A Major Industry-Funded Alcohol Study Was Compromised

> Consumption of sugar and sweeteners is definitely unhealthy

I'm unconvinced that anything is "definitely unhealthy", especially when lumping "sugar" (which sugar?) in with "sweeteners".

First, I want a credible mechanism of action (e.g. "Sugar, the bitter truth", on Youtube, since you seem to like Youtube videos), then I want credible studies, which we're terribly light on, before reaching any conclusions.

> but it also peaked in 1999:

Assuming obesity (after some delay, according to whatever theory this is) did not also peak, that merely refutes the theory that obesity is directly proportional to sugar consumption (in whatever way measurement methodology that article used).

AFAICT, that theory is a strawman.

A more nuanced theory would include all intake of fructose, to the exclusion of glucose (e.g. sucrose only counts half but HFCS is variable depending on formulation), with an accounting of absorption prevention by the presence of fiber (as in fruit).

An even more nuanced theory wouldn't depend on a simple linear proportional correspondence but would assume a minimum "safe" daily fructose dose above which obesity effects would be triggered. Perhaps, above that, the degree of obesity in the individuals suffering from it would follow a proportional curve, but the rate incidence in the population wouldn't be expected to go down until the rate of consumption fell below that minimum threshold for enough individuals.

Assuming that threshold corresponds to 40g of sucrose daily [1], all the numbers in the article are so far above it, a 15% drop fails to refute such a theory.

> On average, Americans’ total consumption of caloric sweeteners like refined cane sugar and high-fructose corn syrup is down

Most importantly, this kind of statistic would have to be considered suspect on its face, because it's unclear if fruit juices, a source of highly-concentrated, fiber-free fructose, are included. Is it considered a "sweetener" if it was there all along and almost everything else was removed? The body doesn't care, but the government statisticians might.

We need not look to chicken and cheese if "refined" sweeteners have just been swapped out for "natural" ones.

[1] the US RDA for all sugars is 50g, according to the article. A better estimate for the threshold, according to such a theory, would be pre-obesity US sugar consumption, such as from the 1950s.

The study I linked is one of the largest studies ever made on dietary fat and low fat dieting, done on 50,000 women, spanning 8 years, an incredibly expensive endeavor and cannot be easily dismissed.

This isn't just some random study among dozens of others. Most studies on nutrition are far smaller than that and far more superficial.

So random weirdos on YouTube that want to explain how fat makes you sick have to account for this particular study without invoking conspiracy theories (e.g. the "milk and diary industry", oh noes).

Invoking conspiracy theories without substantial proof is not how science works. Also his medical knowledge is obsolete ever since the 90s ;-)

That was the joke...

While I disagree and think your assessment is a bit hyperbolic, I do see that there may be some stigma in whether patients admit to their doctor that they drink. My dad apparently lied to his doctor quite a bit about his junk food consumption prior to his double bypass. Patients feel guilty about things they know or think to be unhealthy and for some reason think that lying will help them in any way. It's weird. Like, why are people more afraid of what some random person thinks than they are of seriously fucking up their doctor's ability to treat them?

"Very potent carcinogen" is scaremongering and alarmist.

Don't drink if you don't want to, but tone down the retoric a bit.

Generations upon generations of Germans have enjoyed beer in moderation, and they don't seem to have higher cancer rates than other western countries.