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

50 Years Ago, the Sugar Industry Paid Scientists to Blame Fat (2016)

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 307 posts

Re: 50 Years Ago, the Sugar Industry Paid Scientists to Blame Fat (2016)

#31

Post by mr_toad »

pascalxus wrote: post #23
oil25 wrote: post #2

This 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 th…

> But, do you really wanna waste you're precious calorie/sugar alotment for the day on a soda?

No, but 1 can (maybe 100-160 calories), isn’t close to most people’s daily calorie burn.

Sure it might push you over the limit, all other things being equal, and it doesn’t do you much good (aside from the water content), but it’s not going to kill you.

Re: 50 Years Ago, the Sugar Industry Paid Scientists to Blame Fat (2016)

#33

Post by hoardack »

This is, like, the third time this month we’re seeing blah-blah-blah-sugar on the front page of HN.

I have a lot of fat friends, and I hate to say it, but I watched them over the years, and it wasn’t sugar that made them huge and unhealthy. It was indulgence, carelessness and zero motivation to exert will power.

And they were mostly really smart people. But they didn’t give a fuck. And I’m using past tense “were” because some of them lost that youthful glow as their circumstance became evident.

Sugar might cause some harm among the slower folk among us, but middling intelligence (or worse) is a hazard on its own, and changing the perception of sugar won’t fix stupid.

Obesity is a psychological side effect, just like hoarding. It’s not just one input, it’s a sustained habit of constant intake in general.

Re: 50 Years Ago, the Sugar Industry Paid Scientists to Blame Fat (2016)

#34

Post by will_brown »

pascalxus wrote: post #23
oil25 wrote: post #2

This 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 th…

>You can even safely consume a Soda if you're in a glycogen depleted state such as after a marathon

You “could” but that will also not help, and actually hurt, with the natural inflammation from running. If you ran the marathon in ketosis, you really wouldn’t be in a “glycogen depleted State” - even though that’s what ketosis generally is - because your body and brain are primarily running on ketones and internally producing all the minimal glucose the body/brain actually require.

In either case after a marathon your muscles will be catabolic, so protein is good, and of course water/electrolytes. But really it should be telling your example of using sugar responsibly is after running a marathon.

Re: 50 Years Ago, the Sugar Industry Paid Scientists to Blame Fat (2016)

#35

Post by alrs »

hoardack wrote: post #33

This is, like, the third time this month we’re seeing blah-blah-blah-sugar on the front page of HN. I have a lot of fat friends, and I hate to say it, but I watched them over the years, and it wasn’t sugar that made them huge and unhealthy. It was indulgence, carelessness and zero motivation to exert will power. And they were mostly really smart people. But they didn’t give a fuck. And I’m using past tense “were” bec…

The "selfish-lazy-greedy assholes" hypothesis doesn't do so well in the face of endocrinology.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15987666

Re: 50 Years Ago, the Sugar Industry Paid Scientists to Blame Fat (2016)

#36

Post by hombre_fatal »

zw123456 wrote: post #7

I 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 :)

I'd wager most people already have a daily battle with their own waistline long before they are worried about longevity.

And there's much, much more to life than longevity, like day-to-day quality of life. If you focus on that, then longevity is just a bonus, even if it's true that you have no control over it.

You certainly have control over quality of life, though. And indulgence tends to hamstring that for short-term gain.

I'm in my 30s which is apparently when all the chickens start flocking home to roost from lifestyle decisions. It's sad to see a 35-year-old seat-ridden at the beach because of a smoking habit and obesity, winded from tossing a football around. Not sure my friend feels like that's the road to "enjoying the heck out of life".

Surely the key to life is getting to a point where you aren't dependent on vices like sweets and alcohol and food so that you can partake on your own terms, exercising total dominance over yourself.

Re: 50 Years Ago, the Sugar Industry Paid Scientists to Blame Fat (2016)

#37

Post by [deleted] »

oil25 wrote: post #2

This 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…

[deleted]

Re: 50 Years Ago, the Sugar Industry Paid Scientists to Blame Fat (2016)

#39

Post by jessaustin »

alrs wrote: post #35
hoardack wrote: post #33

This is, like, the third time this month we’re seeing blah-blah-blah-sugar on the front page of HN. I have a lot of fat friends, and I hate to say it, but I watched them over the years, and it wasn’t sugar that made them huge and unhealthy. It was indulgence, carelessness and zero motivation to exert will power. And they were mostly really smart people. But they didn’t give a fuck. And I’m using past tense “were” bec…

The "selfish-lazy-greedy assholes" hypothesis doesn't do so well in the face of endocrinology. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15987666

Yes but it feels so good to repeat it.

Re: 50 Years Ago, the Sugar Industry Paid Scientists to Blame Fat (2016)

#40

Post by askvictor »

xkgt wrote: post #38

While there is no doubt that this happened, any one has any idea why there was no reverse push from the fat industry? Was it less organized than the sugar industry or were the profit margins more slender?

You do see studies coming up from time to time about the benefits of this oil or that oil (e.g. olive oil). I suspect the science is similarly biased.
Post reply on HN