Hacker News Reader

Comment by garyrichardson | Hacker News Reader

Any one who has actually read a food label will realize that serving size != package size and for things like cereal my bowl != serving size.

It's hard to believe how touchy people are. Will people really take increased serving sizes as a signal to eat more? Probably not. It won't change anything for those who don't pay attention to calories/serving sizes nutrition. People who count calories will shit a brick and hopefully start eating less processed foods.

This is all really pointless anyways. If the FDA really wanted to address obesity they need to take a hard stance against processed foods and high fructose corn syrup. That will never happen because food companies will lobby to protect their empires and a large portion of Americans can't afford to eat real food.

View on HN

People who count calories have the ability to figure out that 18 chips @ 150 calories/6 chips implies "OMFG, I just ate 450 calories! I'm going be fat and you are going to leave me! This is all your fault for buying chips!"

It would be nice if there were a nutrition label for the entire package. Until then I can use Wolfram Alpha, which has quite a good database.

And I agree with you on the fructose. It is bad stuff, at least in the concentrations found in processed food.

It is a bit comical that the EPA is raising holy hell over carbon dioxide while the FDA turns a blind eye to HFCS.

Citation? I've heard lots of people talk of the dangers of HFCS, but I've never even heard of a scientific explanation, let alone seen a study.

There's tons out there. A good start would be "Good Calories, Bad Calories," by Gary Taubes. Here's a good article:

http://www.westonaprice.org/The-Double-Danger-of-High-Fructo...

"Robert H. Lustig, MD, UCSF Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology, explores the damage caused by sugary foods. He argues that fructose (too much) and fiber (not enough) appear to be cornerstones of the obesity epidemic through their effects on insulin. Series: UCSF Mini Medical School for the Public": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

If you've watched the video then you know this already, but for those who haven't: For most intents and purposes, HFCS is biologically identical to table sugar, except it tastes a little sweeter. Sucrose (table sugar) is a glucose molecule bonded to a fructose molecule. HFCS is roughly half fructose as well. The problem is overconsumption of sugar and consumption of sugar unaccompanied by fiber. Watch the video.

Yup, I figured I'd just let the video speak for itself. It doesn't support the idea that HFCS is especially evil in the way that, say, transfats are, but it's still bad enough for you that the presenter is willing to call it a "poison", and he backs that up reasonably well even if you aren't quite willing to go that far.

But it is important to note the presenter calls normal sugar a poison as well because they're both high in fructose and devoid of nutrients.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com