluten, sugar, sodium nitrites, monosodium glutamate, caffeine, all these wreak havoc on my body. A lot of people are addicted to these, and a lot of people can see great health benefits by giving them up. Passing them off as demon food fads does little good and little to educate people. I used to joke on gluten free. I barely knew anything about it. Here I am now saying it changed my life. Being less dismissive might help others to find out about their health conditions sooner.

mdgrech23 10y ago

Could not agree w/ this comment more. Writing a New York Times article suggesting people count calories, weigh their food, and exercise 3-5 times per week is boring and doesn't sell. The public is dying for a guru w/ a new methodology or academia to emerge w/ a new "scientific breakthrough" to save them from the obesity epidemic. The answer is simple but yet so many people refuse to believe eating less calories than their body needs is the cornerstone to weight loss.

crikli 10y ago
Agreed. You cannot outwork a shitty diet BUT refined sugar is the cornerstone of most shitty diets.
zeta0134 10y ago
Honestly, I think the reason most authors tend to have so much success with the new fad diet of the week is that for the month or whatever that they run the diet, they're actually monitoring their food intake and making an effort to eat more balanced meals. The diet itself seems almost irrelevant. Just the simple act of paying attention to what you eat (counting calories is an excellent starting point) will help more than anything, as you'll more easily recognize poor trends in your food choices, and the awareness will encourage you to diversify your diet.
munificent 10y ago
A couple of years ago, in a show of solidarity with my wife, I did a Whole 30. It's a 30 day elimination diet that cuts out all sugar (except for naturally occurring in whole fruit). I'm in my thirties and very slim. The Whole 30 lets you have as much fat, meat and calories as you want. I plowed through eggs, homemade mayo, meat, and other calorie dense food. I'm skinny enough that I don't have much weight to lose. Even so, I dropped ten pounds effortlessly. I don't know if this generalizes to other people and their physiques, but it was enough to convince me that sugar/simple carbs really do correlate more directly to my waistline than just counting calories does. I'm sure what the right metric to pay attention to is. My hunch is that it's glycemic load. Either way, I cut down on my sugar and carbs since then, and I've lost of a lot of the middle-aged Dad belly I was starting to develop. I don't count calories at all. It seems to work for me.
- cheald 10y ago
  Honestly, I think it's just calories in vs calories out. There's all kinds of things to consider like glycemic load and digestion speeds and all that, but at the end of the day, you lose fat when you eat less than you burn (see: the Twinkie diet). I think way too many people focus on things like glycemic load and the "kinds" of calories they're eating as some kind of magical weight loss/gain formula, and lose track of the overall quantity. I've lost more weight just counting calories and ignoring micronutrients, glycemic load, etc than I ever did trying to micromanage glycemic load and micronutrients. Fats are a lot more satiating than carbohydrates (ie, sugars) - I could easily put away 4000 calories of goldfish crackers in an evening, but I would be insanely full, uncomfortable, and possibly even sick if I tried to eat 4000 calories of proteins or fats. My go-to craving-killer snack is peanuts - they're high calorie on the label, but a handful of them takes the edge off my craving in a way that chips and crackers and candy don't.
- iopq 10y ago
  I'm in my thirties and I don't want to lose weight. I also ate several hundred grams of sugar every day in December. Didn't gain a single pound. This is because my calories were still about the same, only the composition changed.
- chris_7 10y ago
shorttime 10y ago
Not sure why you're being downvoted but I agree with you.

zdean 10y ago

The dose makes the poison with sugar as with anything else. That being said, I think most people encounter sugar at doses that are clearly poisonous to their bodies: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/06/08/is-sugar-really-bad-for-you-it-depends/?_r=0 http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/06/08/is-sugar-really-bad... (see the section: Why is it a problem to have too much sugar?) However, I get your point. I think the conflicting (and often industry driven) public health messages we've gotten at least over my lifetime and probably for decades before have made people dubious of new health/health harm claims around whole classes of foods. For me, I like to follow Michael Pollans advice of "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." http://michaelpollan.com/reviews/how-to-eat/ http://michaelpollan.com/reviews/how-to-eat/

quickben 10y ago

Here is an actual, biochemical take on the subject of refined sugar: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM Here is probably what happened to advertise fat as bad in the first place: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-industry-shifted-blame-to-fat.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-ind... The first link I can't argue with, the second one maybe. We do need balanced diets, but, natural balanced diets. Throwing pure sugar into it, isn't making it balanced of any sort.

victorhooi 10y ago
Your first link is to a video from Robert Lustig. You should probably have mentioned that his viewpoints are quite controversial, and there's hardly yet a scientific consensus on them. You shouldn't post his videos as the gospel truth.
- vixen99 10y ago
  Bottom line: fructose (50% of ordinary sugar) is not metabolized in the same way as glucose (the other 50%). The latter is used by just about every cell in the body whereas the liver is mainly responsible for handling fructose. This organ also metabolizes other things like alcohol and paracetamol. Overloading the liver is not a good idea. Anyone can read up on what 'overloading' means for any of those or other nutrients and go figure. None of this is controversial though the definition and effects of 'excess' fructose obviously are, for any individual.
- quickben 10y ago
  I apologize but I do not track controversies that much as I don't have the time for all that. Also, I'm a programmer, not a biochemist, so: If I go to wikipedia, I get https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Lustig https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Lustig And I see nothing about controversies there. If I google about the term for a bit, I see no scientific rebuttals of his points in that video. I mean, it's biochemistry, if he's that much wrong (he seems quite educated) then some of his science is also wrong; would you be so kind to provide few links of rebuttals to his research papers or whatever you are reading. I would greatly appreciate if you stick to actual scientific papers, as I really don't have time to get dragged into the whole USA 'omg hes from <political party> and that's why he states his pro [trump/hilary] views. TLDR: I honestly don't know about any controversies streaming from that video, but would like to read the scientific rebutals, if any, with respect to that guy's work.

geoka9 10y ago

I think the article describes a good approach because it sets you on track to improve your diet overall, by making you used to the relative lack of sugar in unprocessed (healthier) foods.

psyc 10y ago

This seems like false equivalence. Has refined sugar ever not been considered harmful in the last few decades? I'm not aware of any controversy here.

taeric 10y ago
You'd be surprised. In general, I think sugar has been known as something that you had to consume "in moderation." But, this is akin to the false belief that moderation can fix most any problems. My favorite example is a survey that asked people which one saved more money, turning the lights out an hour earlier every day, or switching to higher efficiency lights. The vast majority thought turning lights out earlier would have higher impact, which is incredibly wrong. So, the same with sugar for many right now. Many think that they can get by with more "moderation" and skipping a desert.
- mistermann 10y ago
  > The vast majority thought turning lights out earlier would have higher impact, which is incredibly wrong. Is it? Based on what timeframe and power cost? When I was last light bulb shopping it seemed to me not upgrading was more cost effective < 5 years at least.
  - taeric 10y ago
    If you add cost of bulbs, it gets a little closer. However, energy costs are laughable in the difference. From a sixty to hundred watt bulb to a nine to fourteen is a huge difference.
    - mistermann 10y ago
      You're right: 60 watts x 24 hrs/day = 1440 watt hrs = 1.44 kwh/day, @ $.10/kwh = $.15 / day $5/LED bulb / $.15/day = 33 days to pay off
      - taeric 10y ago

overgard 10y ago

It's definitely confusing but let me put on my conspiracy hat here for the moment and point out that it's in the interest of a lot of multinational corporations to keep people confused. The science on things like artificial sweeteners is a jumbled mess. If you happen to believe a calorie is a calorie, triscuits seem as good as brocolli, in certain amounts. But triscuits are a lot tastier and a lot more profitable because they dont spoil. I guess my point here is every article you read on this subject, you have to be careful of what their motives are.

prodmerc 10y ago

> eating a balanced diet from a variety of food sources while also maintaining a decent exercise regimen Now you're talking crazy shit, son, how could that ever work?! /s

TACIXAT 10y ago

Celiac here, gluten, sugar, sodium nitrites, monosodium glutamate, caffeine, all these wreak havoc on my body. A lot of people are addicted to these, and a lot of people can see great health benefits by giving them up. Passing them off as demon food fads does little good and little to educate people. I used to joke on gluten free. I barely knew anything about it. Here I am now saying it changed my life. Being less dismissive might help others to find out about their health conditions sooner.