Hacker News Reader

This really misses the point. Any well-informed individual can cut their sugar intake if they are careful enough.

But that has no effect on the massive public health crisis unfolding that (e.g.) absolutely dwarfs COVID-19. Liver disease caused directly by sugar intake is indirectly responsible for many often-fatal conditions, including high blood pressure, diabetes, circulatory disease, even metastatis of cancer. The only thing that can have any effect on that is massive policy changes, and a re-architecting of the public food supply.

This is not impossible: we have mostly eliminated hydrogenated fat from the US diet (although I recently found you can still buy Crisco at the grocery store!) So, artery blockage and heart disease from that will be on its way down. It took Fred Kummerow his entire career to get hydrogenated fat out of the American food system, from the '50s well into this millennium, but not substantially until 2017, even though it was known to be poison. (Europe banned it earlier.)

Try finding even a loaf of bread in the bread aisle of your supermarket that is less than 10% sugar. (You might find one or two. Good luck.) Even the multi-grain "healthy" ones are loaded. Check your sauces. Ketchup, mustard, barbeque sauce, mayonnaise, salad dressing, peanut butter, all usually have lots of sugar. So, even if you think you have cut it out, you probably haven't.

Kids have massive promotions directed at them to make them demand unlimited amounts of sugar. It works, they get it. Kids in the US are getting cirrhosis, like alcoholics.

This is not about self-discipline, it is about public policy. People will eat what is promoted to them, that they find on the shelves at the store, on the menu at the drive-through, in the snacks stock at the office. They will keep eating it while it makes them sick, and even while it kills them. (My mother-in-law died in October. She packed on sugar right to the end.)

>Try finding even a loaf of bread in the bread aisle of your supermarket that is less than 10% sugar.

What is meant by this? Even on the high end, standard Wonderbread isn't 10% sugar by weight. 10% sugar by calorie content, or a serving accounts for more than 10% RDA? A banana would be far worse by those metrics.

Bananas, like almost all fruits (excepting grapes) have enough fiber to render the sugar mostly harmless.

The label will say something like "Serving size: 31g ... Sugar: 3g". Bread is at the low end.

There are some good points in here about NAFLD. It's worth pointing out that (i) high sucrose (and/or fructose) intake makes it hard for people to self regulate appetite (i.e. not overeat). And (ii) the above stated ill effects of high sugar consumption are basically stopped in the presence of a caloric deficit -- e.g. IIRC there are controlled chimp studies on this and inadvertent human 'experiments' like with food shortages in Cuba in the 90s. But I don't think (ii) is particularly relevant for rich countries whereas (i) is.

>This is not about self-discipline, it is about public policy.

it can be instructive to compare school lunches in the US vs other rich countries. Not everyone serves highly processed junk food for lunch.

The real issue is that not everyone has 7 hours a day to think about their diet (or someone else to do that for them).

I tried this and after a month or two, I was burnt out and achieved much less of what I wanted to achieve outside of my diet. So yeah for me with my particular set of goals in life (ie: work, have a life, etc...) it's pretty impossible.

I know some people who eat the same healthy foods every day to simplify this, but this is a) not something a lot of people can tolerate, and b) not actually good for you in the long run.

Edit:

"7 hours???" No it's not literally 7 hours every single day. The point is that it takes a long time to find recipes, cook, clean, shop, etc. But go ahead and miss the point to fixate on a little detail if you want I guess

Edit 2:

Another thing to consider is that even 'fresh natural healthy non-GMO' ingredients are selectively bred to taste better, resulting in a higher sugar content. This has gotten to the point where it causes issues in zoos [1]

[1] https://www.smh.com.au/national/zoo-won-t-panda-to-taste-say...

You tried spending 7 hours a day thinking about your diet?

Also what do you mean by ‘have a life’? Doesn’t that just mean diet is a lower priority than other things?

If you really don’t have much time, one approach is to improve your diet incrementally. Switch out cereal for oatmeal and fruit. Make another improvement next month. Keep doing this and in a year or so you’ll have a great diet.

Have a life means different things to different people, but in the end the point is the same. Make friends, do hobbies... things that make life actually enjoyable.

Is cooking enjoyable? Sure, but spending so much time on it every single day can be a serious burden

You don't need to spend "so much time" cooking to eat low in sugar.

Plenty of vegetables can be eaten raw, notably all the "standard" salad vegetables in the west like cucumber, carrot, tomato, avocado, celery, bell pepper and so on. You can eat them in a salad by themselves, or you can make some noodles (thin Asian noodles just require stirring for a few seconds in boiling water) and toss the raw veges in with some seasoning of your choice. Nuts and seeds are easy to add too, and don't require cooking. Tofu doesn't need cooking. If you don't mind eating bread, you can make a sandwich instead of a salad or a noodle bowl. If you are making a breakfast or don't mind oats for dinner, just buy quick oats and add some water, stir it up and eat. Frying an egg doesn't take long, or stir-frying some meat, if you eat those things. No need to put a pot on the stove or chuck something in the oven. Think about how people eat when they are camping, or how short order cooks make food in diners, or how street vendors cook stuff up for you on-the-spot.

I would say most meals you should be able to make within 15 minutes of chopping/prep, plus 5 minutes if it needs to be fried. It's really not that big of an investment.

> Plenty of vegetables can be eaten raw

And this is what I do, but it doesn't meet my caloric needs unfortunately. I really wish I could sustain myself off of just that. Same with some of your other suggestions. I know because I've tried for a while :)

> Think about how people eat when they are camping

People eat like that because they're camping

> I would say most meals you should be able to make within 15 minutes of chopping/prep, plus 5 minutes if it needs to be fried

Yeah that's just not true

I'm not sure what you mean by your "caloric needs" being so high that you cannot possibly meet them with a meal made in 20 minutes. You could eat a stick of butter in 5 minutes. No sugar. Plenty of calories. In fact, that's exactly what some thru hikers do. If you really require a vast amount of calories, this is solved by eating fat, which you could get in oils, nuts, seeds, butter, cheese and processed meats - all of which require zero cooking time.

If you don't like the taste of any vegetables, or noodles, or porridge/oatmeal, or bread, or fruit, or stir-fried meat, or anything that does not require being stewed or baked or smoked for several hours... then just say so. But then that's a personal preference for the type of food you choose to eat - it doesn't mean that it takes "so much time" to cook nutritional, varied and delicious food. It's fine if you only enjoy a very limited set of foods, but I suspect most people have a broader palate.

> And this is what I do, but it doesn't meet my caloric needs unfortunately. I really wish I could sustain myself off of just that. Same with some of your other suggestions. I know because I've tried for a while :)

From the way you talk, it sounds like a diet full of sugar and quick to prepare processed foods is actually the optimal one for you because your body and mind simply can’t deal with anything else.

If this is the case, then maybe it’s best to enjoy convenient foods, and enjoy ‘living’, and not worry about health consequences because that will only detract from your present enjoyment.

Such a passive aggressive comment. I don’t understand why people feel the need to be so vitriolic in the face of an experience that doesn’t match their own on this site

You’re reading something into my comment that isn’t there, indeed it’s the opposite of what I wrote.

The point is that people keep offering you suggestions because you seem to be saying there is a problem.

You’re obviously wrong that the problem can’t be solved since lots of people have solved it. That isn’t a matter of your experience not matching others.

What we are left with is that you are simply making a choice based on your own priorities and preferences.

I genuinely think that if this is true, you would be better off simply being happy with your choice. That sentiment is about respecting what is true for you and wishing you well.

I imagine there are a lot of people who have similar priorities to you and are just fine with that.

> I would say most meals you should be able to make within 15 minutes of chopping/prep, plus 5 minutes if it needs to be fried. It's really not that big of an investment.

This is how I cook dinner when its my term, but that is usually just broccoli or cauliflower and pork (stir fried) over rice. My wife takes a lot long with her meal prep...and they taste better.

Restaurants/cafeterias have scale and specialization working for them, you can't compare that to making individual or family meals on your own.

I didn't talk about restaurants/cafeterias, I mentioned diners and street vendors for a reason. Specifically these places feature solo cooks who cook complete dishes to order within a few minutes by using a griddle or wok. The only significant amount of time required here is the chopping of the raw ingredients, which they do beforehand so the customers can get their orders in 5 minutes. At home that might take up to 20 minutes, depending how much you need to chop. There are plenty of different dishes you can cook like this.

Of course there are also plenty of other dishes that require a longer time to cook, but that's beside the point. The original comment was complaining that it takes "7 hours a day" and causes burnout to prepare a variety of meals that aren't packed with sugar. This is an absurd statement that at best adds nothing to the conversation and at worst discourages people from attempting to develop simple, healthy eating habits.

7 hours a day is definitely an exaggeration but it isn’t that far from some common extreme cases. My mother in law when we visit her will spend most of her time in the kitchen preparing each meal, but then she kills her own chickens also (this being a low tier Chinese city). She has just done cooking that way most of her life. Then again, when we lived in China eating in was a special case and eating out was cheaper/more time efficient and was pretty healthy if you chose the right stuff.

Sure - but the point is that the original commenter is using an extreme as though it was typical or necessary, when it is clearly not.

I have a curry recipe that takes about 3 hours to execute, however it makes about 20 portions which can then be frozen, and reheated. That’s 9 minutes per portion, and reheating it along with some rice from a rice cooker takes 5-6 minutes of attention. I.e. 15 minutes per meal.

My lunch today will be pan fried salmon with crispy skin, a baked potato, and lettuce.

The potato takes at most 2 minutes to scrub and put into a toaster oven. It takes about 2 minutes to rinse and select a few lettuce leaves. The salmon takes about 10 minutes to pin-bone, season, and cook isolaterally. Again, around 15 minutes.

I learned the salmon cooking technique from watching a 10 minute Gordon Ramsay YouTube video. This stuff isn’t rocket science. You don’t have to spend 7 hours a day cooking, but you do have to accumulate learned techniques steadily over time, just like with anything you want to do yourself.

Our family relies a lot on frozen Tilapia that can be fried up easily enough in a non-stick. It isn't rocket since, 7 hours is an exaggeration (for the USA at least), but...there is surely a better way to do this food preparation thing (outsource to businesses who can scale up and specialize in it, like we did in Roman times).

Sure - I mean where I live DoorDash can provide me with a healthy meal within 30 minutes. It’s just more expensive.

Yes, that is the problem with the USA. But surely there must be some room for disruption here: food that can be prepared more economically than you could by yourself. It has happened in other countries (even Switzerland has lots of nice cafeterias that are very competitive with home preparation), why not here?

Yes, I agree with the general idea. Conceptually I call this an ‘eating house’ rather than a restaurant.

In my neighborhood this need is served by Taquerias.

> Sure, but every spending so much time on it every single day can be a serious burden

Yes, but that simply isn’t necessary.

> oatmeal and fruit

Hate to break it to you but fruit is not far removed from sugar. Oatmeal is further but it's still carbs.

There is nothing wrong with "carbs" that are not sugar. Starch is made out of glucose, which is generally harmless. Oatmeal has lots of fiber. The problem with sucrose is the fructose that makes up half of it.

Fruit almost always has plenty of fiber in it to modulate sugar absorption long enough that your gut bacteria get most of it. So, fruit is harmless, except grapes, which apparently have had the fiber bred out of them.

That's an interesting assumption, but do we have sufficient sources to back it?

I'd assume at least certain fruit would still be dangerous, like grapes, figs, maybe dates. And of course candied fruit too.

I have been unable to find out whether wild ancestors of grapes (if there are any left) have more fiber than domestic varieties. And, I don't know about dates.

But I am assured by numerous online sources that domesticated grapes have vanishingly little fiber, however that came about.

I have encountered a claim that sugar in mango is, uniquely, mostly fructose. But I have been unable to confirm that.

>> Fruit almost always has plenty of fiber in it to modulate sugar absorption

> but do we have sufficient sources to back it?

It's not an assumption, it's a well known fact that adding fat or fiber[2] to a high GI food will decrease it's GI. Conversely removing fiber increases it. For example brown rice(50) has a lower GI than white rice(72). The spike/crash in blood sugar from high GI foods is likely to cause carb craving and is linked to obesity/diabetes.

[1] https://academic.oup.com/jn/article/136/10/2506/4746688

[2] https://www.webmd.com/diabetes/guide/understanding-carbohydr...

> Hate to break it to you but fruit is not far removed from sugar.

Hate to break it to you, but you don’t need a lot.

Also my point is that you can incrementally improve your diet. Oatmeal and fruit is way better than most packaged cereal. If you know of something better still why not share it, so people can make another incremental improvement?

7 hours a day? Why strawman so hard

I cook up some meat and vegetables in 20-30 minutes and they last a few days. It's not that hard to do. It just takes a bit of learning what vegetables you like and how you like them cooked. I mix it up with some less healthy foods, but as long as that isn't the majority of your diet, I wouldn't worry too much about it.

What I do now is to meal prep when I can and eat 'unhealthy sugary foods' when I can't

> as long as that isn't the majority of your diet, I wouldn't worry too much about it

Exactly. For me this is the only practical approach.

It doesn't take any time.

We barely eat any sugar at home and don't spend that much time thinking about what to eat.

Breakfast: Cortado (espresso with a bit of milk), eggs with some sauteed vegetables, maybe an avocado on the side.

Lunch: Meat or fish with vegetables.

Dinner: Quesadillas or a sandwich with low glycemic index bread (we buy one called Ezekiel but you probably can find other brands).

> We ...

Perhaps this is the key point here. It's not 'We' for me. I don't have anyone else to rely on for this, like many others who can't afford the time.

What veg do you sauté with your eggs? Any spices? Asking for breakfast ideas

I said sauteed to simplify, but what we do is a kind of ratatouille. We do it once every 2-3 weeks and use a bit on every breakfast. We freeze it in batches, and every couple of days we defrost a new batch in the fridge.

Our version of ratatouille has tomato, eggplant, onion, zucchini, and carrot.

Typically we do scrambled eggs, preheat the ratatouille, and then serve it on top of the eggs with sprinkled goat cheese. It's super easy and fast to do for any number of people.

Another preparation we absolutely love is: a toast of low glycemic Ezekiel bread[1] with the pre heated ratatouille on it, some sprinkled goat cheese, and a fried egg on top of everything with sprinkled hot salsa (I guess some Sriracha would work too if you're into that). It's delicious.

We also typically add half avocado on the side of those dishes. Since we live in Mexico these are plentiful and very cheap.

We've measured our blood glucose before and after eating either of those breakfasts and it barely changes.

[1] https://www.foodforlife.com/about_us/ezekiel-49

Nice, thank you for the write up I think I’ll make some this weekend

> not actually good for you in the long run.

So you would rather eat a sugar filled diet of processed food then eat the same healthy things because you think its not good for you? not good for you based on what?

Nope you misunderstood. Having low variability in a diet is not good for you because you a good diet is also a diverse diet

Based off what? these are ambiguous terms. You can have a varied diet of mcdonalds, taco bell, arbys and wings or eat chicken, eggs and broccoli everyday, the second will be healthier without question.

I think the only thing you might be thinking of is missing out on some nutrients if you really just eat the same things but that is pretty extreme situation. eating meat will get you almost everything you need to function.

unless you have some sources that say otherwise or explain your point better

It’s definitely not impossible to avoid. Or even difficult, once you’ve figured it out. But the cards really are stacked against people.

That sounds like typical marketing: “we added 0g of sugar, but it still has as many carbohydrates as 2 meals in one”.

> Is non-sweetened cereal hard to find in your supermarket or something?

They aren't. Cheerios is a popular option, it has 1G of sugar per serving. You go up quickly to around 5G/serving for cereals like Wheeties. But milk is where you really get killed: 12G of sugar in one cup of skim milk.

A plain bagel will run you 4G of sugar also. If you are trying to keep your sugar intake to the recommended less than 36 grams a day, it is tough. And then there are the sugar substitutes that may or may not be good for you (e.g. monk fruit in supercoffee).

>12G of sugar in one cup of skim milk

None of which is sucrose, or added.

Yup, it's lactose, glucose and galactose.

In this way, some of the plant milks can be worse, if they're sweetened with sugar. Typically oat milks tend to be sweetened with malt which is mostly glycans and glucose, no fructose.

Milk contains lactose. I avoid sugar due to sinus headaches and don't have an issue with lactose.

Lactose turns into glucose and, with a little more processing, more glucose. Glucose is absolutely harmless. (Unless you have diabetes. A huge number of Americans have given themselves diabetes by taking in so much sugar: specifically, the fructose in sugar. That will go away, absent fructose.)

To be clear: table sugar is half fructose. Honey is half fructose. Any fruit juice or soda is about half fructose. Both are equally harmful.

There is no problem with the sugar in any amount of whole fruit (except grapes) -- the fiber slows absorption, and your gut bacteria get it. Your gut bacteria need to be fed, or they feed on you.

> just get plain yogurt? "Kirkland Signature Organic Greek Yogurt" has 0g added sugar

This only goes so far. Sometimes manufacturers add lactose to dairy products, or change the balance in favor of lactose, which doesn’t count as added sugars because it occurs naturally in the food. But it’s still sweeter than a comparable plain/unsweetened product if you look at sugar content.

Any examples? I'm aware of "ultrafiltered" milk e.g. Fairlife, where they remove lactose, but not heard of adding it.

Anyway, lactose is not equivalent to sucrose in terms of health impact.

Maybe it doesn't count as added sugar but it should appear in the nutrients label, no?

I doubt any yogurts do this as they are often consumed by the lactose intolerant.

> I get it's hard to avoid sugar because it tastes so damn good, but let's not pretend it's "impossible to avoid".

Have you eaten sugar. Ever? Do you know any American, let's say over 10, that has never had any sugar, ever? Oh, perhaps it is impossible to avoid.

Don't like my semantic argument? It's at least more honest then your "oh just choose (and make your children choose) only good stuff, and avoid all the other stuff that companies spend billions marketing, problem solved!"