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

41–50 of 307 posts

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

#41

Post by Dylan16807 »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #24
ggm wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 exa…

> Oddly, she is married to a white male.

This implies you don't understand what privilege is. It's very literal. There is no blame in having it. It's not an "us vs. them" thing.

> reciting out-loud the worst examples against herself with extremely colorful language

So?

> then going on to partially blame... white men

Partially sounds fair if they did a lot of it. What's the problem?

> 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.

That's political? It sounds like a reasonable example of emotional writing.

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

#42

Post by jessaustin »

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?

Maybe the "industry" is too fragmented? Although the best fat to eat is leaf lard from pigs (the secret to a really good pie crust), the fat we consume comes in a variety of meat products, oils of numerous plants, nuts including avocados, etc.

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

#43

Post by zorga »

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

That something is addictive doesn't absolve you of accountability; you still got addicted to it, you allowed it to happen, you are still responsible for yourself no matter the biology of how the effects work. With very very few exceptions, people are fat because they eat too much food, it's as simple as that. If you overeat (as an adult), you are to blame, it's not anyone else's fault. I agree with the OP.

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

#44

Post by johnkpaul »

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

I wish there was a definitive guide to how to respond to that hypothesis. Many many hn commenters and many outside of the internet normal people strongly align with the obese-are-lazy narrative and I’ve basically given up arguing with them.

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

#45

Post by opportune »

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 :)

my grandfather did the same and died at 49. I'm sure you can find outliers to anything but alcoholics are not particularly known for longevity

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

#46

Post by purple_ducks »

zorga wrote: post #43
alrs wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That something is addictive doesn't absolve you of accountability; you still got addicted to it, you allowed it to happen, you are still responsible for yourself no matter the biology of how the effects work. With very very few exceptions, people are fat because they eat too much food, it's as simple as that. If you overeat (as an adult), you are to blame, it's not anyone else's fault. I agree with the OP.

> That something is addictive doesn't absolve you of accountability; you still got addicted to it

A fantastic lesson in how to not understand addiction in the slightest.

I look forward to a more mature response when you get past whatever juvenile phase your comment is the product of.

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

#47

Post by james_s_tayler »

mr_toad wrote: post #31
pascalxus wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My dad used to tell me this story of how when he was in his 20s he had a can of drink and he was looking away at something and as he looked back at the can to take another sip he just saw a bee crawling inside the can.

Never say never.

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

#48

Post by hannasanarion »

zorga wrote: post #43
alrs wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That something is addictive doesn't absolve you of accountability; you still got addicted to it, you allowed it to happen, you are still responsible for yourself no matter the biology of how the effects work. With very very few exceptions, people are fat because they eat too much food, it's as simple as that. If you overeat (as an adult), you are to blame, it's not anyone else's fault. I agree with the OP.

So you're saying that it was your choice to have your first bite of sugar, and you could have abstained?

This kind of "abstinence-only personal fitness" might work fine for cigarettes, but kinda breaks down when it's stuff you've been fed since you were 5 weeks old and has been injected into most pre-prepared foods in a "sweetness war" that's lasted decades.

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

#49

Post by chiefalchemist »

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…

> "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."

Of __all__ the soda consumed what percentage would you image falls into this loop hole?

The reality is, sugar (and carbs) for many people are not consumed responsibly. And give the degree of irresponsibility, 99.9% of these people aren't running a marathon or fasting for 16 hours.

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

#50

Post by james_s_tayler »

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…

Yeah lately HN is high on sugar and obsessed with China.

Maybe the next article will be some conspiracy theory combination of the two.

Post reply on HN