Hacker News Reader

Comment by gvb | Hacker News Reader

The Atkin's theory, which I believe has been largely substantiated, is that carbohydrates (sugar, HFCS) do not satisfy hunger, they tend to trigger hunger.

John cut out the sugar and his hunger dropped. FWIIW, my experience was the same and there are many others who echo this.

See "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" (UCSF lecture) which goes into detail on the metabolism of carbohydrates, especially HFCS http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM and discussed on HN: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1006980

One of many references: http://heartdisease.about.com/cs/riskfactors/a/lofatlocarb_2...

View on HN

Yes, I understand a lot of the science behind hunger. For most failed dieters, it is not enough. Even reduced hunger is too much to overcome for most people that want to lose weight.

People still need some psychological willpower to overcome the urge the eat food, and how to increase that willpower is mostly never explained.

Amazing lecture on sugar, I highly highly recommend it.

You have to say specifically "carbohydrate" and not single out sugar. People try to make this false distinction between "complex" and simple carbohydrates and sugar. ANY starch is broken down rapidly in the small intestine and absorbed as sugar.

ANY starch is broken down rapidly in the small intestine and absorbed as sugar.

That may be an oversimplification. Lustig, in the lecture mentioned by the GP, shows that there are big differences between how the body metabolizes glucose and fructose. If these differences are significant enough (Lustig's thesis is that they are), then it isn't a "false distinction" to single out sugar/HFCS from other carbohydrates.

He's talking about the uniquely hepatoxic properties of fructose vis-a-vis other sugars. I'm talking about the metabolism damaging insulin responses triggered by all carbohydrates, regardless of whether it's a piece of whole grain bread or a spoonful of honey (fructose).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com