Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 623 posts

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#41

Post by timewarrior »

Retric wrote: post #23
timewarrior wrote: post #13

It took almost 50 years to starting to debunk health issues created by Sugar. It took decades to accept the health issues created by Lead and Asbestos. Sometime I wonder if chemicals from bottled water, radiation from Cellular/Wifi/Bluetooth pose health risks and we will find it out decades later.

There are a lot of unknowns. Chances are it's not going to be Bluetooth, but some toothpaste additive, cellphone case sealant, or something else nobody really thought about that we are going to look back and cringe.

Agreed! But we cannot ignore potential visible risks while worrying about unknown risks.

I use organic/natural exclusively. Try to model my life closed to simple ingredients people used more than 100 years back. I also diversify things I consume. Someone once posted on HN: His grandpa told him everything is poison, so use everything in moderation. I really liked this recommendation.

However it is very difficult to prevent all the radio waves in today's world as much as you try. Maybe it's not harmful but we won't find out for decades.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#43

Post by balabaster »

and this folks is why I have trust issues...

Scientists paid off by industry to make people look the other way, who then become head of some Governmental departments and agencies advising the world on whatever it was they were paid off for or have a conflict of interest in and the door keeps revolving...

It's a wonder we believe anything at all after the amount of lies and propaganda we're fed only to find out it's false... or are they lying now? Now we're being fed information that it's the sugar industry at fault and not the fat industry, while we have fad diets that are high fat, low carb, low sugar, because carbs and sugar are bad and fat isn't bad at all allegedly. Who is making the money from the increased fat sales and decreased sugar sales? Is it because sugar is cutting into their bottom line too much and fat is in cheap supply?

Why do we continue to believe the shit that pours out of the mouths of big agriculture and the nutrition agencies as if they haven't been feeding us bullshit for the past 50 years in aid of increasing profit. They don't give a shit about the consumer, they give a shit about whatever fuels the greatest growth in profits.

So this is why I have issue believing anything that any of them have to say about anything because it's all underhanded subterfuge and manipulation, with no end in sight.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#44

Post by fastoptimizer »

brandon272 wrote: post #32
fastoptimizer wrote: post #4

When in fact nothing can be blamed but our overconsumption of almost everything but vegetables and fruits. I eat about 70% from my calories in carbs (some are refined), but it's just 2500kcal calories per day. I'm pretty sure the fact that average US citizen eats 3500kcal daily has more to do with anything than what particular ingredient one eats. edit: some irrational unscientific and anegdotal statements require me…

This is one aspect of sugar and fat that I find confusing. Is sugar in and of itself bad? If I like to eat sugar but am otherwise healthy (healthy weight, plenty of fruits and vegetables, plenty of exercise, etc.), am I still damaging my cardiovascular system?

Of course not.

Is sunlight bad because it can give you cancer?

Are apples bad because they contain cyanide in seeds you can accidentally consume?

Is red meat bad because it causes cancer?

Is alcohol bad because it causes cancer?

If you feel you're living a healthy lifestyle, you can easily check that by doing some medical tests. No diet related disease is going to invisibly attack you at a random moment in life.

Atherosclerosis is fairly visible. Diabetes too. With regular checks you can be sure you're fine.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#45

Post by yodsanklai »

jly wrote: post #20

I think after the last few years of these kinds of things coming out, the takeaway is pretty simple: be fairly sceptical of 'advice' coming out of large governing bodies and instead just be sensible. Don't eat too much food. Limit processed foods. Eat lots of fruit and vegetables. Eat a large variety of foods. Be active. These rudimentary guidelines are clearly difficult for a lot of people to follow, but I think it'…

> be fairly sceptical of 'advice' coming out of large governing bodies and instead just be sensible.

I agree with the latter part, but what's wrong with health institutions recommendations? they look pretty sensible to me. I'm much more skeptical of advice from 'health gurus' that seem to have increasing influence.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#46

Post by WillPostForFood »

tomjen3 wrote: post #35

I am honestly mostly scared by how cheaply those scientists were brought. I mean 50 grand?

Not even, the number is ~7,000, but the article is using inflation adjusted dollars to make the number sound bigger.

It is also unclear whether they got that amount each, or in total.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#47

Post by balabaster »

aswanson wrote: post #33

The documents show that a trade group called the Sugar Research Foundation, known today as the Sugar Association, paid three Harvard scientists the equivalent of about $50,000 in today’s dollars to publish a 1967 review of sugar, fat and heart research. The studies used in the review were handpicked by the sugar group, and the article, which was published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, minimized…

You forgot your sarcasm tag, most people will miss it ;)

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#48

Post by mhurron »

MrMullen wrote: post #27
redwards510 wrote: post #18

The documentary "Fed Up" is about sugar and was the first time I was made aware there is no daily RDA % for sugar on nutrition labels. They just have the grams. They lobbied very hard to make it that way, because having "4700%" for a daily RDA wouldn't look very good!

True, but there is carb count and percentages on labels and it is not hard to figure out that something that is 4700% your daily limit for carbs is not something you should be eating.

> it is not hard to figure out that something that is 4700% your daily limit for carbs is not something you should be eating.

You are probably getting more sugar from things you don't think should be full of sugar than you think. US tastes have skewed to sweet so far that sugar is stuffed in everything.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#49

Post by maxxxxx »

logicallee wrote: post #28
fastoptimizer wrote: post #4

When in fact nothing can be blamed but our overconsumption of almost everything but vegetables and fruits. I eat about 70% from my calories in carbs (some are refined), but it's just 2500kcal calories per day. I'm pretty sure the fact that average US citizen eats 3500kcal daily has more to do with anything than what particular ingredient one eats. edit: some irrational unscientific and anegdotal statements require me…

this is almost certainly wrong. (That nothing can be blamed.) I can't eat much sugar for medical reasons, so that means that entire aisles are basically unavailable to me. things like cereals, cookies, cakes, lots of delicious stuff. But there is something or someone (or some process or some state of affairs) to blame here. Because check it out: stevia is delicious, and with splenda and all sorts of other zero-calori…

I also get headaches, fever and joint pain from taking in any sugar. It would be so nice to find cereals where I can add sweetener as needed. In theory they should be cheaper since they don't have to add sugar but in reality they don't even exist.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#50

Post by wccrawford »

MrMullen wrote: post #27
redwards510 wrote: post #18

The documentary "Fed Up" is about sugar and was the first time I was made aware there is no daily RDA % for sugar on nutrition labels. They just have the grams. They lobbied very hard to make it that way, because having "4700%" for a daily RDA wouldn't look very good!

True, but there is carb count and percentages on labels and it is not hard to figure out that something that is 4700% your daily limit for carbs is not something you should be eating.

The point isn't that it's hard to figure out. It's that it's harder than everything else that might cause health issues. They deliberately hid things that might look bad to line their own pockets.

How many people know how many carbs are recommended daily? How many know how much sodium is recommended daily? Which of those 2 can you look at a package and be reasonably informed about with no other information?

It's apparently a trick question, as the new labeling is at least partially addressing this.

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/fda-s-new-food-lab...

Sugar still remains with no % DV listed, but at least the 'added sugars' has something now.

Post reply on HN