50 Years Ago, the Sugar Industry Paid Scientists to Blame Fat (2016) • Hacker News Board

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

#251

Post by gbear605 » Sat, Jan 19, 2019, 1:23 PM UTC

GordonS wrote: post #223

samatman wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I rather suspect this is because the market for butter creates a complementary market for skim milk. Skim milk isn't great, so the producers have little choice but to heavily market 'low-fat' products. There's only so much ricotta that the market will bear.

I've never understood the market for skimmed milk; normal milk has so little fat anyway, it seems pointless to remove any, especially since it ruins the flavour. I can only guess that the milk producers want that milk fat for something else, butter and cream perhaps, so created an artificial market by claiming skimmed is healthier.

Some people (myself included) just prefer the taste of skim milk. I know it’s not healthier - compared to whole milk, it doesn’t fill you up but it has the same amount of sugar and almost the same amount of calories - but I still enjoy it more.

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

#252

Post by inertiatic » Sat, Jan 19, 2019, 1:31 PM UTC

dalore wrote: post #231

Udik wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Have a read of books by Nina Teicholz or Gary Taubes. In there is a mountain of data showing the correlation of diets to adopting the national dietary recommendation (which vilified fats). They all make a great case that fat is good for you (proper fat like animal, not vegetables oils which really aren't from vegetables at all). You're right it's more than just sugar, it's carbs in general. Which includes French frie…

>One can still be healthy eating no vegetables and just meat.

Haha wow. Citation absolutely needed.

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

#253

Post by darkerside » Sat, Jan 19, 2019, 1:33 PM UTC

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #104

DoreenMichele wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Emphasizing how very much you are convinced I'm hallucinating is not an explanation for how too much mucus makes more logical sense as an immune system failure than too little. It also cites zero sources. Also, if you are so disinterested, why waste any time replying to me? If I'm a nutter, downvote, flag and move on. Let someone else talk to me who doesn't think I'm a total waste of their time.

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…

Yeah that was me. And I think you're totally blind to the way that scientific studies only provide additional proof to things that we think we know intuitively. Where do you think a hypothesis comes from? Observation.

Also, the amount of science that gets turned over due to conflation for example. A disease looked like one thing but turned out to be many things that looked similar (cancer). Science is constantly evolving, it's never fixed and finished. Please don't use existing science as a weapon to beat others over the head.

Also, applying your personal observations about people being right and wrong to someone you don't even know. Doctors and scientists aren't a priest class, they've just learned and had more experience than most, and typically only in their own specialties. They are often wrong, being human. And the best ones admit that there is a LOT they don't know.

Also, assuming you know much, or anything, about a topic you probably don't. Don't you think GP has spent more time than your cursory Google search? That you'd act otherwise is illuminating. What exactly do you think qualifies you to disagree here? OP is providing anecdotes, but you're providing... nothing.

Regardless of any of the above, please don't dismiss other people's experiences just because they fall outside some canonical realm (and I'm sorry if this sounds hypocritical after a somewhat rude post) because that's how science turns into religion.

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

#254

Post by rjf72 » Sat, Jan 19, 2019, 1:34 PM UTC

masklinn wrote: post #212

wallace_f wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many others exist. Leaded gasoline is a big one.

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

The reason things like leaded fuel, cigarettes, DDT, CFCs (freon), and countless other conspiracies were so egregious is because 'influencers' were able to convince authoritative figures and the media to conspire in misleading the public. People, as in unaffiliated individuals, ought be free to believe whatever they want to. The problem is when authoritative figures are saying things they don't actually believe, generally because of some sort of a kickback. There have been a handful of instances there such as with 'Willie' Wei-Hock Soon, but for the most part everything has been, more or less, on the up and up - at least so far as we know for certain as of today. However, the media and authoritative figures are predominately in favor of AGW. Thus the conspiracy, if one were to exist, would be these individuals stating things they felt to be either untrue, or not as strongly supported as claimed.

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

#255

Post by asadkn » Sat, Jan 19, 2019, 1:35 PM UTC

bad_user wrote: post #243

std_throwawayay wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both sides have convincing arguments and research to back it up. They have good answers to the seemingly contradictory research that the other side uses. They both provide a consistent picture. One or both of the theories has to be wrong but I cannot decide. I can learn and read all about it and take both viewpoints into account but I still cannot decide. I could do my own research but I would come up with one or the…

For me it’s simple ... I ask myself what did my grandparents used to eat? I’m not from the US and in our country the industrialization of the food supply happened much later, along with obesity and diabetes, which back in my grandparents’ time were very rare. My grandparents lived on the countryside, working on their farm, raising their own crops and animals. Grandpa died at 99 years old and worked his land until 95.…

If only it were that simple. Consider the lifestyles. If you're willing to live the same lifestyle and same environmental conditions, the same diet variables could potentially lead to similar lifespan.

But in lieu of the same conditions, the logic to consume same diet isn't that sound.

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

#256

Post by darkerside » Sat, Jan 19, 2019, 2:05 PM UTC

DoreenMichele wrote: post #89

darkerside wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sad that this is getting down voted. Science is wonderful, and it's behind many incredible breakthroughs in modern technology, obviously. But in my book, logic beats science every time. You can point to all the studies in the world, but if they conflict with my own literal experience, I am going to be at the very least skeptical of the science.

Thank you. I wish people would actually engage me on the logic rather than acting like I must be crazy and making things up while they pretend such assumptions aren't some form of prejudice. I'm starved for actual meaty engagement on such subjects. Like explain to me why you think I'm wrong instead of telling me I hallucinated my entire life and if I really do have CF and I really am getting well, it's 18 years of pl…

Reading other replies to your original post is alternately enlightening and incredibly frustrating. So much armchair crap from people who have clearly never encountered anything outside of established science and so refuse to believe that anything outside of established science can exist! As if established science were somehow virgin birthed into existence, and not built upon centuries of painstaking observation and analysis.

Especially considering your form of CF is atypical, you'd think researchers would be tremendously interested in identifying a possibly conflated disease that presents with the same symptoms.

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

#257

Post by hhjinks » Sat, Jan 19, 2019, 2:24 PM UTC

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…

>often can't find any meat in the supermarket that has not been denatured by having the fat removed

I generally find that to be the tastiest, since I can use way more butter or oil when cooking it.

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

#258

Post by TomMarius » Sat, Jan 19, 2019, 2:25 PM UTC

newnewpdro wrote: post #209

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 tha…

I'm European. Is it not common sense in the rest of the world that sweet things make you fat? Wow.

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

#259

Post by jononor » Sat, Jan 19, 2019, 2:28 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #226

stareatgoats wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> big cars, big army, big dicks, big coffee-mugs, big tits. And big soft-drinks. One of these things is not like the others... Buying big soft drink bottles instead of small is both cost-effective (as they're usually cheaper per liter) and a plastic saving measure. (What I particularly dislike about modern consumerism is the infatuation with small : small bags of chips, small bags of fruits, individually-packaged sau…

Not buying soft drinks is much better, both cost efficiency, environmental impact and health.

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

#260

Post by scottlocklin » Sat, Jan 19, 2019, 2:32 PM UTC

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'.

Lots of "science" and "research" is obviously and gratuitously corrupt. People who ignore politicized research results (like, for example, the "food pyramid" or pretty much anything out of psychology or nutrition "research") are the sane ones.