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

281–290 of 307 posts

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

#281

Post by wool_gather »

jkaplowitz wrote: post #240
TeMPOraL wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I like small for consumption on the go, such as waiting for a train or bus, without wasting food/drink or overeating ... But I do agree with you about plastic waste. I'd prefer some other packaging solution, such as if a snack vending machine could sanitarily transfer the contents of a bag of chips to my own reusable, washable, foldable (when empty) snack bag. No, I don't have a good practical answer right now.

Not a bad idea. Nobody seems to have a problem with the coffee bean dispensing bins at the grocery store, so maybe this isn't that far out.

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

#282

Post by DanBC »

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…

> I'm merely frustrated at the preponderance of people on the internet who are unqualified

But you ignore anyone who tries, whether they're qualified or not.

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

#283

Post by Udik »

ericd wrote: post #277
chefkoch wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>roper fat like animal, not vegetables oils which really aren't from vegetables at all Why is the oil not from vegetables?

I’m guessing they mean they’re oftentimes from seeds.

And seeds are not vegetables?

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

#284

Post by DanBC »

dang wrote: post #166
asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 rebutta…

Please stop.

How about looking at the actual fucking source of this shit-show of a thread -- the person who cannot resist dumping acres of horseshit into any thread no matter how relevant it is?

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

#285

Post by john61 »

bluejekyll wrote: post #96
sjwright wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I often struggle to find yoghurt for children that is flavoured but not intensely sweetened... though even that's beginning to change in Australia with some great options from a few different brands. Look at these macros—pretty impressive for a kids food: http://www.tamarvalleydairy.com.au/wp-content/uploads/Screen... Unfortunately they only sell it in pouches—no option to buy the same product in a large tub.

Yogurt is fairly easy to make at home, especially with electric pressure cookers like instant pot. Then you can guarantee what goes into it.

You can make Kefir very easily. Is similar to yogurt but tastes better because it has also some additional yeast fermentation to the lactic acid.You do not need any device, just a lockable container and the bulb.

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

#286

Post by GordonS »

Sharlin wrote: post #250
GordonS wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The taste or lack thereof depends entirely on what you’re used to. I drink semi-skimmed 1.5% milk; 0% milk tastes really bland and ~3% milk is way too sweet and rich-tasting. But IME it doesn’t take long for your taste to adjust to either lower or higher fat content. Anyway, to me it makes perfect sense to separate the cream for other uses (what would be the alternative of selling the skimmed milk? Just throwing it a…

I'm surprised anyone would actually want to drink skimmed milk. Semi-skimmed at least still tastes like milk, but skimmed tastes very watery (to me, at least).

> what would be the alternative of selling the skimmed milk? Just throwing it away?

Huh, hadn't thought of it that way!

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

#287

Post by GordonS »

Cei3oyoh wrote: post #217
sn41 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

FWIW, I don't think low carb diets are fad, they're here to stay.

I agree with the last point though.

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

#288

Post by newnewpdro »

TomMarius wrote: post #258
newnewpdro wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't know about the rest of the world, but the American public has been heavily misinformed on myriad subjects. My European parents were constantly baffled by how unexpectedly bad it was, with my father often wondering aloud how they won the war.

Raising a family here isn't ideal, but the economy is strong arguably because of the poorly-informed, convenient-entertainment obsessed, consumer society. It's a great place to start businesses and/or earn money. This is what attracted my parents to leave Europe, but they were very young and hadn't predicted how potentially bad the culture and education would be, and seemed to regret not raising us kids back in the motherland.

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

#289

Post by csmeder »

csmeder wrote: post #140
5partan wrote: post #106

>rats were given a diet low in fat and high in sugar, was rejected because "such diets are rarely consumed by man." Hm, Maybe that’s why it is estimated that by 2020 3/4 of all Americans will be obese? The United States are truly a GREAT Country :)

The grisly (1) part is that (far as I know) no other decision (2) in human history has caused more early death. (1) I say grisly because the effects of diabetes, heart disease, and many other obesity related conditions can be devastating to the patient and their family. (2) When I say decision I mean both the owners of the sugar company and the Harvard professor. I wonder to what degree he privately was aware of the…

Fact check. Knowing that heart disease was the number one cause of death in the US, I assumed the number of deaths would be high. At 300k deaths a year related to obesity, it is a high number, but no where near the number of deaths caused by wars that could be argued were caused by a person’s decision.

Thus it turns out my first statement was wrong. This is a good reminder to fact check before posting.

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

#290

Post by [deleted] »

inertiatic wrote: post #252
dalore wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN