Hacker News Reader

Comment by grzm | Hacker News Reader

With such a strong, unequivocal, (strident?) statement, I'm honestly curious how you expect people to respond.

People who already agree with you might get more energized.

Those who disagree are likely to either (a) dismiss you because they know any discussion is likely going to result in a flame war or (b) jump in because they like the heat.

Those that are concerned about sugar might agree, but hesitate to participate in the discussion because of the flame war potential. Similarly those who are interested in learning more.

You're also making factual claims without providing citations. Like I said, honest question. What's motivating your phrasing?

View on HN

With such a strong, unequivocal, (strident?) statement, I'm honestly curious how you expect people to respond.

I would guess, the first time a person comes across this type of statement, they would simply dismiss it.

After hearing similar sentiments from 10 or 20 people, they may start to feel bothered and wonder if they're doing something wrong; if they ought to do research to justify their existing behavior.

Then they may come something like the New Nordic Diet, and find it has an aesthetic appeal; plus they are also primed to appreciate that it addresses the excess sugar problem. This offers a way forward.

Alternatively, they simply come to terms with the fact that other people disapprove of their lifestyle choices. It's just as important to be able to withstand social pressure as it is to eat healthy.

Thanks for the response. I think you can accomplish all of these without the absolutist language, requiring fewer cycles of exposure. Given the HN audience, I think they'd appreciate and be more open to listening to a more nuanced perspective. With the nature of nutritional research, there are plenty of papers out there supporting a variety of positions on sugar: refined, added, high-fructose, and otherwise.

I agree the language you were responding to was unnecessarily emotionally charged ("tragedy", "addiction", suffering children). It's possible to advocate a radical position (near-complete elimination of refined sugar) without making the reader feel bad.

> My dentist told me she regularly has to extract some or all of the milk teeth from kids because they've been rotted by sugary soft drinks. She doesn't like doing it and the parents don't like watching it done. But cause and effect is a thing and she's at the wrong end of it.

Tooth extraction is the leading cause of child hospitalisation in the UK. This is mentioned in the consultation document linked in this submission.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com