Hacker News Reader

Comment by graham1776 | Hacker News Reader

My wife and I rewatch the obligatory Lustig lecture about once a month to re-anger ourselves at sugar. Nothing motivates like a bit of biochemistry mixed in with political intrigue.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

View on HN

My wife is having kidney issues which she believes is associated with her nearly daily intake of Advil, but I had no idea that fructose was also a major potential factor in kidney disease. She consumes about 24 oz of soda per day, which is about 60% fructose. So it looks like it was a double-whammy, Advil + fructose has destroyed her kidney function.

Your wife drinks 2 cans of soda and takes Advil every single day? And you let her do this?

Can I ask why you don't care about the well-being of your spouse?

She's a human being who feeds herself, not a dog.

Let me make sure I understand your logic:

If you had a girlfriend/boyfriend who drank gasoline and ate glass and small, powerful magnets every day, you would not lift a finger or speak a word attempting to stop them? Because they are "not a dog, feeding themselves"?

Might I suggest you have a critical lack of empathy if you lack the desire to help people?

> Let me make sure I understand your logic:

I'm pretty sure you have not only failed to understand your interlocutors logic, but failed to understand how your "And you let her do that?" reads, and would better (presuming the question you seem to think you asked judging from this followup is what you actually meant to ask) phrased, "And have you done anything to dissuade her from this course of action?"

What you actually asked treats the spouse as an infant or chattel to be controlled, and is the reason you got the negative response that you got.

i suspect the problem is your verbiage: "you let her do this". there is no "let" unless you're someone's master.

I agree with you. I suspect people think you're being sexist? I am a woman and if my husband drank so much soda I would lay down the law.

I find it surprising and alarming in other people's relationships (in America, anyway -- I noticed this was very different when I lived abroad) how little each partner seems involved in the other's fitness and health. I've heard "oh, but they would get offended!" or something. Like yes, that's certainly true with friends and strangers. But you have a major stake in your spouse's health. It's you who will take care of them when they are sick, you who will pay their way if they cannot work.

I exercise with my husband, I eat well with my husband. We tell each other when we are getting extra pudge. I wouldn't have it any other way.

Of course you should care about your spouse. But you're ultimately not in control of them as you would be with a dog or a child. They control their own actions. You should totally discuss it with them! Even if it hurts their feelings sometimes.

But if I'm pondering getting dessert and my SO says, "Hmm, let me think on if I'll allow it" I'd think he was an arse.

And as far as sexism, if anyone said that they'd be an arse.

I am not in control of any person. I can only advise. "letting" someone do something is not something that I can stop. If I want to drink 20 cans of soda a day, my wife can only complain about it. If she tried to force me to stop doing what I want, I would leave her and continue to do what I want. No-one should be a slave master and control another person.

Also, 2 cans of soda is very little compared to most Americans.

This lecture is amazing. I sort of put some of it in the background the first time I watched it, but now I want to delve deeper into it, so thanks for bringing this up. For people who haven't seen it, IMO, it's a real eye opener. I intend to verify a lot more of the science he explains myself as the industry--and let's face it, it's certainly not alone in this--is hardly trustworthy. Interesting how most--if not all--issues of science and technology boil down to trust.

The problem is Lustig is on the far end of the spectrum on anti-sugar. No added sugars? Sure, I buy that. Labelling fructose as a poison simply because it is directly metabolized in the liver is stretch. I'm not going to worry that my kids are eating berries because of their fructose content.

Clearly you didn't fully understand what lustig is saying. Its not the fact that fructose is metabolized in the liver that is problematic - its the effects of the process that are horrible and poisonouos.

Regardless, people coming away with the conclusion that fructose is bad for you is bananas ;) Also it is not clear that he is for/against eating lots of fruits and starchy veges of which humans thrive on. Lots of evidence for this too!

Fructose is bad for you. A couple pieces of fruit every day is generally fine, because fruits are packed with fiber, but if you e.g. drink 3 glasses of fruit juice per day, that’s terrible for you.

Even eating fruits isn’t the best though. Modern fruits are bred to be as large and sweet as possible.

Fructose is bad for you in isolation, but so is almost anything, but packaged in the fruit is a different story.

Do you think eating 5 oranges is any different than drinking the juice of those 5 oranges?

"Eating fruits is not best" is something that not only goes against science but common sense. Perhaps eating high amounts of fruits could be bad and but im not aware of a study confirming this (when the fruit is eaten whole).

A large glass of OJ can contain 5 oranges and I can down it in 2 minutes and not feel full.

Eating 5 oranges would take me a while. I eat oranges a lot and usually after one it's taken a while so my body can register I'm full.

There were days in college when I drank 3 glasses of fruit juice with each meal, plus a couple cans of soda during the same day. For some reason, I was convinced that fruit juice was an entirely “natural” and “healthy” beverage. I know better now.

But I also still know people who eat large quantities of fruit continuously throughout the day, probably 8–10 servings daily. They’ve convinced themselves that as long as they avoid soda, candy, donuts, and ice cream, they can just eat as many fruits as they want with no effect. It’s true that the fruits are better than just guzzling Coca Cola. But it’s not a healthy balanced diet.

They’d be much better off replacing some of the oranges with carrots, some of the bananas with spinach, some of the mangos with broccoli.

Fruit isn’t inherently evil, but like everything, it’s best in moderation.

Eating fruit comes with fiber that triggers your body to feel full. Most juice is missing most of its fiber, so you don't get that full feeling. So, yeah, having a cup of apple juice vs eating 5 apples is different: you are more likely to go for the next glass of apple juice than another 5 apples.

Would you be that sanguine about your kids tossing back a shot of vodka every day? If you take Lustig's analysis of fructose's effect on the liver at face value, you should treat them the same.

One drink of alcohol per day is generally regarded as quite healthy.

Alcohol is a carcinogen. Every drink you have increases your chances of getting cancer.

http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/al...

In nature, fructose is almost always found in conjuction with fiber. For example, fruits and vegetables. This combination of sugar and fiber tempers the impact on the body. In contrast, many processed foods have added sugar and reduced fiber content.

It also appears phenolic compounds in plants play a role in helping too.[1][2]

[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23365108 [2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22935321

Fructose and sucrose are chemically identical (as in, the same) except that sucrose has an extra glucose attached, which breaks off in the stomach. Fructose tends to come in fruit, surrounded by fibre, which arguably reduces its cost to our bodies. Arguably, I say, because modern fruit is so extremely high in fructose, and because the sugar then hits the lower intestine where it messes up your bioflora, which affects your immune system and so on.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com