Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by sky2224 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

sky2224

Somewhat related post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42625193

It seems like having sugary drinks is not just bad for you, but like really bad for you.

View on HN

40g of sugar in one can of soda is pancreatic terrorism.

I always wonder why I see “quit smoking” PSAs on TV, but not for sugar bombs like soda or even Starbucks fraps.

We haven't come to generally accept food as an addiction yet. We still talk about obesity (a symptom) and not food addiction (the problem). It would be like saying lung cancer is a problem but only very vaguely hinting that you might want to cut down on the smoking.

my go to drink for pancreatic terrorism as of late is Dunkin Donut's Caramel Creme Frozen Coffee - Large at 172g of sugar per serving

I can't believe it's even legal to sell those. That seems simply insane.

My best guess, and I've thought about this a lot, is that chronic illness drives billions of dollars of direct economic activity.

Of course, illness has an even larger cost to society and to overall happiness, but that's much less measurable, and therefore has less effect on public policy.

Your body, your choice.

At least with cigarettes there was a public nuisance argument because of the smell and also the secondhand effect. I dont find general public health a compelling argument for restricting sugar.

That's semi-reasonable in America, but less so in any country with single-payer health care. Like smoking, there are serious effects later in life that cost money to treat; this makes for a compelling case for a sin tax IMO, like we have for tobacco and liquor here in Canada.

It’s the root of the toxic nature of American culture. We worship the “freedom” to have bad outcomes shoved in our faces, but castigate and actively harm anyone who falls afoul as a result.

From my limited travels in Europe, I see countries with problems, but with people who appear to be happier and healthier.

"God gave us free will" and we're all equal, so if i can do it and you can't...

mental health care, addiction treatment, obesity, college loans. At the root of it all, even if they won't admit it directly.

> That's semi-reasonable in America

Is it? You'll either have higher health insurance costs to cover the people destroying their bodies, or you'll have to prove to your insurance provider that you live a healthy lifestyle somehow. Both seem like a bad thing.

I agree with you, and I think the sin tax up here in the Great White North is great. There are more externalities than just the healthcare system having more, expensive, patients. To lead with a strong argument that's less likely to be nit-picked apart though, I avoided getting into that discussion for the USA

Won’t the smokers die earlier and save the government old age benefits?

Cancer costs a lot. And surgeries, and palliative measures for people with bpco, etc..

So if we vote for a single payer healthcare system, we get a back door for government tyranny over every little aspect of our lives that they decide is bad for us, including as the science shifts? Don’t eat eggs or you lose your coverage, no wait, eat 3 eggs a week or you lose your coverage, no wait.. Sounds like a bad deal, and most Americans will take freedom over free health care if that’s the cost.

Yes, having billions poured into creating foods that are as addictive as possible and manipulation campaigns to get people hooked is a much better system.

This system also affects your freedoms in many ways. If a large portion of the population gets fat, you have a smaller pool of people that are able to do physical work, making it more expensive for you. You have a lot more demand for healthcare, making it more expensive for you. You have people demanding car-centric infrastructure because they can't walk, and that will affect you. Etc.

It doesn't work like that.

In a single payer system, the government is mandated to provide you with health care, since you are paying for it with your taxes (or would be if your income was high enough), no exceptions.

Typical tools of such governments include:

- taxes on products which are deemed of danger to public health, for example taxes on cigarettes in the EU. The government is then mandated to invest these taxes into the health care system

- public health campaigns (ads etc.)

- age restrictions, as they exist on alcohol in the US.

Legislation shifts to represent newest advances in science, yes. That's not per se a bad thing.

Not every country with a single-payer system is an authoritarian communist hellscape, you know.

That sound very reasonable and I'm inclined to agree, but empirically US health care system is the worst I know of. You're only free if you're rich and if you're rich you're not free, cause you've got so much to lose.

And from a more theoretical viewpoint the societal cost of unhealthy people is still there at the least in loss of productivity, so the argument for prohibition is still there and the US is only really liberal in things that are backed by wealthy corporations/people that have subverted the government.

In the end I guess freedom is the straw man here.

If you never used health insurance (which is paid for by more health-conscious people than you, on average), you'd have a more compelling case.

> most Americans will take freedom over free health care

When you're addicted to something (alcohol, nicotine, sugar, gambling, ...) is it really "freedom"?

This not only doesn’t happen, but those "tyrannical" systems also usually have lower minimum age requirements for alcohol consumption than the US, and healthcare is cheaper while people are healthier on average.

It is sad how so many people in the US were persuaded to be so afraid of supposed "communism" that they are actively voting against their interests.

You don't need to restrict it. Just educate people about its effect. That's the least you can do

I'm with you here, those white organic powders should have no restrictions whatsoever.

> Your body, your choice.

Corporate profits. They want you to get addicted for recurring revenue.

It is a crazy amount of carbs. As a type 1 diabetic pizza is typically one of the trickiest foods to compensate with insulin. And that is only about 100 grams of carbs.

That thing is almost double. And in pure sugar form...

Interesting, I'm more partial to the white castle large strawberry shake at 178g of sugar per serving. I find it really covers the recommended american intake of 24g of sugar per day.

Well with the proposed cut of Medicaid the problem will solve itself. It will be harder to go to Dunkin Donuts without legs.

This is levels above terrorism. Remember the good times when it was sold as prescription drug in pharmacies?

How much is a donut? I think Elon Musk says he eats quite a few through the day. Yet he's healthy as an old race horse.

I thought the bad part about donuts was the being fried part

What evidence is there to support the claim that Elon Musk is "healthy as an old race horse"?

Big sugar

I made a decision about 13 or 14 years ago to not drink my calories and it took another 11 years to actually cease all liquid calories - booze has a lot.

I do put a splash of heavy cream in my coffee, otherwise I wouldn't drink coffee at all, as unsweet iced tea is a more palatable flavor to me. But I don't like hot tea or cold coffee.

I understand cream has calories, but I have to take a small bit of fat to allow certain medicines to work, am I only have coffee a few times a week. Like 3 "cups" a week.

Peanut butter, before anyone wonders.

Try better coffee. Seriously. Get LIGHT-roast beans, grind them yourself, and get a Chemex.

Dark-roasted coffee is shitty beans that are burned to cover up their poor quality: https://medium.com/@stoffel.brian/the-real-reason-coffee-at-...

This. I would also consider a V60. Note the grinder is the most important bit and should set you back at least 10x as much as the brewer. Note also that pour over coffee is a skill and it will take a while to learn to brew nice coffee that can be (should be) enjoyed black. Also, if you buy "speciality" beans then their highest level of roast is still lighter than what Starbucks would call "light".

Definitely. A good grinder is essential, otherwise you can't even get repeatable results.

I have the Baratza Virtuoso and it has been rock-solid for years. I've never even cleaned it...

I have tried so many coffees. I have a 25 bar espresso machine (15 bar? i forget), a bunn commercial vacuum-flask machine, a generic k-cup and a french press. I've done cold brew myself, many many times. I've had every brew at CB&TL, starbucks, The Human Bean, Dutch Bros coffee co. I've tried most brands and most roasts.

I do like light roasts, except i "feel" they're a bit too caffiene-y.

I just really like tea, more. PG Tips, Uncle Lee's green, tisanes of all descriptions. It's more "refreshing" to me. Personal preference.

also i noted the reason i don't mind the cream, other than it's delicious - i need literal fat for certain medications. If i don't have coffee a couple hours after getting up, i'll eat a tablespoon of peanut butter for the same result.

> I do like light roasts, except i "feel" they're a bit too caffiene-y.

As I understand it, the darker the roast the more caffeine has been “burnt” off, so this would explain what you’re describing.

Right, however, apparently the light roasts i have tried are darker than the darkest roasts of ... whatever supplier someone else uses.

It's weird that i feel like we're talking about illicit drugs.

You're not wrong; light roast is reportedly higher in caffeine.

What I find interesting is that pour-over produces such better results than a drip coffee maker, which seems to be doing essentially the same thing. I guess having the grounds totally submerged makes that much difference.

I'm sure someone has rigged up a microcontroller-based automated pour-overer.

Some people simply do not like the flavor of pure coffee, no matter how much others enjoy it.

Same and within the same timeframe. It occurred to me that eating calories is a lot harder than drinking them so I made up a diet of the only liquid being water and no desserts. I’ve since refined it but the base idea was reasonably effective.

Same, I no longer drink any calories outside of exceptional cases such as supplements when running long distances. Black coffee and water are the only things I drink. Haven't drank alcohol in a while either.

Not only is giant sugar spikes bad for your glucose levels, I have seen several suggestions that high sugar levels increases the rates of cancer: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9775518/

Concentrated sugar is a poison.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com