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

51–60 of 307 posts

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

#51

Post by james_s_tayler »

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.

Yeah this argument feels very much to me like "women belong in the kitchen"

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

#52

Post by jstewartmobile »

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 :)

Genetics, but not particularly uncommon genetics. I know so many people who smoked perpetually, drank hard, ate like birds, and lived in full physical health until their late 90s. Look at the Italians! The Japanese!

If I enjoyed smoking and drinking, I'd invest in that nutrition plan long before taking a stab at whatever the "scientists" and "nutritionists" are whoring out at the moment.

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

#53

Post by zorga »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #41
gjsman-1000 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

> 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.

And that implies you don't allow for those who reject the very political and racist concept of white privilege to reject this presupposition. It's not a matter of "understanding"; he's not failing to understand privilege, he's rejecting it and thus doesn't like her pushing those politics on him.

> So?

So he doesn't want to hear her whining about how white men are to blame for bad things that happened to her because he probably doesn't like listening to racist drivel.

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

The problem is such thinking is fallacious. Just because bad things happened to her, and white men did it, in no way implies they did it because they're white. They probably all had hair to, does she blame all men with hair? Or to put it more scientifically, correlation isn't caution. What people call white privilege, generally isn't; usually it's just majority privilege which has nothing to do with whiteness and more importantly is not a bad thing at all.

> That's political?

Yes, it was; you don't think it was because you don't accept your own beliefs as political beliefs but rather as reality.

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

#54

Post by hypogonadism »

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

How does your sugary endocrinology align with OTC NSAID use? Comorbid or nah?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/29311296/

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

#55

Post by koboll »

johnkpaul wrote: post #44
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

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.

"Lazy" obscures the addiction component, yes. But no other addiction has such an accessible and accepted narrative that the addiction is not your fault, there's nothing you can do about it, and so you shouldn't even try to change.

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

#57

Post by zorga »

james_s_tayler wrote: post #51
zorga wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah this argument feels very much to me like "women belong in the kitchen"

I fail to see it's remotely related.

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

#58

Post by [deleted] »

willsun wrote: post #29
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…

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 scienti…

[deleted]

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

#59

Post by koolba »

james_s_tayler wrote: post #47
mr_toad wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Was he deathly allergic to bee stings?

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

#60

Post by koboll »

Passthepeas wrote: post #21
ralmidani wrote: post #10

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.

Really? I'm trying it now and finding it tremendously challenging to eat adequate calories without either grains or lots and lots of meat.

Vegetables are so calorie-poor and expensive that they're untenable, so you better love beans and lentils, because that's the vast majority of what you'll be consuming.

Post reply on HN