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

111–120 of 307 posts

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

#111

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #107
asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You asked in another part of the thread why people are downvoting and not engaging. I explained why I downvoted, and why, if I hadn't engaged, that would have been. If you don't want the answer, don't ask the question. Also, I find myself congenitally unable to let anti-scientific behavior go without comment when it comes before me. I don't know enough about CF to know why it works how it works. But I do know enough…

I don't think I asked that. I think someone else commented on the downvotes. I'm just making the observation that you are being incredibly dismissive of me while not actually engaging any of my points. Probably, I shouldn't have replied to such a dismissive position to begin with. The problem being I mostly get dismissive replies that don't take me seriously, so such a policy would have me not talking on HN at all, b…

> I don't think I asked that. I think someone else commented on the downvotes.

My apologies. You thanked someone who had complained about the downvotes, and said, "I wish people would actually engage me . . ." You did not yourself ask why you were getting downvoted.

> The word for this paragraph is "prejudice."

No, at least in common parlance (and in the dictionary) prejudice requires that the opinion be based on neither reason or actual experience. But my point of view is based on reason. Something like P(wrong | (heterodox scientific claims based on personal anecdotes and internet forums)) = >0.999999, applied to your particular instance of the above.

I'm sorry, but there isn't any more efficient approach to people with unsupported heterodox views. The alternative is to treat every remotely plausible theory as equally valid to the scientific consensus, which I surely will not do. And, like you, I refuse to remain silent.

> I refer you to Semmelweis: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis

If you, like Semmelweis, have a study that shows your methods work in some sort of experimental way, I'd be much more predisposed to accept your positions.

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

#112

Post by smartbit »

timbit42 wrote: post #62
darawk wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A low fat diet is completely possible without the use of sugar. What's your point?

It would taste like crap and no one would eat it.

Try a proper Vegan meal and you’ll be astonished how good a low fat meal would taste without sugar. The app Happy Cow can help you find a nearby Vegan restaurant.

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

#113

Post by paavoova »

0xcde4c3db wrote: post #95
paavoova wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't change the fact that the underlying mechanism of weight gain is a net caloric surplus over a given period of time, which is (hypothetically, at least) addressable without addiction ever coming into the discussion. But if sugar/food addiction is relevant, there should be some data on its effects on non-obese, physically active individuals who maintain a lifestyle that allows them to burn enough calories t…

> This doesn't change the fact that the underlying mechanism of weight gain is a net caloric surplus over a given period of time That's a necessary condition, but it doesn't really represent a useful model of the system of interest. It's a bit like saying that a car moves forward because the engine is hotter than the surrounding environment.

I don't quite follow your analogy. I think everyone understands that the more you drive a car, the more fuel it consumes, and this being analogous to biological functions.

> That's a necessary condition

And addiction isn't, it's merely a contributing factor. Like I wrote, how do you factor in non-obese sugar/food addicts, and, vice versa, obese people who don't suffer from food addiction?

Obesity doesn't necessitate food addiction, it could be as simple as neglecting to be physically active or other poor lifestyle choices. Placing unsubstantiated importance on the role of addiction is just as baseless as disregarding all obese people as lazy. Any individual can take measures to improve their lifestyle habits and lose weight - how is this not of "interest"? Because a doctor can't prescribe it in a pill?

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

#114

Post by DoreenMichele »

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #111
DoreenMichele wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think I asked that. I think someone else commented on the downvotes. I'm just making the observation that you are being incredibly dismissive of me while not actually engaging any of my points. Probably, I shouldn't have replied to such a dismissive position to begin with. The problem being I mostly get dismissive replies that don't take me seriously, so such a policy would have me not talking on HN at all, b…

> I don't think I asked that. I think someone else commented on the downvotes. My apologies. You thanked someone who had complained about the downvotes, and said, "I wish people would actually engage me . . ." You did not yourself ask why you were getting downvoted. > The word for this paragraph is "prejudice." No, at least in common parlance (and in the dictionary) prejudice requires that the opinion be based on nei…

Racial profiling is a form of prejudice and racism but fits your accepted logic that it's fine to, for example, infer this black guy is more likely to be a criminal because of the color of his skin because statistics support that.

Anyway, I don't think this is productive. So I think I'll stop here.

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

#115

Post by crazygringo »

paavoova wrote: post #87
crazygringo wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 avocado…

> vegan then you don't get as much variety I simply fail to see how it's possible to eat vegan low-carb. Everything vegan, be it legumes, vegetables, or fruits, have carbs. Legumes are 2/3 carbs, so they're out of the question. Even nuts, despite their high fat/moderate protein content, have an appreciable amount of carbs. Even peanuts, a low-carb legume, have 21 grams of carbs/100g. Which just leaves processed plant…

I think when most people (myself included) refer to cutting out carbs, it's really shorthand for cutting out starches and sugar, or at its most precise, anything with an appreciable glycemic index.

So the carbs in nuts and vegetables can be simply ignored, it's fine. Fruit is only in small amounts. And you shouldn't be eating so much protein that it gets converted to sugar.

But I totally agree -- I think either you do low-carb or you do vegan, not both. I had a friend who tried to do both, I couldn't understand it either.

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

#116

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #114
asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think I asked that. I think someone else commented on the downvotes. My apologies. You thanked someone who had complained about the downvotes, and said, "I wish people would actually engage me . . ." You did not yourself ask why you were getting downvoted. > The word for this paragraph is "prejudice." No, at least in common parlance (and in the dictionary) prejudice requires that the opinion be based on nei…

Racial profiling is a form of prejudice and racism but fits your accepted logic that it's fine to, for example, infer this black guy is more likely to be a criminal because of the color of his skin because statistics support that. Anyway, I don't think this is productive. So I think I'll stop here.

> Racial profiling is a form of prejudice and racism but fits your accepted logic that it's fine to, for example, infer this black guy is more likely to be a criminal because of the color of his skin because statistics support that.

We don't do that not because it's irrational [1], but because of the ethical viewpoint that everyone should get a fair shake, regardless of the statistical background of their racial group (or other protected class). Having heterodox scientific views based on anecdata is not a protected class.

[1]: Although it is also irrational, or at least less rational than it appears on the surface. Here is not the place to get into why.

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

#117

Post by jMyles »

That's why it's important to personally check to which "science" comports with your living experience. In this age (and in the one we're entering), it's important to not only personally check, but to promulgate your assessments throughout your social graph in order to keep "science" in check with science.

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

#118

Post by WhompingWindows »

kovek wrote: post #91

Slightly related to research and meta-studies. The other day I was wondering: what stops a researcher from publishing random numbers (following some distribution they pick) as the results of their experiments?

Not unheard of, but usually there are credentials and reputations behind researchers' names which other peer-reviewers/editors will know. Many articles are invited articles or follow-ups to previous articles. Seems very unlikely that most reputable scientists would put their careers on the line for provably fraudulent data when they can just p-hack or use biased methods on actual data. It's much easier to get caught fabricating, than cutting corners or using biased approaches.

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

#119

Post by DoreenMichele »

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #116
DoreenMichele wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Racial profiling is a form of prejudice and racism but fits your accepted logic that it's fine to, for example, infer this black guy is more likely to be a criminal because of the color of his skin because statistics support that. Anyway, I don't think this is productive. So I think I'll stop here.

> Racial profiling is a form of prejudice and racism but fits your accepted logic that it's fine to, for example, infer this black guy is more likely to be a criminal because of the color of his skin because statistics support that. We don't do that not because it's irrational [1], but because of the ethical viewpoint that everyone should get a fair shake, regardless of the statistical background of their racial grou…

I'm not claiming to be a protected class. I'm merely frustrated at the preponderance of people on the internet who are unqualified to rebut what I'm saying because they don't have sufficient knowledge of the topic, yet are trigger happy about concluding that I'm both wrong and mentally unstable.

My only desire is to be able to engage in meaningful discussion on the topic. Dismissing me as a nutcase when you aren't qualified to engage any of my points is malicious behavior that makes it harder for me to get other people to engage me.

I'm not asking anyone to have faith and believe in me like I'm the next Joan of Arc. I just want to be able to talk about the science behind my health situation in spite of the tremendous social faux pas I have committed of getting healthier instead of politely dropping dead like the world expected me to.

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

#120

Post by Fomite »

jMyles wrote: post #117

That's why it's important to personally check to which "science" comports with your living experience. In this age (and in the one we're entering), it's important to not only personally check, but to promulgate your assessments throughout your social graph in order to keep "science" in check with science .

This feels like saying "It's important to check science against a biased sample of confirmation bias."
Post reply on HN