[lisper]

Yes, that's true, but it misses the point. Caloric density is not what matters. What matters is how hungry you feel. Fat provides (vastly!) more filled-up-feeling per calorie than sugar. So eating fat will help you lose weight despite the fact that fat has more than twice as many calories per gram. You'll feel fuller faster, so you'll eat less.

Sugar actually has the perverse effect of making you feel more hungry after you've eaten it. This is one of the things that makes junk food so addictive.

[bumby]

Is this context, wouldn’t lean protein be the smarter choice over carbs or fat? It has lower caloric density than fat but doesn’t increase ghrelin like carbs

[lisper]

All of this is subject to Ron's First Law: all extreme positions are wrong. Eating too much sugar is bad. So is eating too much far or too much protein. Carbs are generally bad, but simple carbs (and alcohol) are worse than complex carbs. Fiber and vitamins matter too. Just about the only hard-and-fast rule is that sugar and alcohol are bad for you and the less you eat of them the better, at least in terms of your physical health. Personally, I choose to trade off some physical health risks in exchange for some boosts to my mental health because I do love me a margarita now and again. All things in moderation, including moderation :-)

[raunak]

Is this a real law? can't find anything online about either the law or its actual text

[lisper]

Do you mean Ron's First Law? I don't what you mean by "real law" in this context. It's obviously not a "real law" in the sense of being a law of physics or anything like that. It's a real aphorism, like Murphy's law, but obviously nowhere near as well know.

BTW, I'm Ron, the coiner of Ron's First Law, if that helps you put it in context :-)

[vram22]

>BTW, I'm Ron, the coiner of Ron's First Law, if that helps you put it in context :-)

I somehow guessed it, the moment I read it, though I didn't know your full name earlier, despite having read your comments on HN before.

Maybe because I've mulled making up such laws myself :)

Un bella domani, fratello!

(One fine day, brother. - From a Morris West novel. I think it is The Shoes of The Fisherman. Great read.)

[bumby]

You’re absolutely right, but I think the moderation extends to sugar as well. Sugar can be used prudently and beneficially. E.g., eating sugar (or other fast digesting carbs) immediately after a hard workout will actually enhance recovery.

[adgjlsfhk1]

The key is that soda and juice both contain way more sugar than you should be consuming regularly. 1 can of Coke contains roughly 140 calories of sugar which is roughly 100% of your daily recommended sugar according to the American Heart Association. (a can of orange juice is 160, though some weird regulation means they don't have to count it as sugar). As such it is pretty much impossible to have a healthy diet that involves regular consumption of soft drinks. Once a week or so is OK, but more than that is probably bad. (unless you are exercising for more than 3 hours a day)

[bumby]

If we’re constraining it the average semi-sedentary lifestyle, I agree. My point was more to the “only hard-and-fast rule is that sugar and alcohol are bad for you and the less you eat of them the better, at least in terms of your physical health” bit.

To the original point, I don’t agree that hard absolute statements are really good guidelines as they tend to oversimplify. For example, I believe the best recovery was found with 3:1 carb:protein post workout consumption. The typical protein supplement is around 25g, meaning it would be combined with more sugar than is in a can of soda (usually dextrose because it has a higher glycemic response). Some athletes consume sugar regularly (notably, Floyd Mayweather). Point being, I don’t believe it’s a good hard rule to say you should limit sugar as much as possible, but rather the appropriate (and less satisfying answer) is “it depends on your goal”

[allie1]

What you need to look at to figure out what makes you feel full longer vs shorter is GI index of food.

Lower is better, makes you feel fuller for longer.

It's a measure of how fast glucose is released in your bloodstream. It can be one big hike (like from deserts), or evenly spread out over a longer period of time (Natural Muesli).

[voisin]

Isn’t Glycemic Load more important than Glycemic Index since it takes into account serving size? No one eats 100g of table sugar the same as 100g of Apples.