Had Yudkin posted HN comments, he would have learned quickly that telling the truth is not only profoundly unpopular, but actively being penalized.
The Sugar Conspiracy
51–60 of 362 posts
Re: The Sugar Conspiracy
#52I still dont agree that sugar is the problem. Lustig himself seems to have not figured out what the secret is to health and weightloss as he is obese to morbidly obese. Saturated fats still do cause heart disease, strokes, alzheimers.. anything where blood is blocked or doesnt reach the organ it needs to. If anything, processed sugars like HFCS which is extracted from corn by a chemical enzyme process, could be the c…
> Saturated fats still do cause heart disease, strokes, alzheimers.. All the studies claiming to make these links have been comprehensively debunked. And it's worth remembering that the vast, vast bulk of fats and cholesterol in your body are not dietary, they were produced inside your body from other macro-nutrients. And they are essential. Without them you would die. On a very basic level, blood flow gets blocked b…
Inflammation and plaque on your artery walls are two different things. Also, sources of saturated fats such as meat and dairy cause inflammation.
Re: The Sugar Conspiracy
#53I still dont agree that sugar is the problem. Lustig himself seems to have not figured out what the secret is to health and weightloss as he is obese to morbidly obese. Saturated fats still do cause heart disease, strokes, alzheimers.. anything where blood is blocked or doesnt reach the organ it needs to. If anything, processed sugars like HFCS which is extracted from corn by a chemical enzyme process, could be the c…
The irony of you starting your rebuttal with an ad hominem attack is pretty amusing. Expecially in reponse to an article that talks at length about others in nutritional science using ad hominem attacks as a primary form of defence against dissident arguments.
It may seem like an attack, but you can also consider it fair comment as he is an expert tell us that sugar causes weight gain, when he himself is obese for many years now.
How can you both be an expert on weightloss and obese at the same time?
Re: The Sugar Conspiracy
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Saturated fats still do cause heart disease, strokes, alzheimers.. All the studies claiming to make these links have been comprehensively debunked. And it's worth remembering that the vast, vast bulk of fats and cholesterol in your body are not dietary, they were produced inside your body from other macro-nutrients. And they are essential. Without them you would die. On a very basic level, blood flow gets blocked b…
It is my understanding that your reply is the reasonable state of affairs. Do you have some "canonical", go-to link that makes your claim approachable to ordinary people? Say parents?
Re: The Sugar Conspiracy
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do hope so. But the tobacco companies are still around and are still selling their shit.
And they should be able to do so. We are free people (I hope). If one decide to buy tobacco, it's his own responsibility, and he should have the freedom to do so.
I don't have a strong opinion on this, but if you really believe that as an absolute, how do you balance the harm to society? For tobacco, harm being costs for increased health care, health impacts on non-smokers, and frankly the simple impact it has on the happiness of those subjected to your freedom.
Re: The Sugar Conspiracy
#56Very interesting how people can all subscribe to an orthodoxy for so long, ignoring evidence to the contrary. Max Planck: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
Likely because it seems so intuitively logical that fat in your body comes from fat in your diet. Want to stop getting fat? Stop eating fat. It seems so obvious, despite being wrong at the fundamental level.
It really should have a different name. That would have solved a lot. If we called fat grams mutons or something.
Re: The Sugar Conspiracy
#57Re: The Sugar Conspiracy
#58Looks like "Nutritional Science" has been an oxymoron for far too many decades, perhaps it should have been replaced by "Closed Minded Egotist".
Part of the problem is that doing good nutritional science is difficult and expensive, and there's not much grant money or enthusiasm for rigorously testing what we naively assume are the basics.
An example I read recently - http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2016/04/04/cet...
"But that brings up a third possibility, that lipidology is complex enough to have fooled us completely, and that HDL and LDL are not, in fact, good markers at all. [...] Several large companies have poured hundreds of millions of dollars apiece down the drain in finding this out for us."
Re: The Sugar Conspiracy
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes that's true but there are still facts that can be established for nutrition or biology etc and I think his statement can still ring true for any type of science. They can all be victims to politics and other human failings. Although possibly more so for the less "hard" sciences as it's harder to prove an assertion. It's just amazing how the point that sugar causes obesity and other harms has been ridiculed for de…
People can't 'ignore' data they don't know about. It (the data) was buried and hidden (conspiracy maybe?). Now it seems things are swinging back to the other side of the pendulum and people are going ketogenic.
One has to wonder if the extremes are problematic.
No carbs vs. no fats might turn out to be a bad thing as well.
It makes me wonder if as humans we make generalities too often that cause us to take up sub optimal behaviors that have long term negative outcomes.
Re: The Sugar Conspiracy
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're quoting a physicist. Nutrition isn't a science as hard as physics. As a given science subject moves away to more complex system (human organisms, social organisms), the notion of light (or the truth ) gets rather diffuse. It's harder to define something as the light (or the truth ), because phenomena and its causality simply get harder to prove.
I agree. Biology and Physics are very different fields. Physics - where every action has an equal or opposite reaction. Biology - many many variables where its difficult to measure the effect of one change.
[deleted]