4 ms·

Sugar is not the primary problem. I eat copious amounts of sugar (probably too much). This ranges from refined sugar in sweets, lots of fruits, juices and even

Sugar is not the primary problem. I eat copious amounts of sugar (probably too much). This ranges from refined sugar in sweets, lots of fruits, juices and even soda. I've been vegetarian for over a decade now, and my BMI Is 23.5, my body fat percentage is 14.5% and my blood sugar level is still considered in the good range for preventing diabetes. I don't think the problem is sugar, the problem is living a sedentary life style, and perhaps even eating lots of processed red meats. My point being, a war on sugar is the wrong way to battle the obesity crisis. Get people to eat more fruits and veggies and to spend more active time outdoors.

hannob 9y ago
Do you know the difference between anecdotes and science?
- jdavis703 9y ago
  Here's some science then. Based on analyzing food groups controlled with total calorie consumption, it was found that meat availability is most highly correlated with obesity: https://bmcnutr.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40795-016-0063-9 https://bmcnutr.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40795-01...
  - okket 9y ago
    So you are saying that when you eat the same amount of calories, meat is better at getting you fat? How does this debunk the problems with sugar in your view?
    - DrScump 9y ago
      Note that it studies meat availability, not meat consumption.
      - okket 9y ago
        You get more likely fat by looking at meat? Besides that, I agree that meat is a superior food compared to sugar and it will get you more easily fat, if compared on calorie by calorie base. But this does not say anything about the addictiveness of sugar or the health problems that come from overconsumption (diabetes, etc). Will say, most people can control their meat intake (some not), but most can not control how much sugar they consume. Especially if it is omnipresent and hidden in many foods you might not suspect.
        DrScump 9y ago
        meat... will get you more easily fat if compared on calorie (for) calorie (basis) I think that's exactly wrong. I can think of no mechanism by which, say, 1000 calories of excess fat+protein would cause more net fat gain than 1000 calories of excess carbohydrate.
        lkbm 9y ago
        How about if one results in you later consuming fewer calories than the other by affecting the production (and reception) of leptin, insulin, and maybe a dozen other hormones?
        DrScump 9y ago
        Yes, that's exactly the point -- meat/fat have much higher satiety than carbohydrate and less effect on insulin.
- dang 9y ago
  Please don't post snarky dismissals to Hacker News, regardless of how wrong someone else is or you feel they are. This sort of comment is pure regression to the mean, which is not what we want HN to be.
FullMtlAlcoholc 9y ago
My dad smoked for 50 years until quitting in his 70's. Now, at age.80, he's still healthy as a horse. However, I wouldn't draw a conclusion from an anecdotal data point and say cigarettes aren't a health hazard.
- sifoo 9y ago
  Now I'm curious, why did he quit? Smoking regular cigarettes with foam-filters kills me fast, but smoking organically grown tobacco without additives and filters doesn't seem to do much harm from my experience. I'm pretty sure we're not being told the whole truth about tobacco.
  - FullMtlAlcoholc 9y ago
    He had some type of surgery on his sinuses. He also had high blood pressure showed signs of heart arrhythmia. Nothing out of the ordinary for a person his age. >but smoking organically grown tobacco without additives and filters doesn't seem to do much harm from my experience. Get an x-ray or ct scan of your lungs. Or get your VO2max tested. Quit for a month and try testing it again. I assure you, you'll see a difference just from your airways and nasal passages not being inflamed.
    - sifoo 9y ago
      I'm pretty sure the radiation would do more harm. I'm not saying it's healthy, I'm just saying it's not the same thing as the crap the research is based on. And I have quit for longer periods without seeing much difference.

hannob 9y ago

Do you know the difference between anecdotes and science?

jdavis703 9y ago
Here's some science then. Based on analyzing food groups controlled with total calorie consumption, it was found that meat availability is most highly correlated with obesity: https://bmcnutr.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40795-016-0063-9 https://bmcnutr.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40795-01...
- okket 9y ago
  So you are saying that when you eat the same amount of calories, meat is better at getting you fat? How does this debunk the problems with sugar in your view?
  - DrScump 9y ago
    Note that it studies meat availability, not meat consumption.
    - okket 9y ago
      You get more likely fat by looking at meat? Besides that, I agree that meat is a superior food compared to sugar and it will get you more easily fat, if compared on calorie by calorie base. But this does not say anything about the addictiveness of sugar or the health problems that come from overconsumption (diabetes, etc). Will say, most people can control their meat intake (some not), but most can not control how much sugar they consume. Especially if it is omnipresent and hidden in many foods you might not suspect.
      - DrScump 9y ago
        meat... will get you more easily fat if compared on calorie (for) calorie (basis) I think that's exactly wrong. I can think of no mechanism by which, say, 1000 calories of excess fat+protein would cause more net fat gain than 1000 calories of excess carbohydrate.
        lkbm 9y ago
        How about if one results in you later consuming fewer calories than the other by affecting the production (and reception) of leptin, insulin, and maybe a dozen other hormones?
        DrScump 9y ago
        Yes, that's exactly the point -- meat/fat have much higher satiety than carbohydrate and less effect on insulin.
dang 9y ago
Please don't post snarky dismissals to Hacker News, regardless of how wrong someone else is or you feel they are. This sort of comment is pure regression to the mean, which is not what we want HN to be.

FullMtlAlcoholc 9y ago

My dad smoked for 50 years until quitting in his 70's. Now, at age.80, he's still healthy as a horse. However, I wouldn't draw a conclusion from an anecdotal data point and say cigarettes aren't a health hazard.

sifoo 9y ago
Now I'm curious, why did he quit? Smoking regular cigarettes with foam-filters kills me fast, but smoking organically grown tobacco without additives and filters doesn't seem to do much harm from my experience. I'm pretty sure we're not being told the whole truth about tobacco.
- FullMtlAlcoholc 9y ago
  He had some type of surgery on his sinuses. He also had high blood pressure showed signs of heart arrhythmia. Nothing out of the ordinary for a person his age. >but smoking organically grown tobacco without additives and filters doesn't seem to do much harm from my experience. Get an x-ray or ct scan of your lungs. Or get your VO2max tested. Quit for a month and try testing it again. I assure you, you'll see a difference just from your airways and nasal passages not being inflamed.
  - sifoo 9y ago
    I'm pretty sure the radiation would do more harm. I'm not saying it's healthy, I'm just saying it's not the same thing as the crap the research is based on. And I have quit for longer periods without seeing much difference.