5 ms·

You say "GMO" as if it's a bad thing.

by ARCarr 12y ago

wdewind 12y ago
And "carbs" as if they are bad things.
- debacle 12y ago
  Carbs are a bad thing in large amounts. The FDA's daily carb intake recommendations (250-350g) are a joke.
  - wdewind 12y ago
    The FDA recommendations are not great, but 300g of carbs is totally reasonable if you are on a low fat diet. The problem is people on high carb diets tend to have a hard time keeping it at just 300g due to insulin level effects. But it's a behavioral issue: control the level of carb intake and you'll be fine.
    - debacle 12y ago
      300g of carbs is the same amount of sugar in 3 litres of coke. Do you really think that is reasonable for anyone?
      - wdewind 12y ago
        No because it will be extremely difficult for you to fit within your caloric balance and still get all the micronutrients you need. But the issue here is that the carbs are paired with something that doesn't also give you those micronutrients so you'd have to eat even more calories to get there, not the carbs themselves.
- Someone1234 12y ago
  A lot of carbohydrates are extremely bad for you (e.g. sugar). However some are good for you (e.g. green veggies). The devil is in the details as they say. From what I've read of this product, it doesn't contain excess anything by design. So it likely isn't problematic, but as a general rule "bad" carbs can be very bad for you and give you things like diabetes if over-consumed.
  - wdewind 12y ago
    > The devil is in the details as they say. Yes. First off, there is absolutely no science showing sugar is bad for you, or that it behaves differently from other carbs when combined with equal amounts of fiber (which is why vegetable carbohydrates tend to be "ok"). Second, even without the fiber, for the vast majority of people a high sugar diet (within reasonable max carbohydrate intake) is not going to adversely affect you directly, the issue usually comes in with behavioral impact, causing you to eat more, causing you to get fat, causing you to have diabetes. > as a general rule "bad" carbs can be very bad for you and give you things like diabetes if over-consumed This concept of "bad" carbs is really not useful. Carbs are pretty much carbs. Anything (other carbs, fat and protein) can also be over-consumed but are simply less likely to. TLDR: assuming equal amounts of carbohydrates, the source doesn't actually seem to have a big impact.
    - Someone1234 12y ago
      > First off, there is absolutely no science showing sugar is bad for you, or that it behaves differently from other carbs when combined with equal amounts of fiber (which is why vegetable carbohydrates tend to be "ok"). I just stopped reading there. No point going on, that's just jaw droppingly ignorant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar#Health_effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar#Health_effects The fact you're arguing that green veggies and sugar are equally bad for people is just, wow, just wow. That's a new low.
      - wdewind 12y ago
        Did you even read the link you sent? Here are some quotes: > Some studies involving the health impact of sugars are effectively inconclusive. The WHO and FAO meta studies have shown directly contrasting impacts of sugar in refined and unrefined forms[66] and since most studies do not use a population that do not consume any "free sugars" at all, the baseline is effectively flawed. Hence, there are articles such as Consumer Reports on Health that stated in 2008, "Some of the supposed dietary dangers of sugar have been overblown. Many studies have debunked the idea that it causes hyperactivity, for example. > Studies on the link between sugars and diabetes are inconclusive, with some suggesting that eating excessive amounts of sugar does not increase the risk of diabetes, although the extra calories from consuming large amounts of sugar can lead to obesity, which may itself increase the risk of developing this metabolic disease. So there is definitely controversy, and to call me jaw droppingly ignorant is pretty offensive. The fact that you think I'm arguing green veggies and sugar are equally bad for people means you fundamentally did not understand what I was saying. What do you think the difference between veggies and other sources of sugar is? Hint: it's not the type of sugar, it's the absence of fiber. Here's another quote, from your link: > Some experts have suggested that refined fructose is more damaging than refined glucose in terms of cardiovascular risk. The refining process is essentially one that removes the fiber. Let's go back to my quote: > First off, there is absolutely no science showing sugar is bad for you, or that it behaves differently from other carbs when combined with equal amounts of fiber (which is why vegetable carbohydrates tend to be "ok"). Emphasis added.
jeffreyrogers 12y ago
I think there is a valid argument against GMOs, but it revolves more around the dangers of creating a monoculture (i.e. one bad crop disease could then wipe out a large fraction of the food supply), rather than health risks, since as I'm sure many HN readers are aware, humans have been genetically modifying food since they've been cultivating it.
- stolio 12y ago
  I know even Neil DeGrasse Tyson has been pushing the "we've been genetically modifying food for thousands of years!" line but I think it's a bit disingenuous. Crossing a tomato and a deep sea fish is fundamentally different from crossing two strains of corn and we should expect different risks.
  - diminoten 12y ago
    How is it fundamentally different? Sounds almost exactly the same, to me.
    - stolio 12y ago
      It's all DNA based, all from the same tree of life, true. But is there any evidence of gene sharing between biological kingdoms in nature? Why can't an animal and a plant create an offspring that shares both of their genetic information? There's clearly lack of a mechanism for fish-tomato sex but evolution is known to create very elegant mechanisms for things that are beneficial. Intra-species gene sharing has been selected for as being beneficial, inter-species gene sharing hasn't. EDIT: I'm not allowed to comment on the response below? So, here it is... > Given that it is observed in nature, what is your basis for that conclusion? Clearly I was unaware this happens at all in nature which is why I asked if it happens. Horizontal Gene Transfer is fascinating. However, it's been around since the beginning but sexual reproduction supplanted it as the preferred method of gene sharing as the complexity of organisms increased.
      - dragonwriter 12y ago
vtlynch 12y ago
Certainly GMOs can be bad, such as crops that are "roundup ready". Others, like Innate Potatoes (that NPR recently did a story on), can be good. However there is not conclusive evidence on GMOs such as the Innate that prove they dont have negative effects as well. The laws on GMO labeling in American also fall very short of differentiating from "good" GMOs and "bad" GMOs. Given that I rather not ingest crops modified to resist poison, I just pass on all GMOs.

You say "GMO" as if it's a bad thing.

by ARCarr 12y ago

You say "GMO" as if it's a bad thing.

wdewind 12y ago

And "carbs" as if they are bad things.

debacle 12y ago
Carbs are a bad thing in large amounts. The FDA's daily carb intake recommendations (250-350g) are a joke.
- wdewind 12y ago
  The FDA recommendations are not great, but 300g of carbs is totally reasonable if you are on a low fat diet. The problem is people on high carb diets tend to have a hard time keeping it at just 300g due to insulin level effects. But it's a behavioral issue: control the level of carb intake and you'll be fine.
  - debacle 12y ago
    300g of carbs is the same amount of sugar in 3 litres of coke. Do you really think that is reasonable for anyone?
    - wdewind 12y ago
      No because it will be extremely difficult for you to fit within your caloric balance and still get all the micronutrients you need. But the issue here is that the carbs are paired with something that doesn't also give you those micronutrients so you'd have to eat even more calories to get there, not the carbs themselves.
Someone1234 12y ago
A lot of carbohydrates are extremely bad for you (e.g. sugar). However some are good for you (e.g. green veggies). The devil is in the details as they say. From what I've read of this product, it doesn't contain excess anything by design. So it likely isn't problematic, but as a general rule "bad" carbs can be very bad for you and give you things like diabetes if over-consumed.
- wdewind 12y ago
  > The devil is in the details as they say. Yes. First off, there is absolutely no science showing sugar is bad for you, or that it behaves differently from other carbs when combined with equal amounts of fiber (which is why vegetable carbohydrates tend to be "ok"). Second, even without the fiber, for the vast majority of people a high sugar diet (within reasonable max carbohydrate intake) is not going to adversely affect you directly, the issue usually comes in with behavioral impact, causing you to eat more, causing you to get fat, causing you to have diabetes. > as a general rule "bad" carbs can be very bad for you and give you things like diabetes if over-consumed This concept of "bad" carbs is really not useful. Carbs are pretty much carbs. Anything (other carbs, fat and protein) can also be over-consumed but are simply less likely to. TLDR: assuming equal amounts of carbohydrates, the source doesn't actually seem to have a big impact.
  - Someone1234 12y ago
    > First off, there is absolutely no science showing sugar is bad for you, or that it behaves differently from other carbs when combined with equal amounts of fiber (which is why vegetable carbohydrates tend to be "ok"). I just stopped reading there. No point going on, that's just jaw droppingly ignorant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar#Health_effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar#Health_effects The fact you're arguing that green veggies and sugar are equally bad for people is just, wow, just wow. That's a new low.
    - wdewind 12y ago
      Did you even read the link you sent? Here are some quotes: > Some studies involving the health impact of sugars are effectively inconclusive. The WHO and FAO meta studies have shown directly contrasting impacts of sugar in refined and unrefined forms[66] and since most studies do not use a population that do not consume any "free sugars" at all, the baseline is effectively flawed. Hence, there are articles such as Consumer Reports on Health that stated in 2008, "Some of the supposed dietary dangers of sugar have been overblown. Many studies have debunked the idea that it causes hyperactivity, for example. > Studies on the link between sugars and diabetes are inconclusive, with some suggesting that eating excessive amounts of sugar does not increase the risk of diabetes, although the extra calories from consuming large amounts of sugar can lead to obesity, which may itself increase the risk of developing this metabolic disease. So there is definitely controversy, and to call me jaw droppingly ignorant is pretty offensive. The fact that you think I'm arguing green veggies and sugar are equally bad for people means you fundamentally did not understand what I was saying. What do you think the difference between veggies and other sources of sugar is? Hint: it's not the type of sugar, it's the absence of fiber. Here's another quote, from your link: > Some experts have suggested that refined fructose is more damaging than refined glucose in terms of cardiovascular risk. The refining process is essentially one that removes the fiber. Let's go back to my quote: > First off, there is absolutely no science showing sugar is bad for you, or that it behaves differently from other carbs when combined with equal amounts of fiber (which is why vegetable carbohydrates tend to be "ok"). Emphasis added.

jeffreyrogers 12y ago

I think there is a valid argument against GMOs, but it revolves more around the dangers of creating a monoculture (i.e. one bad crop disease could then wipe out a large fraction of the food supply), rather than health risks, since as I'm sure many HN readers are aware, humans have been genetically modifying food since they've been cultivating it.

stolio 12y ago
I know even Neil DeGrasse Tyson has been pushing the "we've been genetically modifying food for thousands of years!" line but I think it's a bit disingenuous. Crossing a tomato and a deep sea fish is fundamentally different from crossing two strains of corn and we should expect different risks.
- diminoten 12y ago
  How is it fundamentally different? Sounds almost exactly the same, to me.
  - stolio 12y ago
    It's all DNA based, all from the same tree of life, true. But is there any evidence of gene sharing between biological kingdoms in nature? Why can't an animal and a plant create an offspring that shares both of their genetic information? There's clearly lack of a mechanism for fish-tomato sex but evolution is known to create very elegant mechanisms for things that are beneficial. Intra-species gene sharing has been selected for as being beneficial, inter-species gene sharing hasn't. EDIT: I'm not allowed to comment on the response below? So, here it is... > Given that it is observed in nature, what is your basis for that conclusion? Clearly I was unaware this happens at all in nature which is why I asked if it happens. Horizontal Gene Transfer is fascinating. However, it's been around since the beginning but sexual reproduction supplanted it as the preferred method of gene sharing as the complexity of organisms increased.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago

vtlynch 12y ago

Certainly GMOs can be bad, such as crops that are "roundup ready". Others, like Innate Potatoes (that NPR recently did a story on), can be good. However there is not conclusive evidence on GMOs such as the Innate that prove they dont have negative effects as well. The laws on GMO labeling in American also fall very short of differentiating from "good" GMOs and "bad" GMOs. Given that I rather not ingest crops modified to resist poison, I just pass on all GMOs.