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

211–220 of 307 posts

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

#211

Post by amrx431 »

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 have to tamp down on my anger when I hear somebody rabbiting on about the dangers of fat.

Tell me about. Fat fear mongering, fat less skin less chicken. I love myself fat. When I eat fat , I have a stable energy levels all through out the day, but as soon as Carb(bread, grains etc not the veggies) kicks in, I crash.

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

#212

Post by masklinn »

wallace_f wrote: post #179
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'.

Many others exist. Leaded gasoline is a big one.

Leaded gas was a big one, AGW denial is a big one.

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

#213

Post by cf498 »

zorga wrote: post #61
hannasanarion wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're saying that it was your choice to have your first bite of sugar, and you could have abstained? This kind of "abstinence-only personal fitness" might work fine for cigarettes, but kinda breaks down when it's stuff you've been fed since you were 5 weeks old and has been injected into most pre-prepared foods in a "sweetness war" that's lasted decades.

You are responsible for what you eat, you are responsible for breaking your own addictions. Pointing the finger at sugar sellers is just a way to wallow in the avoidance of accepting responsibility for yourself. Want to break a sugar addiction, stop eating, fast until you've broken all food addictions and shed much of the stored calories, and then build up a better diet when you start eating again.

I dont know if I would follow the argument as sugar being an addiction, but I do agree with your description in general and the accountability when it comes to beeing addicted. To be frank, if you dont want to consume a substance any longer, dont look to your dealer, look at yourself.

Some people might find that a bit offensive, but its not really a moral argument but one of self determination. You chose to consume something and you choose to continue to consume that substance. The fact that it is a lot easier to start and to keep doing it then it is to stop, doesnt mean that you dont have a choice in the matter. The ods being stacked against you doesnt rob you of, or relieve you from, your freedom to choose.

If I understand the the concept correctly, Alcoholics Anonymous is partly to blame here for that mindset, with the focus on your powerlessness. But if you want it or not, it still is your choice, not an easy one and not one with a right or wrong answer, but ultimately your choice.

You are fundamentally not an object at the mercy of your circumstances, as easy as life would be that way.

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

#214

Post by newnewpdro »

xkgt wrote: post #38

While there is no doubt that this happened, any one has any idea why there was no reverse push from the fat industry? Was it less organized than the sugar industry or were the profit margins more slender?

There was no push back because it benefitted them.

By villifying fat, they were able to remove naturally occurring fat from whole foods and turn it into new products to sell consumers.

The public didn't stop consuming fat, they continued consuming fat but it was spread across a greater variety of food stuffs.

An obvious example is skim milk, it's practically water. They don't throw the fat away, it goes into other products like cheese, which people who drink skim milk also buy and consume.

Sugar didn't replace fat in the diet, it displaced fat from some foods, then more foods were added to the diet containing the displaced fat. Sugar just joined the party across the board.

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

#215

Post by gerdesj »

subcosmos wrote: post #145

We (UCSF) have a lovely database of internal food industry documents for those of you wanting to search for, and discover, new dirt :) Also, we've got tobacco and chemical industry collections! https://www.industrydocumentslibrary.ucsf.edu/food/

Thanks for the link - that is quite a resource.

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

#216

Post by [deleted] »

james_s_tayler wrote: post #51
zorga wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That something is addictive doesn't absolve you of accountability; you still got addicted to it, you allowed it to happen, you are still responsible for yourself no matter the biology of how the effects work. With very very few exceptions, people are fat because they eat too much food, it's as simple as that. If you overeat (as an adult), you are to blame, it's not anyone else's fault. I agree with the OP.

Yeah this argument feels very much to me like "women belong in the kitchen"

[deleted]

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

#217

Post by Cei3oyoh »

sn41 wrote: post #66
xkgt wrote: post #38

While there is no doubt that this happened, any one has any idea why there was no reverse push from the fat industry? Was it less organized than the sugar industry or were the profit margins more slender?

Here's a conjecture - "Sugar" is a product. There is an industry and a lobby for that. Fat is not really a single product (meat, edible oil, chocolate etc.), so probably there was no single lobby which could co-ordinate the effort. Now there is a lot of effort from the meat industry to promote particular diets, so that's perhaps a form of "pushback".

The keto/paleo/etc. diet fads almost certainly are supported in part by the meat industry.

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

#220

Post by stareatgoats »

grondilu wrote: post #197
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…

> 1. I often can't find any meat in the supermarket that has not been denatured by having the fat removed. Youtuber Thomas Delauer makes the case that this is not such a big deal since you can always mix lean meat with other sources of fat (like butter or coco nut oil). Also I once heard that toxins are accumulated in fat tissue so if you eat animals that were poorly fed (for instance cows fed with grains instead of…

Unless that extinction was not due to human intervention at all, but rather a cataclysmic event causing the Younger Dryas cooling. Maybe the meteor that created the Hiawatha crater on Greenland. [0]

Which doesn't really contradict your theory though, only your reason for the megafauna extinction.

[0] https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/695704

Post reply on HN