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

181–190 of 307 posts

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

#181

Post by samatman »

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 mucous of the respiratory system, by definition.

Vaginal anything can't be phlegm for that reason.

Not to take anything away from the rest of your post; dealing with an idiopathic condition that your doctors don't understand must be very frustrating. Best of luck.

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

#182

Post by grondilu »

grouseway wrote: post #4
crankylinuxuser wrote: post #3

And if I remember from a nutritionist who posted here, the way we lose weight is by breathing CO2 out. Food is extracted for its nutrients in our digestive tract and excreted. Yet the way we lose weight is by breathing. (I cannot find the source of that claim)

TED talk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuIlsN32WaE

Also a DNews video : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8ialLlcdcw

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

#183

Post by radicalbyte »

byproxy wrote: post #129
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.

Low fat french kwark is what you want. It has like 20g of protein per 100g and is very low in calories. It taste great too (at least once you've added honey or a bit of jam).

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

#184

Post by FranzFerdiNaN »

squirrelicus wrote: post #163
joe_the_user wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is way bigger than sugar or even one segment of research. In one sense maybe but it's hard for any one other factor to be larger than sugar in contributing to the decline of American (and world-wide) health.

> decline in world-wide health Wat. Data please.

Every nation that switches to a western (American) diet gets fat.

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

#185

Post by toast0 »

Fomite wrote: post #134
DoreenMichele wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Medicine agrees that all people with CF are chronically infected. That part is not some novel theory on my part. I don't have a vaginal dryness theory. My point is that CF is genetic and impacts all cells of the body. The way it works vaginally and in the lungs ought to be consistent. Women with CF consistently report vaginal dryness. They also report vaginal discharge. This discharge appears to not be mucus, given t…

There's a difference between chronically infected (which is true) and that the source of CF is an infection, which is the part of your theory that's unsupported. "the way it works vaginally and in the lungs ought to be consistent." - not necessarily, and especially not when you're describing symptoms (vaginal dryness resulting in uncomfortable sex), because the mucous of your lungs and sexual lubrication serve very d…

Having more difficulties conceiving is also consistent with uncomfortable sex.

I found this article [1] that seems pretty consistent with the dehydrated mucus hypothesis. I don't know if it's reputable, and I only read the summary, because it quickly got over my head.

[1] https://insight.jci.org/articles/view/89752

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

#186

Post by DoreenMichele »

samatman wrote: post #181
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 mucous of the respiratory system, by definition. Vaginal anything can't be phlegm for that reason. Not to take anything away from the rest of your post; dealing with an idiopathic condition that your doctors don't understand must be very frustrating. Best of luck.

I'm aware that the vagina does not produce phlegm, which is why I added the word pus -- which someone else felt the need to correct and inform me phlegm and pus are not the same thing.

Both replies appear to assume that I don't know what I'm talking about. This is the norm: I'm a former homemaker, so I must not know anything medical.

I'm human. I make mistakes. I'm not a doctor and I don't speak like one.

However, I also have a certificate for "Certified life and health insurance specialist" that I got as part of my job at Aflac where I read medical records all day as part of my job. Among other things, the certificate program covered medical terminology and some basics of health and biology. For example, I had to know the different bones in the body because I paid accident claims and a broken hip paid different from a broken arm, etc.

I'm not a medical professional. But I did have a job for over five years that required me to be able to comprehend medical records and surgical reports well enough to decide how much money to pay people for their medical treatments for covered health events.

The rumors that I'm merely an uneducated former homemaker are a tad exaggerated.

I'm not trying to give you a hard time. This is just a long-standing pattern of how people reply to my comments.

Phlegm is mucous of the respiratory system, by definition.

Also, while we are all being pedantic here:

Mucus vs mucous

https://grammarist.com/spelling/mucous-mucus

Mucus is a noun.

Mucous is an adjective.

And I'm adding that because both you and the other person "correcting" me used mucous when you meant mucus:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18945575

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

#187

Post by Fomite »

toast0 wrote: post #185
Fomite wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a difference between chronically infected (which is true) and that the source of CF is an infection, which is the part of your theory that's unsupported. "the way it works vaginally and in the lungs ought to be consistent." - not necessarily, and especially not when you're describing symptoms (vaginal dryness resulting in uncomfortable sex), because the mucous of your lungs and sexual lubrication serve very d…

Having more difficulties conceiving is also consistent with uncomfortable sex. I found this article [1] that seems pretty consistent with the dehydrated mucus hypothesis. I don't know if it's reputable, and I only read the summary, because it quickly got over my head. [1] https://insight.jci.org/articles/view/89752

"Having more difficulties conceiving is also consistent with uncomfortable sex." - Difficulties exist in women with CF who don't report pain during sex.

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

#188

Post by RcouF1uZ4gsC »

mgamache wrote: post #80

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'.

I agree. The whole point about science is that you can look at the data and not have to take things on authority. If they faked their data, then that is one thing, but if they had real data, then this is just a part of science.

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

#189

Post by MikeGale »

For years I've essentially not consumed sugar except for that in vegetables etc.

I still suffer from this rubbish though: 1. I often can't find any meat in the supermarket that has not been denatured by having the fat removed. 2. I reject a lot of products which I suspect I'd like because they have added sugar. 3. I have to tamp down on my anger when I hear somebody rabbiting on about the dangers of fat.

Humans truly are a stupid species.

Best to ignore "Public Health" advice, too much of it is demonstrably idiocy.

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

#190

Post by lhinds »

MikeGale wrote: post #189

For years I've essentially not consumed sugar except for that in vegetables etc. I still suffer from this rubbish though: 1. I often can't find any meat in the supermarket that has not been denatured by having the fat removed. 2. I reject a lot of products which I suspect I'd like because they have added sugar. 3. I have to tamp down on my anger when I hear somebody rabbiting on about the dangers of fat. Humans truly…

I was listening to the car radio only yesterday, tuned into a mainstream station and an advert came on for one of the major supermarkets. The gist of the advert was the holiday seasons had passed and you might be looking to lose some of the "excesses" e.g. body fat, so why not get some x brand low fat (high sugar) yogurts, six for the price of four.

I just said to myself, how can they get away with putting out a clear lie and one that is a health hazard.

Post reply on HN