The statements "sugar is bad", "fat is bad", "fat is good" are all equally simplistic and misleading. Fruits are high in naturally-occurring sugars and they are among the healthiest things you can eat.
Turns out that nutrition is a pretty complicated science, and there existing various political and special interests influencing the science doesn't help. It's 2018 and I don't think there's even remotely a scientific consensus on what food is healthy or not, but classic common sense and listening to your body's reactions to food can go pretty far for an individual.
Nutrition is something we need to figure out as public health is declining, and I'm saddened to say the problem goes beyond the US based on what I've seen traveling. Psychology needs to get involved as well. Why do people make such bad eating decisions? I'm in Thailand and I see tons of tourists eating hamburgers instead of the tastier and healthier traditional cuisine... sigh.
> Fruits are high in naturally-occurring sugars and they are among the healthiest things you can eat.
Can you be precise about what you mean by this, or at least qualify this statement? Modern fruit obviously pushes the definition of "natural" to it's absolute limits, but more importantly, it's at least deeply unintuitive that something that consists mostly of fructose, a little fiber, trace metals, the rare vitamin, and next to no protein or fat could be considered healthy.
Yet another poster on HN, just echoing the platitudes of keto/paleo...
> Modern fruit obviously pushes the definition of "natural" to it's absolute limits
Modern fruit is not much different nutritionally from wild fruit[1]. Sure, some ancient fruit like bananas were pretty inedible, but that is a far cry from what keto/paleo dogma suggests. As an anecdote, I am living in Borneo right now, and we can go out into the jungles of some of the most untouched land in the world and find the sweetest fruits we have ever tasted.
> it's at least deeply unintuitive that something that consists mostly of fructose, a little fiber, trace metals, the rare vitamin
I think by "deeply unintuitive" you mean "when compared to my beliefs". Fruit is some of the most nutritionally dense and healthy foods you can eat (I don't think I need to source this, but will if you refuse to yourself). HIGH in fibre, vitamins, phytonutrients, antioxidants, enzymes etc.
> and next to no protein or fat could be considered healthy.
And here again you reveal your beliefs/dogma. The MACROnutrient content of a food tells you nothing about how healthy it is.
Do not put words into my mouth. I said nothing about keto/paleo. (If you are curious about my thoughts about those diets, KozmoNau7 elsewhere in this thread has said most of the relevant information)
Fruit, the reproductive organ of a plant, is commonly available in markets without seeds. But again, this truth is tangential to the important claims about what is actually in specific foods.
Provide your sources. Before my original post, I bing searched for "apple nutrients," "orange nutrients," and "banana nutrients." I choose these three fruits because they are the most commonly available where I live. Yes, I certainly accept that foods in ecosystems foreign to mine have different nutrient profiles than the fruits I'm familiar with, and if you're in a region where there grows a fruit with a nutrient profile similar to, for example, spinach, then you have access to some healthy fruit! However, I assume most people in the "Was there ever really a “sugar conspiracy”?" thread are Americans or interested in American dietary habits.
If you're literally saying the specific nutrient content of a food tells you nothing about how well the food contributes to maintaining vital processes, then we have a breakdown in language. If it clears things up at all, I'm using Wikipedia definition of "nutrient."
> Do not put words into my mouth. I said nothing about keto/paleo.
My apologies. Although your points are very much in line with those lifestyles and the beliefs of their proponents, that of course doesn't mean you subscribe to them.
> Before my original post, I bing searched for "apple nutrients," "orange nutrients," and "banana nutrients."
I'm not sure how to address this paragraph. Did you learn that those fruits are low in nutrients? Or are you saying that fruits that are more local to you are not nutritious? I'm not sure where exactly you live or how local we are talking so I can't comment, but those three fruits you mentioned are certainly nutritious regardless of whether they have seeds or are local.
> If you're literally saying the specific nutrient content of a food tells you nothing about how well the food contributes to maintaining vital processes, then we have a breakdown in language. If it clears things up at all, I'm using Wikipedia definition of "nutrient."
If you read what I said, it was "MACROnutrient" (protein/fat/carb). You cannot tell how nutritious a food is by the MACROnutrient content alone, you have to at least look at the MICROnutients (vitamins + minerals). This is why when a diet suggests that an entire MACROnutrient is "bad", it is totally misunderstanding nutrition.
Common sense is kind of a myth though right? You have no clue what is and isn't good for you: that's the point of people demonizing fat one minute and sugar the next, because you can't just do this on "gut feel".
There will never be a universal answer to the question of what foods are good and what foods are bad because a universal answer would be a stateless solution to a stateful problem. And that problem is: who are you? What do you do? How much do you move your body? What are your goals? What are your genetics predisposed to? How much do you sleep? What are your causes of stress?
At one point in my life, a very well respected nutritionist recommended to me that I eat at least 3 candy bars per day. The reason: I was a D1 swimmer in college, and I couldn't keep my weight on with 4 hours of training per day, and I was having trouble keeping up with the 7000 calorie/day diet she had prescribed for me. Sugars filled that gap. And yes, that would have been unhealthy advice to almost any other American, but for me at the state I was in, it was the healthiest thing for me.
Not everybody is a swimmer. But that doesn't matter because there is no "average" human. We're all different in some way or another, and no diet is universal. Maybe we can hone in on basic dietary recommendations, but the idea that we can find universally good or universally bad things is going to be impossible.
>At one point in my life, a very well respected nutritionist recommended to me that I eat at least 3 candy bars per day.
I received equally bizarre advice from my doctor based upon some blood test results. I was explicitly directed to eat more red meat. At the time I wasn't eating much in the way of meat at all (though I wasn't a vegetarian). He recommended that as opposed to only supplementation, and preferably alongside supplementation.
While it is tricky with fats, sugar is never good for you (unless some genetic disease where you die if you don’t consume sugar?).
Fruits are to various degrees beneficial but not in unlimited amounts. Fruits also don’t have a lot of sugar, see the watermelon comment in the other thread.
The problem with sugar is how easy it is in our diets to consume ridiculous amounts of it and how nobody understands that even a little of table sugar is already a ridiculous amount.
P.S. even bigger problem is that people don't understand that all the flours and starches are for all intents and purposes sugar, so it doesn't matter that you only have one teaspoon of sugar with your coffee if you consume it in large quantities in other forms.
>all the flours and starches are for all intents and purposes sugar
Only if you look at the most refined and treated flours. Overly refined and bleached flour is obviously not great nutritionally, as with all processed foods.
Even just unbleached wheat flour is significantly better, and whole grain types are much better, plenty of fiber and vitamins/minerals.
I hope you're not claiming a good wholegrain mixed-grain sourdough bread is the same as eating white sugar.
First of all, you're looking at a mass-produced ("artisinal" is marketing wank) low-fiber generic bread, with a rather low percentage of whole-grain flour.
Not to mention that what the US allows under the umbrella of "whole grain" is problematic.
Secondly, you're completely ignoring the fiber, vitamins and minerals you get from the bread, compared to eating straight refined pure white sugar.
No food is nutrionally perfect, but good whole-grain bread can certainly be an essential part of a balanced and healthy diet.
This war against all carbs is insane. Sure, you should absolutely avoid refined carbs and straight sugar. But that does not make keto/paleo a healthy diet.
Bread provides additional quality nutrition, compared to straight sugar. That's my point. Not every foodstuff needs to be nutritionally complete and macro nutrient balanced.
> keto diet is widely acknowledged to be a bad choice
"Keto Is Ranked the Worst Diet by Health Experts"
are those the same "experts" that have been recommending people to reduce their fat intake for the last 4 decades, effectively increasing sugar consumption and being responbsible for literally millions of dead people around the world?
The overall consensus used to be that fat was bad, but science has advanced and our view on the subject is a lot more nuanced than "fat bad". Clinical dieticians and other experts have updated their recommendations accordingly. That's how science works, we continually improve our collective knowledge.
Going completely off the rails and jumping on fad diets instead is not a wise choice.
The current recommendation of a diet heavy in plants, low in saturated fat, moderate in carbs (complex carbs, ditch the simple ones) is perfectly sound, a good average diet for the average person.
> Going completely off the rails and jumping on fad diets instead is not a wise choice
it seems your opinion on how to tell which diet is fad is based not on research but on a quick google search. inform yourself on the topic, then we can argue.
> The current recommendation of a diet heavy in plants, low in saturated fat, moderate in carbs (complex carbs, ditch the simple ones) is perfectly sound, a good average diet for the average person
except none of what you said makes the keto diet bad. i can grant you that it's not recommended for average person mainly because it requires a lot of knowledge and discipline to be following properly, but the rest is bs.
Keto is definitely a fad diet, same as Atkins, paleo and a ton of others.
I'm deep in the crossfit world, and I definitely did look at keto and paleo, before an actual dietician talked some sense into me.
Ketosis is a medical condition that is potentially harmful and even deadly in some cases. You absolutely should not go into ketosis without qualified medical assistance.
If you’re going to make a blanket statement like this, would you also provide the definitions you’re working with? Ketosis (not to be confused with ketoacidosis) is a metabolic cycle. Paleo is a diet which, while having no completely agreed upon definition that I’m aware of, often focuses on limiting grain-based sources of carbohydrates. If your definition of “overeating protein” is based on a ratio of macronutrients, that’s something that can be usefully discussed; similarly if you’re referring to some quantity of protein. As it is, you’ve stated something which really isn’t helpful in moving discussion forward.
just as i said - inform yourself on the topic, come arguing later. you have no idea what you're talking about.
just to not leave you completely uninformed - general guideline for protein on keto is 1g per kilogram of bodyweight. i really want to see how will you argue that that is "overeating protein", especially considering that you're "deep in crossfit world".
I would have something to say if you came with actual data. I've provided expert opinions that keto and Paleo are objectively bad. You've provided nothing but emotional arguments and pseudoscience.
> I would have something to say if you came with actual data.
the actual data is that protein consumption on keto is 1g per kilogram of bodyweight.
the question is why do you think that is "overeating protein", and if you don't - you're obviously thinking of a different number and the question becomes what it is and where did you get that number?
> expert opinions that keto and Paleo are objectively bad
expert opinion is by definition not objective, it's an opinion. you haven't even provided any evidence that keto is "bad". from everything you've said the only conclusion i can make is that you have no idea what keto is at all.
The only positive thing keto does (as a side effect) is cut down on simple sugars. Everything else is counterproductive at best.
You're putting your body in an emergency state and stressing your overall health. It can work short term, if you're conscious of the dangers (especially ketoacidosis), but it absolutely shouldn't be done on the long term, unless you have a very specific medical need (such as epilepsy).
And as always, short term diets are silly and can cause more harm than good. Long term lifestyle change is what is actually needed, not short term fad diets.
so still no comment on protein? unless we get to the bottom of this, everything you're saying about keto comes with a huge blinking neon sign "HAS NO IDEA WHAT KETO IS"?
> emergency state
nope. it's a state our bodies have evolved to survive in. there is no scientific evidence that ketosis is harmful.
> if you're conscious of the dangers (especially ketoacidosis)
> Long term lifestyle change is what is actually needed, not short term fad diets
totally agree. the difference is that i know that keto is a valid long term lifestyle and there is no evidence of it being harmful, while the benefits i observe every day.
This is a bullshit link if I ever saw one... I mean of course the Department of Agriculture will recommend a high carb diet, given that they are mostly concerned for an agricultural sector that produces corn and other grains en masse...
Yes, absolutely. No one is arguing against that. But it's still less bad than straight sugar.
I live near an amazing bakery that does good sourdough bread with plenty of seeds, and I bake my own sourdough whole grain breads. The proximity of a good bakery and stores where I can buy good flour will seriously affect where I will even consider buying a house next time.
I buy meat, fish, vegetables, fruits and I have a nice diet without counting calories or other nutrients. I avoid ultra-processed foods, I may have a few of them on weekends.
I've had 2 blood analysis, one at the beginning of my new diet (and lifestyle) and the other one 6 months later. All perfect.
I just eat carbs for lunch and that's because I'm looking to lose weight. If I wouldn't want to lose weight I would just look at how reasonable are the quantities I eat. There's no need to be maniac at what you eat if what you eat is healthy and natural.
It seems like the food industry has made us forget how to eat properly, and that's normal because they influence us since we are kids (even babies).
Sources? I mean, I always thought just like with most things out there, in moderation it's not harmfull. But you are saying any amount is not good? Also by that logic fruit is also bad because it does contain a certain amount ('not a lot') of sugar, no? tldr; I don't completely get the point you are making due to possibly incorrect definitions (what types of sugar?) and seemingly contradicting/overly generalizing statements.
please don't provide such lazy sources for your broad generalizations. I would challenge you to provide a study that used WHOLE fruit as the variable (not fruit juice or sugar alone) and showed it had a negative effect on insulin response.
In an effort to do as I say, here are some studies/articles showing the opposite:
what is your point? fruits are infinitely better than sugar. fruits still contain sugar, which is why it is recommended not to drink too much fruit juice.
what specifically are you contesting about the claim that sugar causes insulin spikes?
Fruits contain sugar, fruits are very good for you. Does that answer "what is your point?" The OP of the thread said "Fruits are high in naturally-occurring sugars and they are among the healthiest things you can eat." That's what we are discussing.
> which is why it is recommended not to drink too much fruit juice.
Nobody is talking about fruit juice in this thread.
We enjoy the taste of sweetness because it tends in nature to indicate that the thing we're eating contains a lot of energy, such as fruits and sweet vegetables. And we underestimate how finely attuned this sense is. Chew on wheat for a little bit and it will begin to taste sweet as the starch breaks down in your mouth and turns into sugar.
Sugar is ridiculously sweet. Anyone who's laid off sweets for a few weeks or months and goes back to eating a muffin or having a soda tends to find it offputtingly sweet. We've taken this evolutionary benefit and exploited it for pleasure, which is quite alright in moderation. But the natural pleasure we feel from the sweetness of fruit is set in overdrive with concentrated sweetness such as powder sugar.
Yep. After eating Jif peanut butter for my life, I switched to "natural" about 10 or so years ago. Eating a spoonful of Jif after that, and the absurd amount of sugar is immediately apparent.
i don't think it is a right question. it's like asking why did we evolve to get high on morphine?
sure, there definitely are evolutionary benefits to being able to taste sugar and like it, as that will help you to spot nutrients, but this has little to do with the way we industrialized sugar production and consumption in last 200 years. rice, wheat and potatoes are not even sweet but in some countries those are primary sources of glucose.
Plain vegetables are not palatable because they have very little nutritional value, like saw dust. If you were as rewarded for eating vegetables as you are for foods with actual nutritional value you would quickly be malnourished. If you ate a vegetable only meal you wouldn't even absorb the fat soluble vitamins from them because they don't have any fat.
In the wild where the immediate pressure is on getting enough calories and macronutrients while lack of micronutrients only cause problems in the long term, any human wasting energy collecting and digesting food that doesn't have calories and macronutrients (vegetables) would be quickly weeded out.
Look at the nutritional information of any vegetable for yourself. Fruits, nuts, legumes, grains, potatoes etc all come with the fiber, vitamins and minerals that misinformed people think can only come from vegetables while also being loaded with calories, protein and essential fatty acids all which are pretty much completely lacking in vegetables.
I haven't seen any study suggesting eating vegetables is cancerous but have seen a few from meat and processed meat (studies from the WHO).
I'm not vegan, but meat is 30% of my diet. If vegetables are that bad in nutritional value, why can you survive being vegan and just taking vitamin B12 complements?
I think using palatability as a way of measuring nutritional quality is not going to help you in the context of a society raised on ultraprocessed foods, because sugar, salt and other chemicals give taste to food without giving it nutritional value.
If vegetables don't give you as many calories as meat and as you say: "...any human wasting energy collecting and digesting food that doesn't have calories and macronutrients (vegetables) would be quickly weeded out", why there are so many animals still alive after millions of years eating plants (some of them eating many kilograms every day)?
I think I didn't mention meat anywhere. I am actually vegan. There are a lot of plant foods that are relatively high in calories, vitamins, minerals, fat and protein which I mentioned: fruits, nuts, legumes, grains, potatoes, berries and so on. Vegetables (e.g. cabbage, lettuce, tomatoes, cucumber etc) only have vitamins and minerals when you consider that as human you don't have the digestive system and time to digest tens of kilograms of food in a day.
Sugar contains a lot of energy so it's not fooling you when it's tasting great.
Can you say which specific animal is alive eating food without much caloric content (and which specific vegetable are they eating)?
You need carbohydrates for energy. Glucose is the primary source of energy for almost every food consuming organism. Too much sugar is harmful, yes, but don't say things that aren't true.
> Glucose is the primary source of energy for almost every food consuming organism
yeah, those carnivores consume so much carbohydrates!
> Too much sugar is harmful, yes, but don't say things that aren't true.
the problem is with public perception of what is "too much" - it has to be lowered significantly and people have to start counting starches as sugar.
but in any case, you could always argue that fruits are good or starchy vegetables are good in moderation, but none of it will ever apply to table sugar.
> yeah, those carnivores consume so much carbohydrates!
Fresh raw meat actually has a good amount of carbs. The muscle glycogen (animal equivalent of plant starch) starts to turn into lactic acid after death, but it's there for a carnivore that immediately starts eating after the kill. Also carnivores have jacked up gluconeogenesis. Carbohydrates are vital for carnivores who need to use anaerobic energy system to catch prey. They might not be vital for coach potato ketoers.
People usually claim that Inuits somehow survive without carbs but that's not true at all. Inuits are eating 15-20% of their calories as carbs in the form of muscle glycogen: https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/25/8/737/4733245
> how come? gluconeogenesis is how body gets glucose from non-carbbohydrate sources. his argument was "You need carbohydrates for energy". you don't.
The body can create fat from carbs and protein via fatty acid synthesis. Does this mean fat in diet is unnecessary? Of course not. Similarly, there existing a pathway for creating carbohydrate from fat and protein doesn't by itself prove that carbohydrate is unnecessary.
goalpost has shifted? his wording was "body needs carbs for energy". no, body doesn't need carbs for energy.
besides, there definitely are essential fatty acids that our body cannot produce and cannot survive without, so you're wrong implying that body can survive without fats just like it can without carbs. there are no essential carbohydrates.
The Eskimos traditional diet is a good example of this. Their diet also includes organ meats, so they got all of their vitamins and minerals in good amounts.
So there's no scientific consensus on what's healthy or not, but surely hamburgers are not healthy? Isn't that a contradiction? Hamburgers can be very healthy. Maybe that's why people make such eating decisions--there isn't enough good information and everyone thinks they have it figured out when they don't.
Turns out that nutrition is a pretty complicated science, and there existing various political and special interests influencing the science doesn't help. It's 2018 and I don't think there's even remotely a scientific consensus on what food is healthy or not, but classic common sense and listening to your body's reactions to food can go pretty far for an individual.
Nutrition is something we need to figure out as public health is declining, and I'm saddened to say the problem goes beyond the US based on what I've seen traveling. Psychology needs to get involved as well. Why do people make such bad eating decisions? I'm in Thailand and I see tons of tourists eating hamburgers instead of the tastier and healthier traditional cuisine... sigh.