This is good to see. I wonder if unregistered studies will ever be ignored like non-peer-reviewed studies are.
* the "multiply p value by ten" rule would exclude the main results (but not some well known findings)
* paper does not have much discussion of context or past results
* paper does not have any scatter plots or show individual data at all for the primary results; there are scatter plots under additional files for oxidation vs. lean body mass and vs. fat mass and 24 hour energy expenditure vs fat mass
* there is no discussion of the possibility that the small additional calories could have had the same effect even if not sugar
* there is no discussion of the possibility that gut microbial response to the non-sugar drink might cause the differences they see
* a conflicting study used a different artificial sweetener
* the study did not test if the same SSB vs NNSB given at non-meal times would have a similar or different effect
* also all the limitations mentioned in the study
* this is a basic research study, not something directly applicable to real life; if you aren't doing extensive research in the area then drawing any conclusions from this one paper is unlikely to be helpful
Of course, considering the study in connection with the rest of the literature is likely to address some of these considerations and it may be a valuable contribution. Saying "very likely to be correct" does not sound accurate to me.
Since fructose is suspect, comparing trehalose vs. sucrose would be interesting.
the possibility that gut microbial response ... might cause the differences
For 300,000 of human existence except the past few decades, humans drank no sugar-sweetened drinks.
It is always a good idea to hold off on sugary drinks.
It is always a good idea to hold off on vaccines.
Not saying drinking sugary drinks is good, but your justification is bad
For 4,500 year humans have been engaging in gavage or the forced feeding of animals to fatten them up, for example the popular French dish Foie Gras - french for fat liver - is liver of duck or goose force feed corn.
If for the first time in history you concentrate the sugar found in corn and put it in beverages and regularly feed them to kids and the kids beging developing the same fatty liver as the Foie Gras...is it then ok to question the sugar?
Parent isn't rejecting the questioning of sugar.
He's pointing out how the reasoning used is spurious.
And humans have been using medicine for thousands of years, which have an intrinsic property of being good for us -- thus vaccines are just an extension of this.
I'm all for resisting fallacies but this hypertechnical idea that natural vs unnatural is completely irrelevant due to a few exceptions is counterproductive. It's practical and beneficial for the average person to view natural things as better.
Well, Islam has forbidden alcoholic drinks from the very beginning so that means you are off by at least 1400 years.
In a short time we will pull our heads out of fats asses and realize that sugar is the nicotine of our era. It's not healthy. It has major health reprecussions. Etc.
Unfortunately, fat, literally, makes you stupid. So embracing the obvious might as chose as it should be.
I don't know what specifically this is supported by, but your objection is based on misunderstanding the claim.
Edit: I just Googled it and I think he probably means this CMU study: http://www.menshealth.com/weight-loss/how-being-fat-makes-yo...
That said, here ya go...
Sucrose, being a 50/50 compound of the two, thus inherits "bad sugar" from the fructose produced during digestion.
HFCS actually ranges from 29-55% fructose vs. glucose/dextrose (the highest being available in CocaCola freestyle soda machines), and can be better or worse than sucrose, but is generally equivalently bad.
Since dextrose is basically incompatible with acidic beverages and solidified candies, we're not likely to see fructose going away, either as a direct ingredient or as a metabolite.
If natural concentrated sweetener is considered, attempts to replace sucrose and fructose with dextrose-only sources like plain old corn syrup (POCS), rice syrup, and honey, might achieve some fascinating health benefits. Is it possible that we're fat only because we're eating the wrong kind of sugars?
Nope, we are fat because there are many cheap sources of calories, particularly deep fried foods.
> particularly deep fried foods.
This is a very early-1990s understanding of nutrition. The low-fat recommendations pushed by the USDA and followed to a large degree by American consumers didn't do anything to halt the obesity rise, because excess dietary fat isn't nearly as bad for you as excess processed carbs/sugar.
Right now... I just don't drink the soda or sugary drinks at all. But I don't really understand the science behind my decision.
Because I'm eating apples and carrots all the time ???
Sipping a glass of apple juice over the course of an entire day would probably be healthier than slamming it in one gulp, however your dentist probably wouldn't approve. Speaking of dentists, scrubbing the flat surfaces of my teeth by grinding carrots for awhile in my mouth should lead to fewer dental issues than soaking my teeth's plaque layer in completely liquid acid and sugar.
There's also the fairly obvious issue that given the choice of 100 grams of apple fructose or 50 grams of fructose plus 50 grams of inactive fiber, obviously the raw fruit will provide fewer calories for a given subjective level of fullness. I know I'm eating junk food when I juice, but sometimes its fun and it certainly is tasty, and it never fails to amaze me how it takes half a bag of produce to generate a cup of juice. Most of the calories in that bag are in my cup of juice. A normal snack for me is a couple carrots, but I can turn five pounds of carrot calories into a (very large) cup and slam it.
Possibly your body can survive having the liquid sugar of 25 apples slammed into it instantly, every day. Certainly we never evolved to eat that way, so if we can handle it without sickness, its just good luck as opposed to evolutionary pressure. Our ancestors digested a lot of citrus very slowly one piece at a time, there was strong evolutionary pressure to thrive eating a piece of fruit per meal.
So eating an apple or an orange is fine. Drinking fruit juice is not. Hope this helps
More info https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/fibre-reduces-insulin...
However, I don't think that looking at what humans ate millennia ago is a good indication of what we should do.
Even parrots have been observed eating clay soils in the wild.
Fructose loads your liver. Sucrose breaks down into glucose (which can be metabolized by many cells) and fructose (which is only metabolized by the liver). They're both bad when over consumed.
This laid out pretty well in The Obesity Code by Jason Fung (a real doctor).
This fat will be stored in the liver.
The more fat you have in your intestines the more insuline resistance you'll have. Which in the end will screw with the entire body in various ways.
Coke is better. It has similar sugar levels but has caffeine which seems to be good for you.
Fruit juice with fibre is better, but like most loopholes really you are just fooling yourself. So at least with coke people seem to know it's bad so I'd stick with that.
Then there's coke zero that's better for you than water. (But not for your teeth)
Wine, hard ciders, etc. were popular for the very reason that the actual fruit juices weren't. The lack of refrigeration and with no knowledge of pasteurization fruit juices were likely only consumed a few days a year when the fruits were ripening. Cellar preserved fruits likely wouldn't produce good juice either.
So the juices were preserved by fermenting the glucose (and much of the fructose), or making preserves, etc.
What if you're not overweight and get a lot of exercise? My goal is to put on weight and not have meat sweats at night, so perhaps I should actually be taking more sugary drinks with my meals.
There are a few caveats:
- Yes, your diet composition does have metabolic effects. Protein, sugar and fat all follow different metabolic pathways, and converting between them requires energy. Protein is supposedly easier to store as lean mass than as fat, for example. But unless you're already lean and training hard, these effects are relatively minor. If you want to lose 50 pounds of fat, calories are good approximation.
- Unless you're a hard-core distance athlete, the "calories out" side of the equation is mostly useless. Depending on your weight, walking a mile burns about 1 Oreo. Essentially, it takes a lot of energy to run your brain and your digestive system, but exercise is surprisingly energy efficient. So if you work at a desk job, and you don't run 5 miles a day, then use the "Sedentary" option when calculating your daily calories.
- If you want to be both lean and muscular, things get trickier, because you need to worry about your muscle:fat ratio. You can control this with resistance training. But weightlifting while losing fat can be pretty metabolically brutal. Conventional wisdom says that it helps to watch your protein:carbs:fat ratio, and to eat a nutrient-rich diet. (And my personal experience bears this out, especially once I've exhausted the easy gains in the weight room.)
- Most diets fail because most people stop dieting. If you revert to your old habits, you'll eventually revert to your old weight and body composition. As a general rule, few people stick with long-term lifestyle changes.
Losing weight and becoming muscular are both solved problems. The major challenge is sticking with the behaviors that produce the desired result.
That is, in a First Law sense, you can’t gain more than the mass of what you eat & drink, and you will always lose a certain amount of mass each day through breathing (metabolism, exercise) and excreting (waste, sweat).
So for example I lose 1–2 pounds a day with my metabolism, activity level, and diet, so I eat a bit more than that per day and try to make sure that those foods are healthy most of the time. For me, “healthy” means mostly plant-based, high in fiber, balanced in nutrients, and so on. I joke that my diet consists of vegan food and cheeseburgers, but it’s pretty close to the truth.
I think this should be the first step that most people take toward changing their dietary habits, because it’s dead simple: look at the weight on the package of the stuff you’re putting in your face, and get a cheap kitchen scale if you want to be particular about it. Then incorporate calories as you begin to get an intuitive sense of how caloric density affects the answer to “How much of this can I eat if I want to maintain/lose/gain weight?” and then incorporate other details like macronutrients.
Even before all this, the zeroth step is to document your habits by just writing them down. It might just be how my mind works, but if I want to fix something about what I’m doing—eating, sleeping, taking drugs—then it’s way easier to think about it in terms of adjusting a graph than all the details of the actual problem at hand.
The failure rate is something like 98%
An easy run of three miles three times a week takes three half hours out of your week and can easily burn 1000 calories. If you're keeping an eye on calories in and don't go over to compensate, that's a pound every 3-4 weeks. That sounds glacially slow, but if you're doing CICO for six months it's an extra 8-9 lbs.
And this is being conservative: given the lengths of willpower people go to in the calories-in side, going for a half hour run every day isn't that unreasonable. That will lose you an extra 17 lbs in six months. If you're trying to lose even 50-100 lbs, 17 lbs over six months is not insignificant (let alone if you're trying to lose 20-30lbs).
I think the idea that it's not useful for weight loss comes from the fact that it's tough when you're starting, but then, so is calorie restriction.
All of this is ignoring weightlifting, which is even better at making weight loss easier.
In fact I believe being cold in general is a good idea all else being equal if you want to lose weight but the advantage of water is that it's a better conductor of heat out of your body than air is.
I have an anecdotal idea that, basically, folks who are fit enough to exercise off 1000-1500 calories every week and do so are the ones that never have to lose the weight in many cases. Finally, although inefficient in the thermodynamic sense, I think part of why this is true is because most people gain weight over a course of years. That extra soda or beer every day. When you have a simple balancing lever like an extra mile or two of vigorous walking or something else it can all balance. When you are sedentary in the same situation, you slowly get diabetes.
Also peanut butter is dense, but a good way to illustrate the problem to someone a good way is to also ask someone if they are willing to walk for 30 minutes for one soda.
Edit: tablespoon, not tea-
This is probably one of the best serious sentences I've ever read.
With a rolling start and flat ground it will pass this test at 30mph, and probably higher too. That's quite a lot faster than I can run, too...
After a bit of training, muscles can store carbon-hydrates for about 1.5 hours of exercise. When these carbs a burned, muscles take new carbs directly from the blood stream.
So if you exercise by burning mostly carbs and don't eat, you end up with low blood sugar levels and a very strong urge to eat.
The trick is to burn fat. But to burn fat in a straight forward way you first have deplete the carb store, and basically force muscles to burn fat. This requires exercise that lasts many hours in one go.
The additional benefit as far as I know is that if muscles are trained to burn fat, they will start burning more fat even when not in use. So the effect lasts a lot longer than just the actual amount of exercise.
So we have a culture where exercise means to go to the gym and do exciting things there. Which mainly burns carbs.
In the past when people did manual labor, they worked the same way for an entire day, burning mostly fat.
That said I have personally run on high fat (even in ketosis, and seperately eating animal products and vegan); high protein/more fairly a body builder bulking macro(including dairy protein: whey and casein); and high carb. And we all know we can find athletes of the highest level in every sport practicing various mixtures of those diets to great success. So I don't think it is fair to say people are doing it wrong by burning primarily glucose as opposed to fat.
I think the most successful diets (no matter the macro nutrient philosophy) have the following in common:
1. Hydration/absorption: obviously no matter what cells must be properly hydrated and absorb micro/macro nutrients.
2. Anti-inflammatory foods: inflammation is linked to every chronic disease there is and even at the highest levels of performance do you want your cells combating inflammation or involved in the krebs cycle.
3. Anti-toxin: toxins can be eliminated from the body through the pores or excretion. Not all toxins can be sweated out and not all will naturally be excreated but certain foods can bind to toxins. So foods promoting removal of toxins from the body are important, but outside diet, exercise is important, abstaining from toxins like cigarettes is important, and probably because of the level of toxins on the modern western diet practices like juice cleanses and fastings could be important tools toward anti toxin cellular health.
4. Anti oxidants: as cells oxidize free radical can spread around the body, it's important to eliminate or isolate free radicals which can be potential causes of diseases like cancer.
5. Micro/macro nutrient: someone else mentioned maximizing micro nutrient intake to calorie ratio, that's probably a good way to put it. As I mentioned I'm starting to see macros as a personal choice based on the individual, that said I have very strong opinions to support my high fat preference (not keto though) and think so long as a person has achieved cellular health through 1-4 they too can experiment with their macros to suite their personal desire and needs.
6. Microbiome: I don't even pretend to understand what's going on here, but often hear this refered to as the second brain. While a neat phrase I'll just point to a study in equatorial Africa on twins, where it's not uncommon to have identical twins on the same diet 1 malnurished and the other not with the only difference to be found in their microbiome.
That's what I was always using bluntly in arguments with the 'detox crowd' until I learned about chelation therapy . So it's not as simple as 'no way administering any substance will get rid of toxins'. Now, that doesn't mean there is any truth whatsoever in typical detox claims (think 'drink this tea for five days and you'll get rid of toxins stored in your body') but it does mean, to me, that I won't be using overly general claims like 'this whole detox is a bunch of crap' but instead opt for more prudent statements. Which is imo what the one you're replying to did: it wasn't about the standard detox stuff, but about avoiding toxins in the first place and about toxins binding to certain food. Which I'd love to read more about.. Sources anyone?
I don't use "anti-toxin" as a magical detox, and never thought that's how people would interpret what I wrote but I believe you are correct and that's what's occurring. I mean it as consuming foods that maximize detoxification processes of the body (healthy pores, health liver function, healthy kidney function) and minimizing the introduction of toxins, but also minimizing foods that clog the processes. I even acknowledge toxins don't all come from diet, and promote not smoking and exercise (sweating to release toxins), I'm not exactly selling anti toxin snake oil.
Truthfully I don't put a great amount of stock in juicing and fasting in otherwise healthy diets, which can be fairly read into my OP - though I'm open minded and understand the latest science to suggest fasting promotes cellular health and longevity - so while nothing of magic I do believe they are tools for people whose systems are regularly over overwhelmed.
There was just a great article on HN about how far away we are from immortality and to date the greatest tools we have are diet and exercise, it was just an interview but if you can find it, you would be able to find the research group and their studies, I never went further but I felt like I had finally found another person discussing diet/nutrition in terms of cellular health. Also I find pharmacists and doctors know a lot about the Krebs cycle. Separately, I would recommend talking to athletes about their diets, it's my personal
Favorite way of learning, from body builders to endurance athletes, I like to think they are the real diet hackers and has what lead me to the philosophy I outline above. Personally I could talk about every food I eat and why. Lastly, there are a ton of food industry/diet documentaries on Netflix, they are a mixed bag and I will go so far as to say selling snake oil or industry propaganda, that said if this stuff interests you watch them, one of my favorites is a "juicing" one called fat sick and dying (or something) and while it's a bit of a sales pitch it inspired me to begin consuming (juicing/eating) a wide variety of green veggies and the impact is so great on my health and running that the reality is greater than the snake oil they sell.
Even if you don't believe the science showing that certain food can bind with toxins allowing them to be brought to the liver, kidneys or excreted, It's not controverisial to belihumans can avoid adding unncecessary toxins to their body thru diet if not avoiding smoking. But honestly toxins in the body and the function of the liver are not controverial and it's not controversial that diet can either promote liver health and function or Overwhelm the liver leading to short term issues like alcohol posioning or long term issues including fatty liver disease.
It's much better people not have fatty liver, their livers otherwise process sugar/toxins properly, but to maximize cellular health mimizing the need for the liver spend energy detoxifying the body/processing sugar.
Yeah, because toxins do not exist, right ? And you can't ingest them or be exposed to them chronically. It only makes sense that we all live in perfectly clean environment and eat perfectly nutritious food 24x7 ...
So to promote optimal health foods that promote healthy detox functions should be consumed and those that uncessisarily introduce toxins or disturb proper detox functions of the body should be avoided...if you call that a "normal diet" fine, at this point you are debating semantics.
Just to put things in perspective with "normal", 10% of US kids have non alcoholic fatty liver disease, just like childhood diabetes...these diseases didn't exist in kids 30 years ago and they are all dietary, so let's drop words like "normal" and talk specifics.
Where do you think the disease fatty liver comes from? You do understand a fatty liver isn't going to be functioning normally and more easily overwhelmed by toxins in the future right?
Why do you think children for the first time in history have non-alcoholic fatty liver disease? Their livers are being overworked, not to the extent death by toxicity occurred, but to the extent they develop chronic conditions in childhood that it used to take a lifetime to acquire.
No one is talking about mystical healing, rational people are discussing eating foods that promote healthy liver/kidney function, in turn promote overall cellular health, and to the extent possible avoiding unnecessary toxins like smoking or excessive drinking.
Where CO has a CI input.
This has been known for while. Protein has a thermic effect which can change your CO.
But the equation still works.
You may want to read about (lack of) precision in Atwater factors, to the tune of 50%, if you believe CI is easy to compute.
You know that obviously, and so do I, but there are a lot of people (including here on HN) who argue that eating an Apple daily and otherwise not changing anything is guaranteed to make you gain weight, and that's just not true.
You say "cut 250" but the article just gave an example that 120 cals of different composition were netting amounts different by 40. That's a 30 percent difference based on composition.
Meat ? Bad unless it isnt. Dairy and Eggs ? Even worse except when it isnt. Vegan/vegetarian nutrition ? The worst except, you guessed it, when it isnt.
If you dont believe me just google any food and try to find out a general consensus about it. A lot of these sites talk about facts without sources, use terms like "toxins" without going into detail about what exactly they are etc.pp.
Try to cook your own food at least half the time and have a balanced intake (just the basics: meat + veg + fruit), if you stick to natural unprocessed foods it's pretty hard to go wrong, avoid sugary treats and highly processed food as much as possible, that's basically all you need to know (sounds pretty obvious because it's common sense).
The fad diets and contradicting advice do not arise out of a failure of your grandmas advice, they arise out of supermarket foods, high sugar, high carbs, ready meals etc. Same with the obesity epidemic, it does not come from lack of will power to not eat like most people think, it comes from the laziness and temptation that we all get from supermarkets.
I try to cook at least half the time and keep an eye on my tendency to be lured by what is becoming way over half of supermarket isles these days (sugar and carb packed processed shit), go to the meat and veg isles out of habit don't even walk down the others unless you want to treat yourself (sugar is a treat not an everyday thing).
My mom ate the a same since an early age and had very high cholesterol and the doctors warned her that she is on a similar course as my grandpa if she didn't change her diet.
I've since convinced her of going on a plant based diet and I am planning her meals. Her cholesterol has been decimated, she lost a ton of weight and feels way better now.
Am I a qualified nutrionist? No. Am I feeding her the diet my grandma ate. Fuck no. Where did I get my information? Plenty of peer-reviewed studies. There is no denying that dietary cholesterol is a killer and cutting out meat and dairy is probably the healthiest option for the majority of the population.
I believe you when you say they lost weight on an all plant diet. But I think you're probably attributing their success to the wrong thing. Correlation != causation. People on a diet would never dream of having refined carbohydrates or too much sugar, because those are universally understood to be bad for you (even if it's just the 'empty calories' argument). They just so happened to also stop eating any animal products. So I don't think you can target the meat and dairy and just claim that removing them is "probably the healthiest option for the majority of the population". Rotten thinking like this is what got us into this catastrophic obesity epidemic in the first place.
Yeah, except that the pendulum is swinging the other way now. http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/panel-suggests-stop-warni...
"There’s a growing consensus among nutrition scientists that cholesterol in food has little effect on the amount of cholesterol in the bloodstream. And that’s the cholesterol that matters."
which is exactly the phenomenon GGP commenter zython was describing.
edit: "dietary cholesterol != blood cholesterol" was even in the popular culture ca. 1995, see "Homer the Great" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OZkCXbbEJw
Another thing to note is that often the case is that food that is high in cholesterol is also high in saturated fat, both things that affect ldl cholesterol levels in a negative way.
Cooking using good quality foods (veg + fresh fish and/or meat) does a lot + I feel much better. If I do go for a sugary treats, then it's some good quality artisanal chocolate instead of mass produced crap.
One downside: I noticed my bi-weekly shopping bills to have definitely gone up. Probably spend double or even triple now what I spent before. But hey, you only live once.
On the flip side, that might be a very cheap investment for your health vs future medical bills, lost productivity due to illness / lethargy etc, etc.
Mine has gone down after switching to eggs as default go-to food.
My partner eats boiled eggs daily for breakfast and at one point I tried to switch to having 2 eggs for breakfast every couple of days. I rapidly developed an unpleasant body odor that went away when I stopped having eggs so frequently. So daily eggs is not be a viable solution for everyone.
I've started precisely after reading the studies that find no correlation between consumed cholesterol and its levels in blood. Also when I found out that the vast majority of cholesterol in blood is made in the body to match the levels it needs. Also when I found out the link between heart disease and LDL levels couldn't be proven.
Of course, I eat them alone, without bread or fries like I used to do.
> they do get boring after a while
Luckily for me they don't
As far as I know, the consensus is that dietary cholesterol doesn't affect ldl cholesterol as much as saturated fat, but it doesn't have "zero effect" either.
Eggs also have a lot of saturated fat. That's already two things affecting your ldl cholesterol levels in a bad way.
One of the ones linked in this article, I don't remember which. https://lifeforbusypeople.com/2016/08/24/why-anti-fat-is-com...
It doesn't matter - the underlying mechanism of all these diets is simply that ANY amount of thinking about what you eat is better than the default choice of just eating whatever's in front of you.
What's good for me might not be what's good for you.
Lifestyle, genetics, gut biome can all make a huge difference in the way your body reacts to different foods
This stuff is extremely individual, unless we're talking extremes. Just do whatever makes your favorite KPI trend in the direction you want. Experiment. The rest is bullshit.
Fitbits and such also measure resting heart rate for cheap. As far as I've heard, that correlates well to lifespan as well.
If I were you, I'd steer clear of any sites that talk about 'toxins', 'detox', 'cleanses', or anything else like that as it's likely to be junk science. Juice cleanses can be particularly hazardous (I am honestly baffled that anybody would think drinking a ton of sugary juice is healthy). I was going to say look for articles that cite their sources, but even the medical literature can be cherry picked to support any hypothesis.
We still have a long way to go before we have nutritional advice that 1. Is actually correct, meaning it's heavily supported by scientific research and has been shown to work and 2. Is accepted mainstream. Until then, I think everyone can at least agree on a few things:
1. Don't eat sugar. Yes, natural alternatives like honey or agave are also sugar.
2. Don't eat refined, processed carbohydrates.
3. Don't eat trans fats.
I think correcting those will eliminate the majority of most peoples diet-related health issues. Everything else pales in comparison.
For me, I found a few things (and I've actually lost weight and kept it off for years):
Mostly vegetarian works for me - I eat fish a couple times a month. I had gall bladder problems, though, and have had it taken out. This works well for my body and I like the food. I cook at home 95% of the time. I skip breakfast (I'm not hungry!). I use butter and cream. I also walk often.
I have low carb diet and try to avoid "fast" carbs completely except when taking proteins/BCAA right after workout--I was under impression that taking protein without carbs might result in burning proteins for fuel instead of using them to restore/build muscle.
I too, have the same interest regarding insulin spikes from artificial sweeteners and spent considerable time researching. Caveat, this was about five years ago so there could be new findings.
While the research is inconclusive, I personally try to cut down on artificial sweeteners. I suspect they can cause an insulin response. This is based on my understanding of the literature and my n=1 experiments.
The article says: "We found that drinking a sugar-sweetened drink with a meal significantly decreases fat use and diet-induced thermogenesis (heat production)."
So if food is relatively scarce then this is a good thing.
Feels a bit weird to optimize diets for couch potatoes. The article doesn't say how exercise was done, so I assume it was none.
The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)
The study was announced at
The CSIRO is an Australian government funded research organisation that has a very good reputation.
The initial book has been followed up by a number of others that expand on the recipes and complementary exercises.
Can someone explain what I'm missing?
This site has a lot of interesting material on the subject. https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/insulin-index/
Couldn't find the particular text I was loooing for but apparently there was this study where they mixed pasta with milk or water and added glucose to achieve equal mixes of glucose, lactose and such. The mix with the milk had something like three times higher insulin response.
Damn that's a lot of negatives. I'm glad I haven't regularly drank soda in 5 years.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14832471 and marked it off-topic.
By providing "appropriate justification," it'd no longer be a fallacy.
Seriously, fruit was a base part of our food source - since we walked out of the djungle. And we have cravings for it, wherever we go- to get some honey, some overripe mango. If somebody wants to declare that unhealthy, he is free to experiment on himself.
And yes, those monkeys did binge mango eating. Binge Banana, we did alot of binge, and alot of starving, when the source of food was gone and the hunt was on again. To try to fight these instincts, with self-moderation is kind of funny.
Its just a guts feeling, but we had several times over by now, whole category's declared bad and then re-instated.
I will keep to what i can know for certain, and that is the diet our hunter-gatherer ancestors ate. I shall keep away from processed, enriched foods as much as possible. And thats it.
Everything not close or similar to the nutrition approach- no matter how demonized or declared healthy will have to ripe for ten years, before i evaluate it.
Im sorry for the serious scientists, but in a field so ravaged by Replacement-Religious fanatics and Cooperate Propaganda, time is the only thing that will tell.