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

71–80 of 307 posts

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

#71

Post by ipython »

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…

It's more than obesity. Diet feeds your gut. Your gut biome, in turn, affects the rest of your body- including your mood, personality, and behavior, in ways you are not anticipating.

My son, if he has a single cookie, will develop raging athletes' foot and become a complete monster for days. When I say monster, I mean violent and completely uncontrollable. Maybe you don't have to deal with it, and for that you should be thankful, but for others, it's a no shit problem that they have to deal with day in and day out. Be thankful, but don't presume that your blessings are bestowed on the rest of humanity.

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

#72

Post by alrs »

koboll wrote: post #55
johnkpaul wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not obese, but I was.

There is a weird Internet cult that celebrates obesity, but I think plenty who live in the "nothing you can do" camp internalized bad advice, got nowhere with it, and gave up.

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

#73

Post by [deleted] »

koboll wrote: post #60
Passthepeas wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#74

Post by toufiqbarhamov »

antt wrote: post #68
DoreenMichele wrote: post #28

I 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…

I'm not sure what a social science study has to do with a biology study. If you feed rats sugar and 50% of them die of heart attacks and you have a control group where it's 10% you have found something about sugar and rats. I'm not sure what the number in this case were but the sugar lobby scientists did a meta study where they used the logic in your post to throw out the studies that made sugar look bad, while keepi…

I get her point, and this isn’t about pure biology, it’s nutrition which is biology without a lab plus all of the variables of a human population. That’s not to say that sugar isn’t something to be taken in extreme moderation, just that comparing half-assed, p-hacked, poorly controlled and non-replicable studies in social sciences to nutrition studies seems fair.

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

#76

Post by other_herbert »

chiefalchemist wrote: post #49
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…

> "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…

OO I'll guess... I'll say... 0.0015%.... .. .. that also might be generous...… and that no one who has just completed a marathon or 1/2 or any portion _wants_ to drink anything other than water or maybe the saltiest flavor of Gatorade or powerade that exists... seriously after a lot of physical exertion I'd far rather see a deer salt lick and a bucket of water than an infinite vending machine of anything...

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

#77

Post by DoreenMichele »

antt wrote: post #68
DoreenMichele wrote: post #28

I 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…

I'm not sure what a social science study has to do with a biology study. If you feed rats sugar and 50% of them die of heart attacks and you have a control group where it's 10% you have found something about sugar and rats. I'm not sure what the number in this case were but the sugar lobby scientists did a meta study where they used the logic in your post to throw out the studies that made sugar look bad, while keepi…

I've seen terrible logic errors in biology models as well. It just tends to be drama when I talk about those examples.

I have a form of cystic fibrosis. According to the CF Foundation website (last I looked), my body overproduces mucus and I am drowning in my own mucus and this is why lung clearance methods are prescribed.

I have seen exactly one study that concluded that people with CF actually underproduce mucus. This study makes more logical sense and fits with my first-hand experience that I'm sicker and cough more when my sinuses are too dry. I have more lung issues on days where my sinuses appear to have too little mucus, not too much.

It's more logical because mucus plays a critical role in the immune system in keeping out invaders and people with CF are chronically ill and infected due to a terribly compromised immune system.

I've seen at least two discussions on the internet where women with CF complained about vaginal dryness ruining their sex life. I have yet to see a woman with CF claim she left a mucus trail behind her like a giant garden slug and could comfortably have sex with ten men a day because she's just soaked all the time.

Yet, women with CF also complain of vaginal "goopiness."

Logically, the vaginal goopiness and the gunk filling the lungs of people with CF are both some form of phlegm or pus, not the body overproducing mucus. But that's not what the medical literature states. The medical literature illogically claims that I am merely overproducing mucus and drowning in my own mucus.

I'm getting well when the world says this can't be done, ergo my mental models are probably more accurate than the medical literature.

But I'm a former homemaker, so I am routinely told I'm crazy and making all of that up.

Whether you are talking racism or biology, our mental models for how it works shape outcomes. Weirdly, people seem to often think this is not true for biology.

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

#78

Post by crazygringo »

koboll wrote: post #60
Passthepeas wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The answer is fat -- the majority of your calories necessarily come from either carbs or fats (protein is pretty constant for most people).

So if you cut way down on carbs, gotta go up on the fats, that's just how it works: I eat lots of cheese, full-fat strained ("greek") yogurt, tons of eggs, nuts and peanut butter, tons of olive oil on my salad and vegetables, lots of butter in my scrambled eggs, obviously avocados if you can afford them.

Since fat makes things delicious, it's really pretty easy.

If you're non-dairy or vegan then you don't get as much variety, of course.

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

#79

Post by antt »

toufiqbarhamov wrote: post #74
antt wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what a social science study has to do with a biology study. If you feed rats sugar and 50% of them die of heart attacks and you have a control group where it's 10% you have found something about sugar and rats. I'm not sure what the number in this case were but the sugar lobby scientists did a meta study where they used the logic in your post to throw out the studies that made sugar look bad, while keepi…

I get her point, and this isn’t about pure biology, it’s nutrition which is biology without a lab plus all of the variables of a human population. That’s not to say that sugar isn’t something to be taken in extreme moderation, just that comparing half-assed, p-hacked, poorly controlled and non-replicable studies in social sciences to nutrition studies seems fair.

>Epidemiological studies of sugar consumption — which look at patterns of health and disease in the real world — were dismissed for having too many possible factors getting in the way. Experimental studies were dismissed for being too dissimilar to real life.

>One study that found a health benefit when people ate less sugar and more vegetables was dismissed because that dietary change was not feasible.

>Another study, in which rats were given a diet low in fat and high in sugar, was rejected because "such diets are rarely consumed by man."

The OP post makes no sense if you read the article.

The pro-sugar meta study rejected all studies which found sugar to be unhealthy. Biological studies were rejected because they were too restrictive and nutritional studies because they weren't scientific enough. Yet when the studies had a pro-sugar result they were accepted by and large regardless of their quality.

Which is more likely:

A). Someone is incompetent and randomly picked some dozens of studies which all fit the needs of their source of funding

B). Someone competent picked studies that fit the needs of their source of funding.

Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.

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

#80

Post by mgamache »

This is way bigger than sugar or even one segment of research. This type of corrupting influence (direct or indirect) provides enough uncertainty to allow people to ignore all research that doesn't confirm their personal bias. It also fuels the anti-science groups that claim conspiracies to hide the 'truth'.
Post reply on HN