Was there ever really a “sugar conspiracy”?

Post by cup-of-tea » Tue, Feb 20, 2018, 12:33 PM UTC

watwut wrote: post #86

cup-of-tea wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More generally I think it's a tendancy for many people to only support binary decision making. This is why many democracies end up with two party systems and everything is just good or bad. So when it comes to food: fat bad, sugar bad, fibre good, etc. Of course, when you actually observe a healthy population such as that of France or Italy, they break all of these stupidly simple rules. It seems to be that the most…

> This is why many democracies end up with two party systems Are two party systems really worldwide phenomenom enough to claim it is people issue? I thought it is consequence of American constitution or appears in counties with constitutions based on American one.

Post by KozmoNau7 » Tue, Feb 20, 2018, 12:38 PM UTC

walshemj wrote: post #82

John_KZ wrote: post #17

The industry maliciously amplifies our innate tendency to find a "one-fits-all" solution. The bogeyman used to be fat, now it's sugar. Soon, people will realize that getting 90% of your caloric intake from protein powders is bad, the industry will get ahold of the new trend, and they'll start going back to "healthy carbs" or something stupid like that, and people will forget the meat rush of the 2010s and move onto s…

Yes! a while back I had a consolation with a NHS specialist renal dietician and asked about lo salt versions of food /condiments. They sniffed and said the low salt movement has been very well marketed but what they don't tell you is the "shit" they put in to food to replace the salt - which is actually worse than salt - same with these low fat spreads

Post by watwut » Tue, Feb 20, 2018, 12:54 PM UTC

croon wrote: post #92

watwut wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not so much progress, as fixing of bad science and bad interpretation of science. The overcorrections and pendulum are not necessities, they are result of bad science and its reporting.

Could you elaborate on "bad science" and what could be done differently? Diet/nutrition studies are inherently difficult because they're almost by necessity self-reported, expensive, takes a lot of time to see effects, and for best effect would need continuous supervision over subjects, which is infeasible over those time spans. It's easy to throw your hands in the air and just say it's bad science because it's not p…

Post by simias » Tue, Feb 20, 2018, 12:58 PM UTC

franky_g wrote: post #13

Articles like these are there to simply confuse the reader. Have a read of "The case against Sugar" by Gary Taubes. That will surely fill in the missing blanks for ya!

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Feb 20, 2018, 1:06 PM UTC

watwut wrote: post #95

croon wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you elaborate on "bad science" and what could be done differently? Diet/nutrition studies are inherently difficult because they're almost by necessity self-reported, expensive, takes a lot of time to see effects, and for best effect would need continuous supervision over subjects, which is infeasible over those time spans. It's easy to throw your hands in the air and just say it's bad science because it's not p…

> Diet/nutrition studies are inherently difficult because they're almost by necessity self-reported, expensive, takes a lot of time to see effects, and for best effect would need continuous supervision over subjects, which is infeasible over those time spans. That would be good science. The bad science is to look at bunch of conflicted studies on difficult complicated system and then claim "here is the culprit follow…