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

201–210 of 307 posts

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

#201

Post by Fomite »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #191
toast0 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I haven't paid much attention to the reproductive issues typical for CF, but I'm sure they are more complicated than thick mucus. IIRC, something like 97% of men with CF lack a vas deferens and are thus unable to deliver sperm when they ejaculate. I think there is a lot more going on with CF than lack of adequate mucus. I was merely trying to provide a fairly straightforward example of what seems like an obvious erro…

"The immune system" is not actually a single system. It's entirely possible for a condition to cause both the overproduction of a single aspect of the immune system and also harm your general immunity overall.

This is no more a failure of a mental model than the fact that autoimmune diseases, which also involve a heightened immune response, can leave people more vulnerable to certain infections.

But, as noted elsewhere, I don't particularly think this exchange is going to leave either one of us content. I wish you the best in finding a treatment that works for you.

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

#202

Post by lolc »

masonic wrote: post #147
gnulinux wrote: post #144

I grew up somewhere else and came to US when I was 18 for college. One thing that struck me was, people add sugar to their yogurt. All my life I added salt to my yogurt. I mean, I was perfectly familiar with fruit yogurt, but adding straight up sugar was new to me. My favorite snack is adding cucumber, olive oil and tons of salt to yogurt. The first time my American roommate from LA saw me eating this, he literally l…

people add sugar to their yogurt. I literally have never seen this. For my own use, sugar stats are my top criteria for rejecting yogurt.

I think you misunderstood. Buying yogurt with sugar in it is "adding sugar to yogurt". Someone had to do it for you.

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

#203

Post by DoreenMichele »

Fomite wrote: post #201
DoreenMichele wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't paid much attention to the reproductive issues typical for CF, but I'm sure they are more complicated than thick mucus. IIRC, something like 97% of men with CF lack a vas deferens and are thus unable to deliver sperm when they ejaculate. I think there is a lot more going on with CF than lack of adequate mucus. I was merely trying to provide a fairly straightforward example of what seems like an obvious erro…

"The immune system" is not actually a single system. It's entirely possible for a condition to cause both the overproduction of a single aspect of the immune system and also harm your general immunity overall. This is no more a failure of a mental model than the fact that autoimmune diseases, which also involve a heightened immune response, can leave people more vulnerable to certain infections. But, as noted elsewhe…

"The immune system" is not actually a single system.

I'm well aware of that fact.

I'm not really a fan of the entire concept of autoimmune disease. There are things that go on with CF where they also claim that "overreaction" of the immune system is a factor, though I can't recall a specific example because I left all the CF lists years ago. I don't think ideas like that are helpful, so I made no effort to remember the specific examples.

Cystic Fibrosis is a misnomer rooted in an older mental of the condition which has since been abandoned. It was descriptive of the state of the pancreas in autopsies of people who died of the condition. I think in French they call it mucoviscidosis, which would be medically more accurate.

We have a terribly poor understanding of a lot of medical conditions. "Gulf War Syndrome" just meant you were sick in some mysterious fashion and had served in the Gulf War. Last I checked, they had distinguished three different syndromes, still without identifying an exact cause.

Malaria just means "bad air." It was so labeled because of it's association with swamps. It was only later that it was determined to be due to a parasite where mosquitoes are the vector.

Medicine is shockingly imprecise and organic and a lot of fancy labels in medicine are not as informed as laymen sometimes assume.

When I was asking a former RN one time "So, what exactly does this medication do at the cellular level?" She told me "We don't actually know. That's not how studies are done. You are asking questions that medicine can't answer."

But, as noted elsewhere, I don't particularly think this exchange is going to leave either one of us content. I wish you the best in finding a treatment that works for you.

What I'm doing for my health is working remarkably well. As stated elsewhere, I'm not seeking agreement from the entire world. I'm seeking meaty engagement. So I've been quite content to talk with you, overall.

But you have zero obligation to engage me further. Have a nice (whatever time of day wherever you happen to be).

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

#204

Post by newnewpdro »

lhinds wrote: post #190
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 clea…

The general public is still largely stuck in the past and actually thinks low fat foods == non-fattening foods. So it's effective marketing.

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

#205

Post by DoreenMichele »

Fomite wrote: post #200
DoreenMichele wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did not realize the degree to which I suffered vaginal dryness until I was like 40 or something. Vaginal dryness was my "normal." I didn't realize it was quite abnormal. I generally did not have pain during sex because I got married at 19 to my "high school sweetheart" and he and I accommodated my vaginal dryness without making a big deal of it and I didn't realize how much we were doing to accommodate it until aft…

That's possible - but there's also a perfectly explainable mechanism of action (thickened cervical mucus) that doesn't involve you dismissing the experience of other women who don't report vaginal dryness as a problem but do statistically experience lower rates of successful conception.

See, I wasn't dismissing anything. I post as openly female on an overwhelmingly male forum. I routinely try to add information to the discussion that seems unlikely to occur to most men.

I said in another comment -- one you replied to, so presumably you read it -- that reproductive issues in CF are likely more complicated than just this one factor, so I think this characterization of my remark is completely unfounded.

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

#206

Post by stareatgoats »

Udik wrote: post #199
FranzFerdiNaN wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

American, maybe. Western, really? https://www.google.com/amp/s/bigthink.com/two-maps-and-one-g... It seems that obesity in Europe affects 1/4 to 1/5, while in the US is 1/3. The EU country with highest incidence of obesity is alse the one that is famous for its lack of a (decent) food culture, the UK. As an Italian, I find it hard to convince myself that US obesity problems have one single cause to blame, sugar, rath…

American food culture suffers from the same problem that afflicts the American culture in general: the infatuation with big: big cars, big army, big dicks, big coffee-mugs, big tits. And big soft-drinks.

No surprise they have an obesity problem. Of course Americans are also usually nice people in a big way, let's not forget.

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

#207

Post by DoreenMichele »

Udik wrote: post #199
FranzFerdiNaN wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

American, maybe. Western, really? https://www.google.com/amp/s/bigthink.com/two-maps-and-one-g... It seems that obesity in Europe affects 1/4 to 1/5, while in the US is 1/3. The EU country with highest incidence of obesity is alse the one that is famous for its lack of a (decent) food culture, the UK. As an Italian, I find it hard to convince myself that US obesity problems have one single cause to blame, sugar, rath…

America also lacks the density of Europe, the public transportation and the generally walkable and bikable built environments. It's probably not merely our lousy diets.

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

#208

Post by Applejinx »

nayuki wrote: post #102

Relevant talks by Robert Lustig: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmC4Rm5cpOI "Sugar -- the elephant in the kitchen" (20 minutes, year 2013) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" (90 minutes, year 2009)

I've known and talked about the latter one for years. I can't follow all the science, but a surprising amount is comprehensible and the conclusions are always straightforward. The takeaway: it's sugar that makes you fat, and all sugar is sugar. There's NO advantage to other forms like fruit sugars etc, it might as well all be high fructose corn syrup.

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

#209

Post by newnewpdro »

nayuki wrote: post #102

Relevant talks by Robert Lustig: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmC4Rm5cpOI "Sugar -- the elephant in the kitchen" (20 minutes, year 2013) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" (90 minutes, year 2009)

Lustig's "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" talk when it first appeared on YouTube completely changed my attitude towards refined sugars. I highly recommend it.

My parents are European, in childhood my mother (and her mother) would regularly give up sugar completely for months at a time to control their weight. They weren't scientific people, and couldn't explain any of the mechanisms or anything - but they taught us kids that sugar and sweets make you fat. It was not treated as any special lesson or profound knowledge, it was basic common sense back in their home country. I vividly remember them riffing me for putting so much ketchup on hotdogs or hamburgers whenever we grilled american style, saying it's mostly sugar (and I was getting fat...).

As a result I've always controlled my sugar intake in adulthood, but the Lustig video gave a scientific explanation for the mechanism of action behind my inherited vague understanding of sweetened foods being fattening. I went from somewhat moderating consumption to avoiding it and refined carbs in general like the plague. My health has improved substantially. It was impactful enough that I emailed Robert Lustig to thank him years later, he even replied.

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

#210

Post by Udik »

joe_the_user wrote: post #135
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…

This is reductionist experimentation that encourages the development of out-of-context remedies targeted to one risk factor or one causal event at a time, a recipe for failure. I don't think you can compare fat and sugar. Sugar is a specific refined product. It's existed a rare thing for only a couple thousand years and one that's been common for at best a couple hundred years. The association of high sugar diets wit…

> Sugar is a specific refined product. It's existed a rare thing for only a couple thousand years

This sounds frankly absurd to me. Sucrose- the normal white sugar- simply breaks down into glucose and fructose; all three sugars- sucrose, glucose and fructose- are found in all fruits in 8-15% proportion on weight (much more for dried fruit, of course). They have always been part of our diet, even before we started hunting animals. It's not because you see it as a white powder it's right to assume it's a new ingredient in our diet. It's not.

Post reply on HN