Nutrition Science's Most Preposterous Result

theatlantic.com

15 points·coloneltcb··8 comments

Everytime I encounter a "daily consumption of ${thing widely believed to be unhealthy} improves health" story it inevitably turns out that the researchers just found another proxy for socio-economic status. Could that be the case here?

I'm thinking something like it's a proxy for self control. Being able to restrict yourself to a relatively small treat shows self control which probably is good indicator for avoiding other foods that might cause heart disease.

I just read the article, and it seems like the ice cream effect was not limited by the amount you consumed. As in, "as little as half a cup a day can reduce your risk of diabetes."

I dunno, when I had gestational diabetes, a little bit of ice cream was mostly fine - the protein and fat content kept my blood sugar from spiking. In contrast, white rice was much much worse. Maybe it's just all about the glycemic index, paired with the fact that ice cream is so satisfying so it might keep you from other carb-heavy snacks.

The book "glucose revolution" talks about glucose spikes. They cause the problems - not only do they do damage, but the crash afterwards leads to low energy, poor concentration and cravings (that start the cycle again)

The book talks about plenty of hacks to prevent spiking/crashing - mainly by either speeding up the intake of glucose (walking after eating) or slowing down the spiking (combine with fiber, protein, fat).

I also wonder about ice cream made with invert sugar, or fiber.

https://archive.is/6yLjd

“One of his studies had led him to an unusual conclusion: Among diabetics, eating half a cup of ice cream a day was associated with a lower risk of heart problems.”

Everyone else eating a full cup.

As usual, "correlation is not causation".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com