Hacker News Reader

Comment by beebeepka | Hacker News Reader

Sounds awful. All of the taste, none of the nutrition. Anything but moderation. We shouldn't be indulging the lack of moderation.

View on HN

Folks with inherited diabetes do not have the option of moderation. You don't need to see this through such a narrow political lens. Some fermented nut-based vegan cheeses are healthier for the heart. Should we moan about that invention and insist on dairy based cheese, moderation, and less choice? No one is forcing you to use these new things.

Oh please. You know well this thing, if it works, is going to end up in addictive carbonated sugar water drinks. Except it's not even sugar. Aspartame is a great example. It didn't help with the amount of land whales.

Accusing me of looking through a narrow political lense. How about you look in the mirror.

Drop your last paragraph, it goes against the HN guidelines

I looked in the mirror and stepped on the scale. I'm at a very healthy weight. You sound angry.

Yes but we've seen added sugar to be quite an addictive substance. People want to quit and it's difficult. You will feel the void of sugar. So if there's a healthy alternative that can reduce sugar. It is a highly valuable stepping stone where the success of it would be to make itself unnecessary (although still fun to use!) I think if it's natural and doesn't pose health risks that it sounds great.

The healthy alternative has been here all along: fruits and nuts.

Ah but they are not heavily advertised, so they must be bad :(

I know you mean well but I firmly believe indulging this behaviour is detrimental to society

Indulging what behavior specifically? The use of new ingredients?

Overconsumption.

Why does a new and possibly healthier ingredient need to imply overconsumption?

And what exactly is overconsumption? Isn't it eating more than our body needs? If I eat more of an ingredient that provides fewer nutrients then there is no overconsumption, correct? Or are you looking for a world where we should only eat the most nutrient dense food because of ?

I think that only works with a precondition that sugar substitutes aren't as addictive. That isn't obvious.

yeah good point! although maybe diversity in addiction helps? E.g., instead of being addicted strongly to one substance, you get the desired pleasure from 2 substances... don't know, just a thought

Nothing stopping people from putting it on broccoli.

Everything in moderation, including moderation. You're allowed to live a little once in a while.

We eat too many carbs you can get nutrition from food without carbs. Just American processed food focuses on salts, carbs and other filler.

Salt is a filler for flavors where spices and herbs can be used because it is cheaper.

Carbs are used because it makes you feel full quick. Where protein will make you feel full after digestion.

America's culture of max min profit is annoying.

Protein isn't a magical satiation macronutrient, else protein shakes would be at the top of the satiety index and potatoes wouldn't be #1.

You're using the word "carbs" as a euphemism for refined grain and sugar. When you say we eat too many carbs, presumably you aren't talking about broccoli. Why not just say refined gains and sugar?

It's like throwing around the word protein when you're talking about wheat gluten.

I think you're confusing proteins and carbs. Dietary fiber yes a carb is not a problem as the body typically does not process dietary fiber. You need some carbs in the diet, but have you ever checked the nutritional label? Sugar is a carb. You really only need so much carbs in your diet and that is about 100g to 200g.

Varying on age gender and genetic heritage.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com