26 ms·
Sugar industry withheld possible evidence of cancer link 50 years ago
- DoodleBuggy 9y agoMakes you wonder what we'll find out is being withheld right now, 50 years from now.
- jungletime 9y agoNot really withheld, but I think underestimated is air pollution. "Worldwide, ambient air pollution contributes to 5.4% of all deaths" source - http://www.who.int/ http://www.who.int/
- averagewall 9y agoThat's a meaningless statistic on its own. Does it shorten 5.4% of people's lives by 5 minutes each? or does it kill 5.4% of people while they're children? The reality will be somewhere between those extremes but the number alone tells us nothing interesting. You can use something like years of life lost instead: http://www.who.int/whosis/whostat2006YearsOfLifeLost.pdf http://www.who.int/whosis/whostat2006YearsOfLifeLost.pdf
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- tryingagainbro 9y agoPlastics is my guess, even though quite a bit has come out. But then, maybe, that's the price we pay for convenience.
- ashark 9y agoI sometimes wonder which materials I directly interact with on a regular basis that people in a few decades wouldn't touch for anything short of large amounts of money. History tells us there are probably a few. Guessing at least a couple are plastics or plastic additives/coatings of some kind. Maybe whatever they replaced BPA with. Possibly gasoline will qualify. Probably one or two things currently on/in our food.
- johnchristopher 9y agoSome years ago (and I mean decades) my teenage self read somewhere or heard someone talking of the unknown dangers of some gas being released by motherboards (think: silent killers).
- gech 9y agoInteresting - found this https://ask.slashdot.org/story/02/09/09/1828240/gassing-off---motherboards-that-smell https://ask.slashdot.org/story/02/09/09/1828240/gassing-off-... The manufacturing process might not have been completed, the solders etc.
- Moru 9y agoThat is usually flame retardant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame_retardant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame_retardant
- johnchristopher 9y agoThanks, that looks like it.
- vanderZwan 9y agoI expect the practice of of "sous vide in plastic bags" to be shown as long-term unhealthy sooner or later. It's one of those things where I wonder if the plastics really are as safe as claimed, or just "safer than the standard we set (and we didn't set it high, and our way of measuring is flawed)".
- test6554 9y agoIt's a good point. I can't remember the last time I saw a plastic bag that gave a safe temperature range right there on the bag or package containing the bags. You'd think they would say Safe for food up to 200 degrees F or something.
- 9y ago
- gggvvff 9y agoAspartame.
- tomjen3 9y agoI only upvoted you because Aspartame is such an interesting case - no other food that I can think of has had such vitrol thrown at it, yet every single scientific study has shown no effect on blood sugar, the chemical is simple, the two compounds it breaks down to in the liver are already present in the body and its properties are well known. Yet people still hate it.
- wolco 9y agoFrom my limited life experience: It tastes bad to the average male, it leaves a bad after taste that is really noticable. Females don't seem to notice the after taste.
- jessaustin 9y agoI used to feel that way and I am male, but I've found that now that I've consumed a lot, it no longer has that effect.
- megaman22 9y agoI don't notice any bitterness, but I've been drinking Diet Pepsi for something like 20 years.
- andygates 9y agoWait what? No. "Average" and "me and my buddies" aren't the same.
- wolco 9y agoIt is if you preface the discussion by saying in my experience. That limits the group to people I've had contact with that the word average would apply.
- 9y ago
- orthoganol 9y agoThe effects of vehicular pollution? If sitting in your garage with a running car kills you, obviously being surrounded by traffic all day in the cities we live in must be absolutely terrible for you.
- trendia 9y ago"For older women, breathing air that is heavily polluted by vehicle exhaust and other sources of fine particulates nearly doubles the likelihood of developing dementia, finds a study published Tuesday." http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-air-pollution-alzheimers-20170131-story.html http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-air-poll...
- GoToRO 9y agoYep. And a congested street is just like a pipe with holes every 4-5 meters, that distributes poison.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- pm90 9y agoThere are a lot of environmental and societal factors that would get you rather than anything that we probably don't know about yet. Sugar and Tobacco are probably outliers simply because of the sheer quantity in which humans consume them (or used to, for smokers). That itself increases greatly the chances that they will directly cause some kind of cancers. Now if in the future, we change our society and progress medical science far enough that we live well past 100 years, that is when we should be worried about dangers from materials that we only occasionally come into contact with. Even then, cancer treatments would probably be a routine thing by then... I guess my point is that you would more likely die in a car accident than from something we're not aware of just yet.
- jacobush 9y agoFacebook
- y_u_no_rust 9y agoecigs no doubt
- dclowd9901 9y agoRadio signals causing cancer, probably.
- pessimizer 9y agoNon-stick coatings on cooking implements and flame retardants.
- toomanybeersies 9y agoTeflon is chemically inert though, as long as you don't overheat it.
- mjevans 9y agoI hope the silicon stuff is OK; I prefer that as it's point of thermal breakdown is way past anything I want in my kitchen anyway (aside from direct open flames which I don't currently use but know some cooking does). I also prefer the ceramic linings, since those are more likely to be OK in my mostly uneducated opinion. (However the type of material is different, and hopefully less likely to leach).
- lucaspiller 9y agoThe problem is it starts breaking down at around 250C, and if you leave a pan on a stove it can easily get above that temperature. The chemicals it breaks down into are known neurotoxins, and are especially lethal to birds. In Europe (especially Italy where I believe Teflon is banned in cookware) ceramic coatings are becoming the standard for non-stick cookware.
- davymac 9y agoAka don’t cook with it
- KozmoNau7 9y agoI've made a complete switch to stainless steel, cast iron (both enameled and bare) and carbon steel. I particularly enjoy using my inexpensive carbon steel pan that I got from a local kitchen supply store, I find it even better than an actual cast iron pan. It's made from 3mm plate steel and it's smooth like old-fashioned cast iron pans, so after about a month of regular use, I would honestly call it nonstick. Certainly nonstick enough for eggs or fish. As an added bonus, it will last basically forever as long as you don't warp it from thermal shock or let it sit while wet, so it rusts. You can take away most other items in my kitchen and I wouldn't be too upset, but don't ever touch my carbon steel pan and wood spatula!
- jungletime 9y agoAlso, asbestos is all over the place in a lot of homes. Plus many locations also have Radon gas seeping in. These things are known about, but mostly ignored because of the cost to fix them.
- buckminster 9y agoMost Western countries have banned the use of asbestos so the problem isn't getting any worse. But not America! What's worse is that we've known about the dangers for more than 100 years.
- Tsiklon 9y agoHang on, Asbestos is still used in America?
- buckminster 9y agoYes. Permitted uses include brake pads and clothing!
- SmellyGeekBoy 9y agoWoah, TIL: https://www.asbestos.com/blog/2012/09/17/why-isnt-asbestos-banned-in-the-united-states/ https://www.asbestos.com/blog/2012/09/17/why-isnt-asbestos-b... Here in the UK if traces of asbestos are found the entire building is quarantined while a team of workers in hazchem suits and breathing apparatus removes it!
- jungletime 9y agoEstrogen in Soy causing #SoyBoys
- devmunchies 9y agoMyth. There's much more estrogen in dairy. Milk is packed with hormones. It comes from a female cow after giving birth for heavens sake.
- sethammons 9y ago"The bullets from handguns." "Myth. There's much more 'bullet' to a rifle round." Just because there may be more estrogen in milk, how does that take away from the estrogen in soy?
- dashundchen 9y agoSoy doesn't contain estrogen, it contains phytoestrogens. This is a common misunderstanding. Phytoestrogens include isoflavones in soy, which can have a wide variety of effects, (including decreasing estrogen levels) depending on gut flora, age, sex, hormone levels https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3074428/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3074428/
- leakyabs 9y agoThe good news is that a) it isn’t estrogen in soy but a chemical that mimics it in the body, and b) it doesn’t turn men into women.
- wu-ikkyu 9y agoPerhaps it is superstition, perhaps not, but I try to avoid TV dinners or meals which involve microwaving plastics.
- obstacle1 9y agoThat's a good idea. But I think the TV dinner itself might be worse for you than ingesting whatever the by-product of microwaving the dinner's plastic container might be.
- lamby 9y agoIt's likely that engineering a lifestyle that does not result in eating TV dinners is healthier. Sure, it's getting cause-and-effect backwards, but I'm certain there is something there... :)
- asabjorn 9y agoThe obesity code by Dr. Jason Fung gives some great insights into what we know, and in the end it's quite simple. Our body regulates weight through insulin, so try to keep the insulin levels as low as possible and have extended periods every day where you don't eat.
- lucaspiller 9y agoI wouldn't be surprised if evidence comes out that changes alcohol consumption drastically. Yes people have been drinking alcohol for centuries, but it was originally as a way to preserve calories, avoid drinking unsafe water, and as a crude medical treatment. Today the main reason people drink is to get merry and drunk, and forget about life's problems. The alcohol we drink is (usually) no longer natural, it's processed and refined on an industrial level. I'm sure everybody knows someone who was an alcoholic and the issues it caused them. On the other hand, it's common knowledge that smoking causes major health issues, yet people still do it...
- KozmoNau7 9y agoI've already changed my alcohol consumption. Firstly, I cut down on my overall consumption: most days I don't drink any alcohol at all, and at events I try to stick with 4-5 beers maximum. I sometimes stretch that a bit at festivals, but those only happen once every ~3 months or so and the intake is usually spread out over 8-10 hours. Secondly, I very much prefer less processed types, such as wine, whisky and unfiltered beer. I stay far far away from alcopops and similar drinks. It may be anecdotal evidenece, but I get far fewer hangovers now, even if I drink to the same amount as I used to.
- microcolonel 9y agoFruits and vegetables are full of sucrose, it is the most commonly occurring sugar in plants. If splitting more sucrose (or is fructose really the problem?) increases your chance of cancer, it means very little on its own. Would you get the same results if they matched the starches to the glucose equivalent, rather than the same mass? Which is why I don't see why they would bother to suppress a result like this, but I guess the public interpretation would likely be the outrageous "specifically refined table sugar gives you cancer", so I can't exactly blame 'em for wanting to.
- otakucode 9y agoYeah, and given that the study was specifically about the metabolic output of the gut bacteria of mice, I am very suspicious of anyone jumping to the conclusion that this has even a decent chance of having any relevance to humans. Overall, of course sugar increases likelihood of cancer. Everything which provides energy to the body is because it might provide that energy to dividing cancerous cells. Anything which increases cellular activity increases the risk of cancer, whether it be heat, friction, calories, whatever. Reducing caloric intake is the only proven reliable means of life extension for a reason. But beyond that basic contribution it would be very hard to see how such basic molecules could contribute significantly.
- Tharkun 9y agoFruit & vegetables full of sucrose? That seems a little exaggerated. An onion, for instance, is 90% water, 4% sugars, 3% other carbs and 2% fibre. A coke, on the other hand, is 90% water, 10% sugar (either HFCS or sucrose, depending on your locale) and not an iota of fibre.
- microcolonel 9y agoWould a coke onion (84% water, 10% sugar, 5% fibre, [1% other stuff {caramel colouring, deactivated coca leaf extract, etc.}]) be a bad source of sucrose? Pineapple is about 6% sucrose, red delicious Apples are about 2% sucrose (the rest being mostly fructose, and some glucose), bananas have more than 5% sucrose (As do mangoes, nectarines, and varieties of apple like pink lady).
- sddfd 9y agoThis doesn't surprise me at all. It took almost 40 years to prove that smoking causes lung cancer. Similarly, despite unambiguous scientific evidence, it still seems acceptable to deny that man-made CO2 release into the atmosphere causes global warming. There's actually a good book covering these two instances and others: "Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming"
- QAPereo 9y agoCommon factor: Money to be made. Tobacco was the core of many states' economies, and still remains a massive industry which makes many people wealthy. Dealing with CO2 emissions would have required dealing with fossil fuel use... and that's tons of money and power in play there. Sugar is, at the very least, another substance people crave, and has been making people rich for hundreds of years. Delaying tactics are feasible when you have billions or trillions of dollars, control regulatory bodies, own politicians, scientists, and armies of lawyers. Delaying tactics on the orders of just a few decades means generations of VP's and C-levels getting unfathomably rich, as well as key shareholders. So... fuck the harm, delay, delay, delay. The key is that you have to not give a shit about anyone other than yourself, or be genuinely deluded.
- trhway 9y agoanother major key factor is to maintain majority of [voting] population in the mental state impossible to penetrate by voice of reason. Such state is typically initiated by low quality education and maintained by local and global populist hysteria (that includes religion) based on anger, fear, envy, ...
- ythn 9y ago> The key is that you have to not give a shit about anyone other than yourself This is actually quite difficult. Despite its shortcomings (and perhaps ironically) religion can be effective at convincing people to put others first but I would say the default behavior in most people is "I only care about myself and family first". This default behavior is exacerbated when people follow the influence of greed, lust, etc.
- kinkrtyavimoodh 9y ago30–40 years later we might be saying the same thing about social media.
- dfee 9y agoProbably not cancer, instead I’ll guess we’ll link it to the onset of serious mental diseases.
- anigbrowl 9y agoI think it's a proxy for our unwillingness or inability to tackle cognitive processing issues. Sometimes I talk about my mental health symptoms and people are 'well social media is making you ill,' but I have been struggling to articulate my cognitive difficulties to people since the 1970s. If I ever find myself with a large money surplus I would really like to spend some of it on MRIs or whatever sort of brain scan could help me figure out where my cognitive bottlenecks are.
- noncoml 9y agoI wonder if people 80-100 years ago were as hysteric about radio and TV as we are today about social media.
- eeZah7Ux 9y agoThey weren't. Television and especially radio were both cherished sources of reasonably reliable information in the beginning.
- dragonwriter 9y agoNo, they weren't. They became, over time, accepted sources of trusted and emotionally engaging information, but IIRC studies many decades ago showed that—controlling for consumption of other news media like newspapers—increased consumption of news content from either or both broadcast media was associated with decreased knowledge of current events. They were never sources of reliable information (and, yes, from early on there were negative reactions against the mass acceptance, just as there are today for social media.)
- qwerty456127 9y agoThe whole phenomenon of sugar and fructose being added to virtually everything is beyond comprehension. There are so many people, fat and slim, saying they don't want to be fat, yet eating foods with added sugar every day. Why not just replace all the added sugar with erythritol, for example? The whole situation with sugar reminds me of the situation with opium in early 19th century China
- abawany 9y agoErythritol can cause digestive discomfort for some [1], which is why I suspect it isn't prevalent. It was an eye opener to me how many packaged goods have sugar (HFCS) added, when intuitively it seems there was no good reason for any added sweet flavor to be present. By (mostly) assiduously reading the ingredients (the only source of truth, which is why it is often in the smallest print), I am often able to avoid purchasing rubbish that has no business driving me ever faster to a painful death. There are some goods that are proudly sugar free (on the marketing speak and in the ingredients list) and I make sure to buy these when possible. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erythritol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erythritol
- Retric 9y agoThe shocking thing is if you completely drop sugar from your diet you still notice plenty of sweet things. The only changes is the threshold before you consider something sweet. IMO, we need to have a big fat "This is Candy!" label on anything that's got more than 1 gram of sugar/hfcs/whatever per serving. Yes, that includes Apple Juice and other 'hidden' sweeteners.
- ratpik 9y agoMobile phones companies will be next.
- m3kw9 9y agoThe issue begins when you have the sugar industry funding the research
- doitLP 9y agoInteresting but not surprising. Pharmaceutical companies, for instance, don't publish or cancel studies that show unfavorable results all the time and no one makes a fuss. Who knows the loss to the community and consumers at large in terms of knowledge and health? Beyond that, the take away is yet again: If it's a shortcut or if it's delicious, it's bad for you. (gazes longingly at holiday cookies on desk)
- KozmoNau7 9y agoI don't know, I certainly find chicken (with skin and bone, and no salt/sugar marinade, thank you!) with rice and plenty of veggies to be quite delicious. A lot more delicious than cookies, honestly. I've been trying to live by the No S Diet for a while, and it seems to be working for me, I highly recommend it.
- justboxing 9y agoRequired viewing if you are interested in the Politics of Sugar. => http://sugarcoateddoc.com http://sugarcoateddoc.com Saw it on Netflix. Thought I saw it on youtube also for free, but can't seem to find the video.
- thirdsun 9y agoOnly available on Netflix US and Canada as well as a handful theater screenings. I've said it before but it almost seems as if those documentaries try to limit their audience. I can't count the number of times I stumbled upon interesting small, niche and independent documentaries only to find out that they are only screening in a few limited locations worldwide without any purchasing option in sight.
- saladeen 9y agoIn that case, here's the hash of the torrent: 376C45CE22B1DDE014F8AF2809BF4ECC798B4C19
- tengbretson 9y agoWhy were they responsible for this information in the first place?
- osrec 9y agoSugar is not far from being a drug in my opinion. It certainly feels addictive and has a definite impact on physical and mental state (especially true with respect to children). In that sense, it should undergo the same level of regulation...
- afterburner 9y agoI'm all for eating way less sugar, but you might as well say people are addicted to food. The body needs energy, of course providing it with energy alters its physical and mental state.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- osrec 9y agoYes but it causes an immediate spike in blood glucose levels, which if unused, is stored as fat. That's what makes it dangerous - people generally seem to consume sugar when it is least needed, making it especially detrimental.
- jmurinello 9y agoTotally agree that in current times food is an addiction. Since when do we need to eat 3 meals a day? At least 90 percent of modern humans history, we used hunting and gathering to survive. Only in the last 10 percent we have agriculture, and much much later, refrigerators, supermarkets and convenience stores. If we needed this much food our species wouldn't last a week before agriculture. Spoiler alert: we lasted 300,000 years.
- foobarge 9y agoAgreed - and it's been proven (citation needed) that a low calorie diet prolonges life. But here we are, needing to consume more energy because we do things (good, bad, useless or wasteful) with our time (and these things aren't directly looking for food.)
- 9y ago
- Cozumel 9y agoRead 'pure, white and deadly' by John Yudkin. This has been known about for decades.
- jmurinello 9y agoI consider sugar to be no different from cocaine (not that I ever tried), but we crave for it the same way people who consume that drug or any other, crave for. Sugar is everywhere, and it's our main source of energy, being that our body feels terrible when its levels are low, but as soon as you eat it feels wonderful. The same goes with cocaine.
- JAFTEM 9y agoOne could instead use fats for fuel by cycling in and out of ketosis. After the body adapts, sugar and carb cravings subside.
- jmurinello 9y agoI would like to see more researches on ketosis diet. Seen by medicine as something that occurs when in starvation, I see it as the natural state of the human body. I eat once a day and I don't feel like I'm starving. And when I eat I don't feast.
- JAFTEM 9y agoI also find my mood is very steady and mellow instead of the constant rush and burn on a high carb diet. The lack of research is concerning. I'm refraining from staying on the diet for too long and am opting to cycle in and out of it by re-introducing carbs periodically.
- KozmoNau7 9y agoKetosis can be very hard on the kidneys, so I find it hard to believe that it should be the natural state of the human body.
- jmurinello 9y agoCan you elaborate that?
- 9y ago
- Fnoord 9y agoThere's a plethora of E-numbers which are a safe alternative [1] (according to the EU). I could quote them, but you might as well just click on the link instead. They're supposedly easy to recognize as they're in the E95? and E96? range. Unfortunately the fear for E-numbers has caused manufacturers to stop mentioning them and instead naming the ingredients again. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_number#E900.E2.80.93E999_.28glazing_agents.2C_gases_and_sweeteners.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_number#E900.E2.80.93E999_.28...
- sillysaurus3 9y agoI recently started the Whole 30 diet (paleo), and it's nearly impossible to avoid sugar, corn starch, and dextrose. Almost all fooeds seem to have one of those. Often for no reason: why put sugar in beans and bacon, or corn starch in turkey? The amount of money I'm spending on food jumped by 3x. It seems accurate to say that if you're poor, you're almost forced to eat sugar for economic reasons.
- TheSpiceIsLife 9y agoI don't follow any particular diet, but most of my meals are vegetables and a small amount meat / fish / eggs / chicken. I find it quite affordable. I typically avoid buying anything processed, those items rapidly ruin my budget.
- sluggg 9y ago"I typically avoid buying anything processed, those items rapidly ruin my budget." ... what processed foods are on average considerably cheaper. Spam, hot dogs, bacon, deli meats, and the list goes on and on. Where do you shop? I am highly skeptical of your claims.
- nopassrecover 9y agoDepends where you live. Fresh food from an independent grocer is noticeably cheaper, fresher, longer-lasting, and tastier than any of the food (packaged or fresh) from major supermarkets here in Australia.
- always_good 9y agoDeli meats are pretty expensive. So is bacon if you're using it as your entree.
- obstacle1 9y ago>Almost all fooeds seem to have one of those Almost all prepared, packaged, or preserved foods have one of those. The solution is actually pretty simple: eat meals made from base/raw ingredients only. Beans, nuts, meats, vegetables, fruits, vegetable oils, spices... Endless varieties of stuff to cook with, combine, and eat alone. People just aren't used to eating this way, because prepackaged crap has been the norm for so long. You are right that if you're poor, it's difficult to eat this way, though.
- rubicon33 9y agoI wish someone could explain in detail what EXACTLY is meant by "sugar". It's become an overloaded term. When we say sugar, do we JUST mean refined, processed, isolated sugars of the likes of candy bars, sodas, etc? Or do we mean carbohydrates in general, which are broken down by enzymes in our saliva (amylase) into sugars? If the latter then can we conclude carbohydrates in general are cancer causing? I'm no biologist, or medical professional, so this all gets really confusing when you start thinking beyond the simple "sugar is bad" assertion.
- hathawsh 9y agoOf the people I know who have been on a sugar-free diet, all of them continued to eat carrots, even though carrots have an interesting amount of sugar. http://www.sugarstacks.com/carrots.htm http://www.sugarstacks.com/carrots.htm So when people say they're on a sugar-free diet, I interpret that to mean they are avoiding refined sugars.
- anindha 9y agoThe total amount of sugar is less important than the glycemic load and the insulin response caused. Carrots are high in fibre. "The glycemic index is a value assigned to foods based on how slowly or how quickly those foods cause increases in blood glucose levels" [1] Coca Cola® (63) vs Carrots (39). Higher is worse. [1] https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-conditions/glycemic-index-and-glycemic-load-for-100-foods https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-conditions/glyce...
- fattyboy420 9y agoCoca Cola® (63) vs White Rice (72). Higher is worse. By using that logic, chicken nuggets and Pizza Hut beat plain potatoes. Clearly not a good recipe for a healthy diet.
- anindha 9y agoBoth pizza and chicken nuggets are higher in fat and protein so don't spike insulin or blood glucose levels. The preservatives and additives make the Pizza Hut pizza and frozen chicken nuggets unhealthy for other reasons. If you were making your own baked chicken nuggets or pizza from quality ingredients then they are definitely healthier than potatoes or white rice, assuming the calorie intake was the same. This is counter-intuitive to most people because of all the misinformation around the benefits of a low-fat diet [1]. [1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/24945404-the-obesity-code https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/24945404-the-obesity-cod...
- aquamo 9y agoWhen reading a book about Alan Turing, I came across a reference to "Natural Wonders, 1928" by Edwin Tenney Brewster (free in iBooks and on the web) - where he refers to Chapter 38: Of Sugar and other Poisons :=) It's not surprising that after we made fat the demon, the supply change replaced fat with with sugar (at least in yogurts) and type 2 diabetes is now rampant. :-)
- anindha 9y agoI wonder if we will see a class action for everyone that has developed type 2 diabetes. There is a precedent.
- ellyagg 9y agoBeing overweight is a much stronger correlate to cancer and heart disease than "sugar". And, despite what you might have read in the press, it's nowhere near a consensus that sugar is the primary cause of being overweight. You really think a 50-year-old study is the smoking gun that's going to usher in a consensus among nutrition scientists everywhere? Personally, I buy Stephen Guyenet's theory that palatability is the driver of overweight. I think it's increasing palatability and falling food costs.
- zzz157 9y agoSugar seems to pretty obviously make people overweight. Especially in liquid form. And if this is not a consensus, well, see the title of this post. This isn't a hard thing to test.
- DonHopkins 9y agoHappy Jax => Sugar Crisp => Super Sugar Crisp => Super Golden Crisp => Golden Crisp But it's still "Sugar Crisp" in Canada, where Sugar Bear still says "Can't get enough of that Sugar Crisp"! Do they have better truth in advertising laws there or something? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Crisp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Crisp At the 1904 World Fair, the Quaker Oats Company made a candy-coated puffed cereal, a wheat-based product similar to Cracker Jack's candy-coated popcorn. The product concept was re-introduced unsuccessfully in 1939 by another business as Ranger Joe, the first pre-sweetened, candy-coated breakfast cereal. Post Foods introduced their own version in 1948. The Post version was originally called Happy Jax, and was renamed to Sugar Crisp the next year. The name was later changed to Super Sugar Crisp, and in 1985, it was changed again to Super Golden Crisp. Finally, it was changed to Golden Crisp (during a time when many cereals dropped the word "Sugar" from their titles) in the American market. In the early 1970s, there was a short-lived variation on the original Sugar Crisp, called Super Orange Crisp, which had orange-flavored O's in it. The product is still sold as Sugar Crisp in Canada. In Canada, the box still displays the Sugar Bear mascot and the phrase "Can't get enough of that Sugar Crisp."
- toomanybeersies 9y agoBreakfast cereal companies are borderline criminal. Most cereals are just straight sugar on some substrate. Even most muesli/granola is loaded with sugar, whether cane sugar, honey, or dried fruit.
- visarga 9y agoAnecdotal evidence - I have seen kids grow up nicely on daily bowl of milk and cereal. I suspect it's because cereal also contains minerals and vitamins, which, in time, help.
- zaarn 9y agoDepends on the cereal. The corn flakes I usually eat for breakfast have basically 0 nutritional value, I think the entire 1kg box contains about 800kJ, no sugar and the rest of that is then mostly air or filler.
- richardknop 9y agoHas it actually been proven that natural fats are bad for you? I always thought fat is healthier than sugar. Both sugar and fat are required part of healthy diet but I’d rather eat some pork sausage than ice cream or chocolate. It seems much healthier to me but I could be totally wrong and this is just some irrational belief I hold.
- KozmoNau7 9y agoWatch out for that sausage, it's very likely to have nitrite salts in it, as well as surprisingly high amounts of sodium and sugar.
- richardknop 9y agoIs salt unhealthy? I thought that is a myth too. I think salt is required part of healthy diet. In moderation of course. Sugar? Hmm I didn’t know there’s much sugar in sausages. I mostly eat family made sausages and I don’t think there’s much sugar.
- KozmoNau7 9y agoSalt isn't dangerous, as long as you get enough fluids, your kidneys are healthy and you don't overdo it. In other words yeah moderation is key, but sausages (and other cured meats) can have a surprising salt content. Sugar routinely gets added to a lot of foodstuffs you wouldn't expect it in. But if you're primarily eating home-made sausages, you're probably not going to have any issues, they're mostly in processed and ready-made foods.
- assafmo 9y agoI started the keto diet with intermittent fasting about a month ago. Lost 13kg, doesn't have cravings anymore, doesn't feel hungry all the time, and it's easier now to consentrate, fall asleep and wake up. Defenetly feels like carbohydrates/sugar is poison.
- devmunchies 9y agoKeto diet is terrible for you. You are losing weight because you are sick. It's the refined carbs and sugar that are not good, you just need to get them from whole sources with the fiber and all.
- dublinclontarf 9y ago> Keto diet is terrible for you. Because?
- saladeen 9y agoIn my online experience, 90% of people who straight up attack keto like this are vegans who want to keep propping up the dogma that 'animal products = bad for you'. They often also assume that keto = eating only meat.
- KozmoNau7 9y agoBecause ketosis is forcing your body to create glucose from protein, which is a very energy-demanding process (that is good), but it's also extremely hard on your kidneys. It is possibly fine to be in ketosis for a little while (and it can serve a medical purpose), but you should absolutely not keep it up long-term. As with all crash diets where a lot of weight is lost rapidly, the weight is very likely to pile back on when the diet is over.
- shoobedowop 9y agoIf you interpret no longer being on cholesterol medication, high blood pressure medication, PPI's, along with no longer having elevated AST/ALT levels and elevated triglyceride levels, then yes, I guess I'm terribly sick - for over 3 years now. Stick to what you know because nutrition is not it.
- hutzlibu 9y agoI am not sure, how appropriate this is, but a related question/poll: there is the stereotype, that hackers/IT guys are in general fat/unhealthy. But in my experience, this is not at all true. It might just be my circles of people (mostly germans around 30), but most of the IT guys I know, take good care of their body, eat healthy and do all kinds of sports. Even though some are now starting to get lazy, the overall picture for me is, that most are healthy, above average (compared to people of their age). So I am curious, how the world is for other people here on HN?
- propelol 9y agoPeople with higher education often take better care of their bodies. Here is my theory: A couple of decades ago, IT didn't require much education, because there weren't many schools doing IT. So many people without higher education worked in IT.
- hutzlibu 9y agoI would go more with, a lot of sad, fat kids at home, discovered the world of computers, where they could shine, because nobody cared how they looked in the real world, it only mattered what they could do. And this stereotype definitely still exists, I would be curious, how many of the HN crowd fit into it, but I can understand, that nobody wants to out himself like that. edit: and I believe every fat person, knows and knew, that being fat is bad, but when you are sad and eating is your allmost only joy, what can you do? Starving and give up that little bit of happiness?
- KozmoNau7 9y agoI don't have any higher education, I took the vocational school route for electronics and IT support, got a job and worked my way up through experience and various courses/certifications. Maybe I'm a good example, because I used to be rather overweight (125+kg) and inactive. After I started working in IT, I've slimmed down to below 100kg and I've been doing crossfit for ~5 years.
- zzz157 9y agoA lot of us never did higher education, work in the industry, and still aren't fat.
- lerie82 9y agoMaybe we should all just have some moderation.
- MrScoobs 9y agoWhen calories are controlled, there is no difference in health markers between a high sugar diet vs low.
- ohiovr 9y agoCount the isles in your supermarket, how many of them are nearly 100% dedicated to sugar and sugary products? Think back 30 years, is this the way you remember it? Saying diabetes and sugar aren't related while in America there is a massive influx of diabetes diagnoses is like saying your dog ate your homework.
- stefek99 9y agoI don't really understand - what's the catch? Some other day I've heard the news they were sponsoring research that fat makes you fat. Capitalism baby - profit for shareholders - we need https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_bottom_line https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_bottom_line so that it is legally OK not to harm people.
- sandov 9y agoI find it hard to follow nutritional advise when there are so many charlatans taking advantage of women trying to lose weight without any health concern. A Medicine degree shouldn't be necessary in order to eat well. Any reliable source where I can learn the 'nutritional 101' in layman terms?