5 ms·

That is pretty neat. I'm hoping for a better future for low carb snacks.

beebeepka 3y ago
Sounds awful. All of the taste, none of the nutrition. Anything but moderation. We shouldn't be indulging the lack of moderation.
- mhb 3y ago
  Nothing stopping people from putting it on broccoli.
- tchaffee 3y ago
  Folks with inherited diabetes do not have the option of moderation. You don't need to see this through such a narrow political lens. Some fermented nut-based vegan cheeses are healthier for the heart. Should we moan about that invention and insist on dairy based cheese, moderation, and less choice? No one is forcing you to use these new things.
  - beebeepka 3y ago
    Oh please. You know well this thing, if it works, is going to end up in addictive carbonated sugar water drinks. Except it's not even sugar. Aspartame is a great example. It didn't help with the amount of land whales. Accusing me of looking through a narrow political lense. How about you look in the mirror.
    - tetris11 3y ago
      Drop your last paragraph, it goes against the HN guidelines
    - tchaffee 3y ago
      I looked in the mirror and stepped on the scale. I'm at a very healthy weight. You sound angry.
- exabyte 3y ago
  Yes but we've seen added sugar to be quite an addictive substance. People want to quit and it's difficult. You will feel the void of sugar. So if there's a healthy alternative that can reduce sugar. It is a highly valuable stepping stone where the success of it would be to make itself unnecessary (although still fun to use!) I think if it's natural and doesn't pose health risks that it sounds great.
  - beebeepka 3y ago
    The healthy alternative has been here all along: fruits and nuts. Ah but they are not heavily advertised, so they must be bad :( I know you mean well but I firmly believe indulging this behaviour is detrimental to society
    - tchaffee 3y ago
      Indulging what behavior specifically? The use of new ingredients?
      - beebeepka 3y ago
        Overconsumption.
        tchaffee 3y ago
        Why does a new and possibly healthier ingredient need to imply overconsumption? And what exactly is overconsumption? Isn't it eating more than our body needs? If I eat more of an ingredient that provides fewer nutrients then there is no overconsumption, correct? Or are you looking for a world where we should only eat the most nutrient dense food because of ?
  - numpad0 3y ago
    I think that only works with a precondition that sugar substitutes aren't as addictive. That isn't obvious.
- Sparkyte 3y ago
  We eat too many carbs you can get nutrition from food without carbs. Just American processed food focuses on salts, carbs and other filler. Salt is a filler for flavors where spices and herbs can be used because it is cheaper. Carbs are used because it makes you feel full quick. Where protein will make you feel full after digestion. America's culture of max min profit is annoying.
  - hombre_fatal 3y ago
    Protein isn't a magical satiation macronutrient, else protein shakes would be at the top of the satiety index and potatoes wouldn't be #1. You're using the word "carbs" as a euphemism for refined grain and sugar. When you say we eat too many carbs, presumably you aren't talking about broccoli. Why not just say refined gains and sugar? It's like throwing around the word protein when you're talking about wheat gluten.
    - Sparkyte 3y ago
      I think you're confusing proteins and carbs. Dietary fiber yes a carb is not a problem as the body typically does not process dietary fiber. You need some carbs in the diet, but have you ever checked the nutritional label? Sugar is a carb. You really only need so much carbs in your diet and that is about 100g to 200g. Varying on age gender and genetic heritage.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- TylerE 3y ago
  Everything in moderation, including moderation. You're allowed to live a little once in a while.
abainbridge 3y ago
I'm not sure artificial sweeteners are good for anything. A 2019 meta analysis published in the British Medical Journal said, "Most health outcomes did not seem to have differences between the NSS (Non-sugar sweeteners) exposed and unexposed groups." - https://www.bmj.com/content/364/bmj.k4718 https://www.bmj.com/content/364/bmj.k4718 A few months ago, "WHO advises not to use non-sugar sweeteners for weight control in newly released guideline" - https://www.who.int/news/item/15-05-2023-who-advises-not-to-use-non-sugar-sweeteners-for-weight-control-in-newly-released-guideline https://www.who.int/news/item/15-05-2023-who-advises-not-to-... My guess is that things tasting sweet is part of the problem. For example: "Ingestion of these artificial sweeteners (AS) results in the release of insulin from pancreas which is mistaken for glucose (due to their sweet taste). This increases the levels of insulin in blood eventually leading to decreased receptor activity due to insulin resistance." - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7014832/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7014832/ And: "the role of sweet taste in energy intake and appetite regulation is controversial" - https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/6/9/3431 https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/6/9/3431
- haldujai 3y ago
  Respectfully, overstated conclusions you’re drawing from these limited studies. Ref[1]: Of the few studies identified for each outcome, most had few participants, were of short duration, and their methodological and reporting quality was limited; therefore, confidence in the reported results is limited. Ref[2] only states NSS should not be used in weight control due to a lack of long term evidence (I.e. if trying to achieve weight control there are better strategies, not necessarily a condemnation) as well as: Because the link observed in the evidence between NSS and disease outcomes might be confounded by baseline characteristics of study participants and complicated patterns of NSS use, the recommendation has been assessed as conditional, following WHO processes for developing guidelines. This signals that policy decisions based on this recommendation may require substantive discussion in specific country contexts, linked for example to the extent of consumption in different age groups. Ref[2]’s full WHO review article[5] is even more damning on the methodology. Pertinent to your arguments: The results suggest that, in the short term, NSS use may lead to small reductions in adiposity without any significant impact on cardiometabolic risk. There is suggestion of negative health effects with long-term use, but the evidence is ultimately inconclusive. Ref[3] is obviated by ref[2] and meaningless in isolation, reasons described in the 200 page WHO report. Ref[4] is theoretical about mechanisms and provides no empiric evidence of anything. Contrary to this hypothesis the WHO study elaborates on why the long-term observational studies are discordant with short-term RCTs and the gist is bias. [5] https://apps.who.int/iris/rest/bitstreams/1417548/retrieve https://apps.who.int/iris/rest/bitstreams/1417548/retrieve

Sounds awful. All of the taste, none of the nutrition. Anything but moderation. We shouldn't be indulging the lack of moderation.

mhb 3y ago
Nothing stopping people from putting it on broccoli.
tchaffee 3y ago
Folks with inherited diabetes do not have the option of moderation. You don't need to see this through such a narrow political lens. Some fermented nut-based vegan cheeses are healthier for the heart. Should we moan about that invention and insist on dairy based cheese, moderation, and less choice? No one is forcing you to use these new things.
- beebeepka 3y ago
  Oh please. You know well this thing, if it works, is going to end up in addictive carbonated sugar water drinks. Except it's not even sugar. Aspartame is a great example. It didn't help with the amount of land whales. Accusing me of looking through a narrow political lense. How about you look in the mirror.
  - tetris11 3y ago
    Drop your last paragraph, it goes against the HN guidelines
  - tchaffee 3y ago
    I looked in the mirror and stepped on the scale. I'm at a very healthy weight. You sound angry.
exabyte 3y ago
Yes but we've seen added sugar to be quite an addictive substance. People want to quit and it's difficult. You will feel the void of sugar. So if there's a healthy alternative that can reduce sugar. It is a highly valuable stepping stone where the success of it would be to make itself unnecessary (although still fun to use!) I think if it's natural and doesn't pose health risks that it sounds great.
- beebeepka 3y ago
  The healthy alternative has been here all along: fruits and nuts. Ah but they are not heavily advertised, so they must be bad :( I know you mean well but I firmly believe indulging this behaviour is detrimental to society
  - tchaffee 3y ago
    Indulging what behavior specifically? The use of new ingredients?
    - beebeepka 3y ago
      Overconsumption.
      - tchaffee 3y ago
        Why does a new and possibly healthier ingredient need to imply overconsumption? And what exactly is overconsumption? Isn't it eating more than our body needs? If I eat more of an ingredient that provides fewer nutrients then there is no overconsumption, correct? Or are you looking for a world where we should only eat the most nutrient dense food because of ?
- numpad0 3y ago
  I think that only works with a precondition that sugar substitutes aren't as addictive. That isn't obvious.
Sparkyte 3y ago
We eat too many carbs you can get nutrition from food without carbs. Just American processed food focuses on salts, carbs and other filler. Salt is a filler for flavors where spices and herbs can be used because it is cheaper. Carbs are used because it makes you feel full quick. Where protein will make you feel full after digestion. America's culture of max min profit is annoying.
- hombre_fatal 3y ago
  Protein isn't a magical satiation macronutrient, else protein shakes would be at the top of the satiety index and potatoes wouldn't be #1. You're using the word "carbs" as a euphemism for refined grain and sugar. When you say we eat too many carbs, presumably you aren't talking about broccoli. Why not just say refined gains and sugar? It's like throwing around the word protein when you're talking about wheat gluten.
  - Sparkyte 3y ago
    I think you're confusing proteins and carbs. Dietary fiber yes a carb is not a problem as the body typically does not process dietary fiber. You need some carbs in the diet, but have you ever checked the nutritional label? Sugar is a carb. You really only need so much carbs in your diet and that is about 100g to 200g. Varying on age gender and genetic heritage.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
TylerE 3y ago
Everything in moderation, including moderation. You're allowed to live a little once in a while.

abainbridge 3y ago

I'm not sure artificial sweeteners are good for anything. A 2019 meta analysis published in the British Medical Journal said, "Most health outcomes did not seem to have differences between the NSS (Non-sugar sweeteners) exposed and unexposed groups." - https://www.bmj.com/content/364/bmj.k4718 https://www.bmj.com/content/364/bmj.k4718 A few months ago, "WHO advises not to use non-sugar sweeteners for weight control in newly released guideline" - https://www.who.int/news/item/15-05-2023-who-advises-not-to-use-non-sugar-sweeteners-for-weight-control-in-newly-released-guideline https://www.who.int/news/item/15-05-2023-who-advises-not-to-... My guess is that things tasting sweet is part of the problem. For example: "Ingestion of these artificial sweeteners (AS) results in the release of insulin from pancreas which is mistaken for glucose (due to their sweet taste). This increases the levels of insulin in blood eventually leading to decreased receptor activity due to insulin resistance." - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7014832/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7014832/ And: "the role of sweet taste in energy intake and appetite regulation is controversial" - https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/6/9/3431 https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/6/9/3431

haldujai 3y ago
Respectfully, overstated conclusions you’re drawing from these limited studies. Ref[1]: Of the few studies identified for each outcome, most had few participants, were of short duration, and their methodological and reporting quality was limited; therefore, confidence in the reported results is limited. Ref[2] only states NSS should not be used in weight control due to a lack of long term evidence (I.e. if trying to achieve weight control there are better strategies, not necessarily a condemnation) as well as: Because the link observed in the evidence between NSS and disease outcomes might be confounded by baseline characteristics of study participants and complicated patterns of NSS use, the recommendation has been assessed as conditional, following WHO processes for developing guidelines. This signals that policy decisions based on this recommendation may require substantive discussion in specific country contexts, linked for example to the extent of consumption in different age groups. Ref[2]’s full WHO review article[5] is even more damning on the methodology. Pertinent to your arguments: The results suggest that, in the short term, NSS use may lead to small reductions in adiposity without any significant impact on cardiometabolic risk. There is suggestion of negative health effects with long-term use, but the evidence is ultimately inconclusive. Ref[3] is obviated by ref[2] and meaningless in isolation, reasons described in the 200 page WHO report. Ref[4] is theoretical about mechanisms and provides no empiric evidence of anything. Contrary to this hypothesis the WHO study elaborates on why the long-term observational studies are discordant with short-term RCTs and the gist is bias. [5] https://apps.who.int/iris/rest/bitstreams/1417548/retrieve https://apps.who.int/iris/rest/bitstreams/1417548/retrieve