50 Years Ago, Meat Industry Quietly Paid Pseudo-Scientists to Blame Carbs (2066)
except a low carb diet is completely possible without the use of animal products, so that point doesn't really hold water.
50 Years Ago, the Sugar Industry Paid Scientists to Blame Fat (2016)
21–30 of 307 posts
Re: 50 Years Ago, the Sugar Industry Paid Scientists to Blame Fat (2016)
#2250 Years Ago, Meat Industry Quietly Paid Pseudo-Scientists to Blame Carbs (2066)
except a low carb diet is completely possible without the use of animal products, so that point doesn't really hold water.
A low fat diet is completely possible without the use of sugar. What's your point?
Re: 50 Years Ago, the Sugar Industry Paid Scientists to Blame Fat (2016)
#23This 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…
Nutrition is so much more nuanced than any of us really know. Everytime I think i know something, I learn more details and learn that there's even more to it.
Sure, Sugar can be acceptable if you use it responsibly. You can even safely consume a Soda if you're in a glycogen depleted state such as after a marathon or from 16 hours of fasting. But, do you really wanna waste you're precious calorie/sugar alotment for the day on a soda?
In any case, it's good that people are starting to think about these things, the pros and cons. Hopefully, people can learn why it's good/bad and thus enable them to make better decisions the next time they need something sweet.
On a related note, I heard Dr. Berg say, sugar craving are a sign that your body is not getting enough potassium. Evolutionarily that would make sense, since fruits are higher in potassium than almost anything else except vegetables.
Re: 50 Years Ago, the Sugar Industry Paid Scientists to Blame Fat (2016)
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
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)
No, like, this was overt politics and a shameful reminder of some campuses today. Examples:
1. I was one of three male students in the class of 25. She then goes on to bash white male privilege. (Oddly, she is married to a white male.) I can feel the eyeballs on me.
2. A TED talk about abusive behavior against women online. Critical topic, sure, but it began with 5 minutes of the woman reciting out-loud the worst examples against herself with extremely colorful language, then going on to partially blame... white men. (Again, I can feel the eyeballs!)
3. This was REALLY offensive in my book: She forced us to read a 10-page-long (fictional) story, in class, about someone wrote about a man showing up at somebody's door and trying to coerce the girl to leave the house so as to rape her. No joke.
I could go on. I am not going anywhere near her office again.
Re: 50 Years Ago, the Sugar Industry Paid Scientists to Blame Fat (2016)
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I don't disagree with you. I just wanted to give the first poster I responded to some credit. There needs to be a balance between quantity and quality of life. For some, they will enjoy drinking and smoking. Personally, I think meditation and mindfulness is a better path. But quality of life matters a lot.
Edit: I also didn't mean to imply that I think the key to a long life is simply not worrying. The key to a long life is definitely a combination of genetics and how well you take care of yourself. But part of taking care of yourself is worrying less.
Re: 50 Years Ago, the Sugar Industry Paid Scientists to Blame Fat (2016)
#26I 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.
I think people want to feel like they have some control over their fate. I certainly do. But, I am not sure that the data supports that. But, for me, in a situation where the data is not conclusive, maybe the best thing is to enjoy your time. I admit I could be wrong.
Re: 50 Years Ago, the Sugar Industry Paid Scientists to Blame Fat (2016)
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I don't disagree with you. I just wanted to give the first poster I responded to some credit. There needs to be a balance between quantity and quality of life. For some, they will enjoy drinking and smoking. Personally, I think meditation and mindfulness is a better path. But quality of life matters a lot. Edit: I also didn't mean to imply that I think the key to a long life is simply not worrying. The key to a long…
I do think stress plays a role. Full disclosure, I work out every day and eat pretty healthy, I am not dismissing science, just saying, enjoying life is, IMHO, and important component. Enjoy your time on this planet. It is wonderous, all the beauty and ugliness are in an existential way, amazing.
Re: 50 Years Ago, the Sugar Industry Paid Scientists to Blame Fat (2016)
#28I took Intro to Psychology in my mid to late twenties. We were required to participate in a study as part of the class. IIRC, the study was being performed by a grad student in pursuit of their degree.
So, really, both the "scientist" and subjects of the study were kind of compelled to participate. No one was there of their free will. We were all trying to tick off an educational checkbox on our way to a sheepskin in hopes of a better paycheck someday.
So they played some audio tape of a black person and white person talking. The theory was that they would switch the labels around and see if the same words were interpreted differently depending on whether you thought they were said by a black person or a white person.
The problem is that this was about as effective as switching the labels as to who was male and who was female on an audio recording of a discussion. None of us were fooled by labeling the black speaker "white." We could tell by the sound of their voice.
I participate regularly in unpaid surveys to get points for a reward program. They are often stupid questions like "Which pet would you prefer? A kitten? Or a puppy?" And I randomly click one when the real answer is "I'm not a pet person. I'm not likely to ever own either." But "None of the above" is never an option.
It's rare for me to see a survey that I feel is well designed and well executed. I think most of them are pretty sucktastic even before getting into questions of "Was this some Machiavellian plot?"
In many cases, it makes more sense to attribute it to unconscious bias or conflict of interest, not Machivellian plot. I rarely feel that the people involved are talented enough to successfully pull off some Machivellian plot. The grad student thought she was all clever at telling us the black guy was really white, as evidenced by how she behaved at the big reveal, while we looked at her like "I can't believe you think we were really fooled by this."
(I am not simply inferring this. Another student, coincidentally a black guy, outright told her "We weren't fooled. You can tell he's black when he speaks.")
Food interactions with the body are quite complex and there are myriad other factors involved. We really need to move past the fat vs sugar debate entirely. It's overly simplistic.
Re: 50 Years Ago, the Sugar Industry Paid Scientists to Blame Fat (2016)
#29This 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…
The Science rebuttal raises an interesting philosophical question - if evidence about industry influence is not slam-dunk, as it asserts SRF's influence here was not[1] - then to what extent is it appropriate that meta-conversations about nutrition science invoke external "machinations" to strengthen scientific shifts? For example, if, say >95% of the shift from "bad fat" to "bad sugar" was driven by improved scientific methodology (which the Science article seems to suggest), it seems like a risk of disproportionately highlighting the remaining negligible influence may artificially support the new status quo.
[1] "As we have also shown, the sugar industry approached Hegsted only after learning of the results of his dairy industry–backed study suggesting that fat and not sugar was a factor in heart disease. “There was no, ‘We’ll get money from them and make the results come out this way,’” recalled Lown, who worked in the department. “It didn’t happen that way,” he said."
Re: 50 Years Ago, the Sugar Industry Paid Scientists to Blame Fat (2016)
#30This 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…
More than "reductionist" I'd call it naive. It's the same mental short circuit that's behind the usual "this one weird trick" and "doctors hate her": the idea, or dream, that we can find a single culprit- and therefore a single solution- for all our problems. One time it's fat you shouldn't eat, then it switches to sugars, then you should eat proteins, etc.