Hacker News Reader

Comment by amriksohata | Hacker News Reader

Refined sugar and processed fatsare bad, naturally occuring fats like coconut oil have been lumped together with other fats as bad due to bad science

View on HN

If you're in the US or Europe, you don't have access to fresh coconuts. The oil you buy comes from far away (do you even know from where?), was processed under God knows what conditions, likely melted and resolidified several times as it changed hands in transit, only to sit in a store for who knows how long and what corners they cut. And this is healthier than eating locally-produced oils that your body is more genetically disposed to eating -- how exactly?

Edit: don't want to rag on you too much, but modern healthy eating trends are saturated with all kinds of insanity.

Coconuts are commonly available in Asian markets in the USA. Heck, half the fruits and veggies in grocery stores in fall/winter have South American labels.

> If you're in the US or Europe, you don't have access to fresh coconuts.

What does fresh mean in this context? I can buy them whole from the supermarket…

You can get cold pressed coconut oil which isn't processed as much at all, also:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-42608071

Where is the evidence that “processing” or “refining” makes anything worse? In what way is 300 calories of table sugar worse for you than 300 calories of watermelon?

Why do you focus exclusively on calories?

You could even ask why 300 calories of tar should be worse for you than 300 calories of apples.

The reason is the many other effects stuff has, besides their nutritional stats.

300 calories of glucose is going to be far healthier than 300 calories of fructose, because of how they are metabolized by the body.

You mean obviously the other way round. It's the typical US/UK propaganda. Frucose doesn't go directly into blood as glucose (the basic energy form) and galactose (-> milk).

Wikipedia: "The European Food Safety Authority stated that fructose is preferable over sucrose and glucose in sugar-sweetened foods and beverages because of its lower effect on postprandial blood sugar levels". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fructose

"Fructose is often recommended for diabetics because it does not trigger the production of insulin by pancreatic β cells, probably because β cells have low levels of GLUT5, although the net effect for both diabetics and non-diabetics is debated. Fructose has a low glycemic index of 19 ± 2, compared with 100 for glucose and 68 ± 5 for sucrose. Fructose is also 73% sweeter than sucrose at room temperature, so diabetics can use less of it. Studies show that fructose consumed before a meal may even lessen the glycemic response of the meal. Fructose-sweetened food and beverage products cause less of a rise in blood glucose levels than do those manufactured with sucrose or glucose."

Glucose is harmless and can be metabolised by any cell in your body, while Fructose can only be metabolised by your liver and produced a bunch of undesirable metabolic end products in the process. It also blocks leptin, the antagonist of insulin and therefore messes with your metabolic regulation, while glucose does none of that. If you feed rats large amounts of glucose they will get a very big liver but stay otherwise healthy, if you feed them fructose they will develop diabetes... This is all very well known.

Glucose being harmless is the understatement of the year. In the end fructose and every other carb is split up to glucose. And glucose (the simple monosaccharide sugar) is one of the most powerful medicines and drugs, stronger, cheaper and better than cocaine, and responsible for many severe illnesses:

  * Retinal damage to the eye
  * Arterial blockage
  * Oxidative stress
  * Increased inflammation
  * Endothelial dysfunction
  * Reduced coronary blood flow
  * Increased cancer risk

Let me just point to http://www.lifeextension.com/magazine/2011/1/glucose-the-sil... or https://www.atkins.com/how-it-works/library/articles/10-ways...

This is all very well known and ignored by the US sugar industry which rather blames other factors. If you feed americans large amounts of glucose (they do), they will get obese and die early. You cannot argue with the numbers, because it's mostly only affecting americans who do consume sugar levels above the health risk. Blaming fructose and the liver alone is dangerous. It's the end product, glucose, and the fat reserves, not the carb. metabolism.

Fructose is metabolized almost entirly by the liver which might make it better for blood sugar levels but it’s signifacantly worse on the liver.

Sure, but it's not like you have to choose one or the other. You can have the beneficial short term effects while avoiding the long term effects by using moderation (which is key in any diet).

Fructose, maybe?

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

https://nutritionfacts.org/2016/08/09/what-about-all-the-sug...

How about the fact that you have to eat a kilogram of watermelon to get 300cal but less than tenth of that with sugar?

So why is a kilogram of watermelon better than 75 grams of sugar?

water and fiber are great for you

Because one will leave you wanting more while the other one will leave you full, so you don't get (or at least get less) fat.

The body has a much harder time digesting sugar (and other nutriments too) without fiber, the refining process removes the fiber from the plants that contain sugar.

I think you mean easier. Being hard (taking a lot of time) to digest is good.

For starters, because you can much more quickly and easily eat "300 calories of table sugar" (e.g. by drinking sodas or some sweet) than 300 calories of watermelon.

Second, because 300 calories of watermelon will come with all kinds of vitamins (including C and A), and lots of water.

And fiber. That's the important component of fruit that will buffer the sugar.

Yep, in general yes, though watermelon doesn't have much fiber IIRC.

Coconut oil is not a naturally occurring fat, unless you're eating it as part of a coconut. It's just as bad for you as other saturated fats (unfortunately, because it's super tasty): https://nutritionfacts.org/video/coconut-oil-and-the-boost-i...

Saturated fats are not bad for you. Listen to the science, not biased websites.

Actually, extracted coconut oil is as bad as butter. But whole coconut is good. Probably because of all the fiber it has.

The case against saturated fats is far from conclusive. Let alone coconut oil, with is mostly MCT's (medium chain triglycerides) as opposed to the more common LCT's (long chain triglycerides).

> extracted coconut oil is as bad as butter

So, it's great as there's no evidence that butter is bad.

I wonder... how common was heart disease before saturated fats were demonized, and ultra-processed plant oils were pushed as the "healthier" alternative? What about after?

The problem with that claim is that you have to go back decades, where general quality of life was different, life expectancy was lower and the causes of death were different - or harder to assess. as this chart shows, average life expectancy has gone up from 50 to 75 in the past 50 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#/media/File:Li..., while this page (http://www.fauxpress.com/kimball/med/heart/h2/coronaryd.htm) indicates most heart disease only starts to show up after the age of 50.

So yeah, a bit hard to assess combined with higher life expectancy. Not impossible though, I'm sure there's good research out there.

Yeah, this could make it slightly difficult. Good thing I asked the question, though, because this answers it in a way, unlike the other unhelpful commentor.

Good, step one: make an observation. For the remaining steps, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVnuFY20st0 :P

This does nothing to answer my question, which was sincere. I'm really just looking for statistics, but don't know where to start looking.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com