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

121–130 of 307 posts

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

#121

Post by Fomite »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #77
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'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. T…

Phlegm is mucus produced by lung tissue. And your lungs (or vagina) being filled with pus would be a very different thing.

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

#122

Post by Fomite »

antt wrote: post #79
toufiqbarhamov wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is a common tactic for industry science denial.

Epidemiology studies aren't acceptable because of unmeasured confounding and they have no way of suggesting mechanism of action. We need lab studies.

Lab studies aren't acceptable because they're not in real people. We need RCTs.

RCTs aren't acceptable because they don't generalize to the population well. We need epidemiological studies.

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

#123

Post by DoreenMichele »

Fomite wrote: post #121
DoreenMichele wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. T…

Phlegm is mucus produced by lung tissue. And your lungs (or vagina) being filled with pus would be a very different thing.

My point is that phlegm is akin to pus in that it is drainage due to infection. It is not "normal" mucus.

Women routinely have vaginal discharge of various sorts that is not normal, healthy mucus. The fact that women with CF have both substantial vaginal discharge and vaginal dryness severe enough in some cases to "ruin" their sex life strongly suggests that there is a difference between what is produced in quantity by the mucus membranes of people with CF and normal, healthy mucus.

I'm saying that difference is that it's a form of discharge due to infection, not an overproduction of mucus per se. If it were the same thing as mucus, women with CF should not be simultaneously reporting vaginal dryness that interferes with sex and vaginal discharge.

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

#125

Post by smartbit »

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…

You’re completely correct, Vegan is not low-carb. It is not the intake off carbs that make obese, imho it is the intake of sugars that cause the epidemic obesity. The average glycemic index [0] of a meal determines the effects of carbs, low GI is good and high GI is not good. A meal with large amount or percentage of carbs can be very healthy and not leading to obesity or type 2 diabetes as long as the Glycemic Index is low. And, above all, a Vegan meal can be very tasty and healthy at the same time.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycemic_index#Grouping

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

#126

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #119
asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #116

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. 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 qu…

> preponderance of people on the internet who are unqualified to rebut what I'm saying

Let's make a deal. You don't say things you're unqualified to say (by this I mean anything that implies that your anecdotal experience has significant weight for persons other than yourself where it is in conflict with actual scientific studies and understanding of an important medical subject), and I won't give unqualified rebuttals to them.

> My only desire is to be able to engage in meaningful discussion on the topic.

IMO, this is not the place for meaningful discussion about your heterodox scientific theories. I believe those types of theories are best discussed with experts on the subject, which we are not. I believe it is actively harmful for you to be putting them forward in a place where nonexperts might engage with them and themselves come away with incorrect views. That is why I am replying to your comments in this way.

This is a point of disagreement and conflict between you and me. I'm sorry that this conflict makes you feel bad, but I'm not sorry for my views themselves.

Of course, I'm not the boss here. You can (and do) write whatever you want. I'm just sharing my views on the appropriateness and correctness of what you've posted.

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

#127

Post by jMyles »

Fomite wrote: post #120
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."

I dispute both your use of the word "science" and your characterization, "a biased sample of confirmation bias."

The whole point is that research conducted with a lot of money on the line is often not science as you and I know it. It's not curious, dispassionate application of the scientific method with clear, honest reporting of the results.

And, ideally, your social graph is not merely "a biased sample of confirmation bias," but instead an interwoven web that connects to the entirety of living human society and which helps you glean truth about the world. I realize that Facebook isn't this. But give it time. We are all interconnected and capable of learning from and teaching each other and the internet is young.

There's no reason in 2018 - and certainly not in the decades to come - to blindly trust any research funded by, for example, a large agricultural company, pharmaceutical company, or government.

Checking results against lived experience is one check and is not perfect. Analyzing the research itself, to the degree that that's practical, is another.

I'm not saying that the solution I've outlined is sufficient, but I feel confident that it's necessary.

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

#128

Post by Fomite »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #123
Fomite wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Phlegm is mucus produced by lung tissue. And your lungs (or vagina) being filled with pus would be a very different thing.

My point is that phlegm is akin to pus in that it is drainage due to infection. It is not "normal" mucus. Women routinely have vaginal discharge of various sorts that is not normal, healthy mucus. The fact that women with CF have both substantial vaginal discharge and vaginal dryness severe enough in some cases to "ruin" their sex life strongly suggests that there is a difference between what is produced in quantity…

You're saying then that women with CF have a persistent, chronic, but undiagnosable infection.

Note that if, as a medical researcher, one managed to identify an underlying causal agent for CF, that would be career changing.

Also, your vaginal dryness theory is only true if CF-related discharge works as a responsive lubricant. That could be, as you suggest, due to a difference in kind, but it could also be a change in composition, differential overproduction, or a complex interplay of several other factors.

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

#129

Post by byproxy »

ummonk wrote: post #86

And 50 years later I still struggle to find yogurt that hasn’t been stripped of its fat at office snack fridges.

I personally don't mind. In fact, I look for yogurt that's low in fat and low in sugar as it tends to be high in protein and relatively low in calories, case in point FAGE Total 0%. 90 calories and 18g of protein in a 6oz. serving. Better than most protein bars.

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

#130

Post by Fomite »

jMyles wrote: post #127
Fomite wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I dispute both your use of the word "science" and your characterization, "a biased sample of confirmation bias." The whole point is that research conducted with a lot of money on the line is often not science as you and I know it. It's not curious, dispassionate application of the scientific method with clear, honest reporting of the results. And, ideally, your social graph is not merely "a biased sample of confirmat…

"The whole point is that research conducted with a lot of money on the line is often not science as you and I know it. It's not curious, dispassionate application of the scientific method with clear, honest reporting of the results."

You're talking to a working scientist with a substantial amount of grant funding.

"And, ideally, your social graph is not merely "a biased sample of confirmation bias, but instead an interwoven web that helps you glean truth about the world. I realize that Facebook isn't this. But give it time. We are all interconnected and capable of learning from and teaching each other."

I don't know why you're taking a jaded, skeptical approach to science, but an idealistic one to your social graph. Your social graph is biased. It just is. Homophily and communities are things for a reason.

"There's no reason in 2018 - and certainly not in the decades to come - to blindly trust any research funded by, for example, a large agricultural company, pharmaceutical company, or government."

You have just described, especially with that last one, all research.

"Checking results against lived experience is one check and is not perfect. Analyzing the research itself, to the degree that that's practical, is another. I'm not saying that the solution I've outlined is sufficient, but I feel confident that it's necessary."

While I think critical engagement with science is essential, "checking it against lived experience" is comparing your biased anecdotes to study results, and trying to draw a conclusion from that. That, itself, is not science, and is absolutely the fuel behind things like the use of "As a mother..." in antivaccine discussions.

Post reply on HN