Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sugar industry influenced researchers and blamed fat for CVD (2016)

ucsf.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 537 posts

Re: Sugar industry influenced researchers and blamed fat for CVD (2016)

#191

Post by brians »

llm_nerd wrote: post #142
Aurornis wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re exactly right: This one incident did not shape the entire body of scientific research. There is a common trick used in contrarian argumentation where a single flaw is used to “debunk” an entire side of the debate. The next step, often implied rather than explicit, is to push the reader into assuming that the opposite position must therefore be the correct one. They don’t want you to apply the same level of rig…

> The next step, often implied rather than explicit, is to push the reader into assuming that the opposite position must therefore be the correct one. See this in the constant "the MSM is imperfect, that's why I trust Joe Rogan or some random `citizen-journalist' on Twitter" nonsense. It's how everything has gotten very stupid very quickly. People note that medical science has changed course on something, therefore t…

The US FDA requires that schools not serve whole milk or any products containing normal and natural saturated fats, and instead serve “low fat” versions which literally remove the fats and replace them with sugar.

You say nobody is doing this, but all the subsidized meals for my kids do this.

Re: Sugar industry influenced researchers and blamed fat for CVD (2016)

#192

Post by pseidemann »

Aurornis wrote: post #52
rendaw wrote: post #12

When this news first came out it was mind blowing, but at the same time I don't entirely get it. So the money quote seems to be: > The literature review heavily criticized studies linking sucrose to heart disease, while ignoring limitations of studies investigating dietary fats. They paid a total of 2 people $50,000 (edit: in 2016 dollars). That doesn't seem like enough to entirely shape worldwide discourse around nu…

You’re exactly right: This one incident did not shape the entire body of scientific research. There is a common trick used in contrarian argumentation where a single flaw is used to “debunk” an entire side of the debate. The next step, often implied rather than explicit, is to push the reader into assuming that the opposite position must therefore be the correct one. They don’t want you to apply the same level of rig…

Such "science" should be illegal.

Re: Sugar industry influenced researchers and blamed fat for CVD (2016)

#193

Post by jqpabc123 »

Which will make you fatter?

    A) Eating a pound/kg of fat

    B) Eating a pound/kg of refined sugar
Correct answer: B

Sugar enters your blood stream almost immediately --- starting in your mouth. Unless you're doing heavy exercise and burning lots of calories, your body has to store most of this excess energy --- as fat.

The only way to get consumed fat into your bloodstream is to first convert it into sugar --- which itself burns some energy.

Re: Sugar industry influenced researchers and blamed fat for CVD (2016)

#194

Post by astura »

nephihaha wrote: post #124
siliconc0w wrote: post #109

This isn't really a correct narrative. Diets high in saturated fat are correlated with CVD. Sugar is also correlated with poor metabolic health which is also correlated with CVD. Both are bad. Best data is still Mediterranean- nuts, fruits vegetables, olive or avocado oil, and lean protein.

Fruit and veg can be contaminated with sprays as well unfortunately. The vegetarian aisle used to be healthier but now it's been invaded by ultraprocessed food too. I find a meat heavy diet works with keeping weight off. The opposite of what we've been told.

Sprays?

Re: Sugar industry influenced researchers and blamed fat for CVD (2016)

#195

Post by SoftTalker »

CodeWriter23 wrote: post #61
rendaw wrote: post #12

When this news first came out it was mind blowing, but at the same time I don't entirely get it. So the money quote seems to be: > The literature review heavily criticized studies linking sucrose to heart disease, while ignoring limitations of studies investigating dietary fats. They paid a total of 2 people $50,000 (edit: in 2016 dollars). That doesn't seem like enough to entirely shape worldwide discourse around nu…

You could buy a house and a 69 Charger for $25K in the 60's with a tidy sum left over.

And you probably earned under $10k/yr.

Re: Sugar industry influenced researchers and blamed fat for CVD (2016)

#196

Post by kiernanmcgowan »

ThinkBeat wrote: post #159
stephenhuey wrote: post #75

Here’s a gift link to a NYT article that was posted a few minutes ago: Kennedy Flips Food Pyramid to Emphasize Red Meat and Whole Milk https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/07/well/rfk-jr-food-pyramid-...

At the top of the pyramid there are also vegetables. For some reason that is left out in some of the media converge. Kennedy said to avoid the sugary, processed foods that he labels as poisonous to health. (Does any sane person disagree with this?) “My message is clear: Eat real food,” Mr. Kennedy said (Does any sane person disagree with this?)

[flagged]

Re: Sugar industry influenced researchers and blamed fat for CVD (2016)

#197

Post by nephihaha »

astura wrote: post #194
nephihaha wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fruit and veg can be contaminated with sprays as well unfortunately. The vegetarian aisle used to be healthier but now it's been invaded by ultraprocessed food too. I find a meat heavy diet works with keeping weight off. The opposite of what we've been told.

Sprays?

Fertiliser, insecticide, herbicide (for controlling certain weeds etc)...

Re: Sugar industry influenced researchers and blamed fat for CVD (2016)

#198

Post by SoftTalker »

mullingitover wrote: post #20
alphazard wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is a lot of speculation that we will soon see a new food pyramid that is inverted. Pretty much everyone I know understands that the food pyramid is the product of various lobbies coming together and does not represent a legitimate theory of diet or nutrition. That is independent of their politics or opinions about RFK. I don't think a change to the food pyramid would change anyone's actions, people haven't ta…

The food pyramid went away over twenty years ago. It was discontinued in 2005, and the current guidelines are at https://www.fns.usda.gov/cnpp/myplate which launched in 2011.

But prior to that it was pushed very hard in elementary schools. I remember performing in a school play that was all about the food pyramid and nutrition, in lockstep with the government propaganda at the time.

Re: Sugar industry influenced researchers and blamed fat for CVD (2016)

#200

Post by GuB-42 »

alphazard wrote: post #8
delichon wrote: post #2

This meme is very healthy among MAHA, and Secretary Kennedy is overseeing an overhaul of the Dietary Guidelines, recasting saturated fat as a health food. There is a lot of speculation that we will soon see a new food pyramid that is an inverted version of the last one. https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/10/08/nx... I wonder if it will keep flipping as administrations change. Edit: The new guidelines…

> There is a lot of speculation that we will soon see a new food pyramid that is inverted. Pretty much everyone I know understands that the food pyramid is the product of various lobbies coming together and does not represent a legitimate theory of diet or nutrition. That is independent of their politics or opinions about RFK. I don't think a change to the food pyramid would change anyone's actions, people haven't ta…

I consider the traditional food pyramid, with grain at the base, to make a lot of economic sense.

The question is not "what's best for you", but "how to keep as many people as possible well fed and reasonably healthy". And an important part of it is that everyone gets enough calories, even the poor, and even during hard times.

Grain is an efficient source of calories, and grain products tend to have a good shelf life and don't need refrigeration. And ideal baseline for keeping people from starving.

But grain is good for calories, but not enough to keep people healthy, you also need vitamins, fiber, etc... So you introduce the second food group: fruits and vegetables. A bit more expensive and more involved than grain, but it provides most of the things grain don't.

Now, we are at a vegan diet, and experience has shown that it can be perfectly healthy, but in order for it to be, you need to do a significant amount of bookkeeping, and you may need some slightly exotic food to avoid deficiencies. So, not enough for the general population, so you introduce animal products. Even more expensive, but now you have everything you need, with good margins.

The top of the pyramid is for the products for which the needs are covered more efficiently by the lower layers.

Post reply on HN