Someone watched Adam Ruins Everything
50 Years Ago, the Sugar Industry Paid Scientists to Blame Fat (2016)
11–20 of 307 posts
Re: 50 Years Ago, the Sugar Industry Paid Scientists to Blame Fat (2016)
#12And if I remember from a nutritionist who posted here, the way we lose weight is by breathing CO2 out. Food is extracted for its nutrients in our digestive tract and excreted. Yet the way we lose weight is by breathing. (I cannot find the source of that claim)
Yes, this is true - and if you think about it, can't be any different way, really. I mean, where else would it go? No chemical reaction can destroy any noticeable amount of mass. Excretions - like peeing and pooping - don't carry out too much mass too. So how else you'd get rid of some mass?
Re: 50 Years Ago, the Sugar Industry Paid Scientists to Blame Fat (2016)
#13This undue exaggeration about sugar lobby influence has been thoroughly debunked - http://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6377/747 Aside, it is really a shame how reductionist the popular view of nutrition is that we come to scapegoating "fat" or "sugar". T. Colin Campbell says it well: This is reductionist experimentation that encourages the development of out-of-context remedies targeted to one risk factor or on…
> there is a serious danger in interpreting the inevitable twists and turns of research and policy as the product of malevolent playbooks and historical derailments.
Neither malevolence nor conspiracy need be invoked to fear sugar lobby influence. A simple confluence of strong incentives and ambiguity in nutrition science is sufficient. It's entirely possible for sugar lobbyists to believe their products are safe and wholesome and channel funding to scientists and institutions that believe the same.
All we need to be concerned is
1. A finding that a powerful and concentrated industry is providing massive funding to research and regulatory bodies at all levels.
2. A recognition that their motivated reasoning is at least as powerful as our own.
No mustache twirling villains need apply.
Re: 50 Years Ago, the Sugar Industry Paid Scientists to Blame Fat (2016)
#14Spoiler: They're both bad without moderation. How many of these pieces possibly need to be written.
Re: 50 Years Ago, the Sugar Industry Paid Scientists to Blame Fat (2016)
#15I dunno. You know… my grandpa drank a 5th of whiskey a day and smoked one cigar a day until the day he died. Age 102. Sometimes I think that you enjoy the heck out of life and don't worry about anything. Shrug. I hope genetics matters more :)
Not sure why you're downvoted. There is a guy by the name of Peter Attia who has spent a lot of time studying centenarians and his conclusion has basically been, these people won the genetic lottery for longevity. He of course thinks those of us who aren't so lucky with genes can achieve similar results through diet and exercise. Very interesting stuff.
Re: 50 Years Ago, the Sugar Industry Paid Scientists to Blame Fat (2016)
#16My college _writing_ teacher forced students like myself to read a long and very repetitive book on the subject called Salt, Sugar, Fat. It was an interesting read for the first 1/3 of the book, but extremely dense and the last 2/3 felt like a rehashing of the first 1/3. 480 pages of Food companies are evil. She also had a nasty tendency to bring in lots and lots of political discussion into the writing class, to whe…
My college Writing teacher carried an agenda too. Completely turned me off to a very useful subject.
Re: 50 Years Ago, the Sugar Industry Paid Scientists to Blame Fat (2016)
#17My college _writing_ teacher forced students like myself to read a long and very repetitive book on the subject called Salt, Sugar, Fat. It was an interesting read for the first 1/3 of the book, but extremely dense and the last 2/3 felt like a rehashing of the first 1/3. 480 pages of Food companies are evil. She also had a nasty tendency to bring in lots and lots of political discussion into the writing class, to whe…
My college Writing teacher carried an agenda too. Completely turned me off to a very useful subject.
Is it possible you didn't like them and project this into the use of politics in writing class, or that you disliked their politics? Or is it just that you disliked politics at all?
I imagine I'd have felt the same about religion. (Although there is a lot of good writing in religious texts, proselytizing needs style)
Re: 50 Years Ago, the Sugar Industry Paid Scientists to Blame Fat (2016)
#18I dunno. You know… my grandpa drank a 5th of whiskey a day and smoked one cigar a day until the day he died. Age 102. Sometimes I think that you enjoy the heck out of life and don't worry about anything. Shrug. I hope genetics matters more :)
Not sure why you're downvoted. There is a guy by the name of Peter Attia who has spent a lot of time studying centenarians and his conclusion has basically been, these people won the genetic lottery for longevity. He of course thinks those of us who aren't so lucky with genes can achieve similar results through diet and exercise. Very interesting stuff.
The question is do you want to play against the averages (smokers more likely to die sooner for example), or above them - it comes to a personal choice. What isn’t a personal choice is how little we control the environment in formative years. Kids growing up with parents that are told cheap carbs are healthy are gonna have a hard time changing later when it turns out it’s not healthy at all.
Re: 50 Years Ago, the Sugar Industry Paid Scientists to Blame Fat (2016)
#19This undue exaggeration about sugar lobby influence has been thoroughly debunked - http://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6377/747 Aside, it is really a shame how reductionist the popular view of nutrition is that we come to scapegoating "fat" or "sugar". T. Colin Campbell says it well: This is reductionist experimentation that encourages the development of out-of-context remedies targeted to one risk factor or on…
You read the article or the abstract? I read the abstract. It doesn't (to me) actually rebut all and any conspiracy theories it rebuts some and says people went too far. It doesn't say there was no industry shilling or industry funded science distortion.
What do you think it says?
I'm not a believer in a single grand sugar conspiracy. I am a believer in industry lobbying distortions in science funding. It's common for any industry with downside risks to consider funding science which suits their message.
Why do you think we have an issue across science about non publication of negative results and hiding datasets?
Re: 50 Years Ago, the Sugar Industry Paid Scientists to Blame Fat (2016)
#2050 Years Ago, Meat Industry Quietly Paid Pseudo-Scientists to Blame Carbs (2066)
[deleted]