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

111–120 of 537 posts

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

#111

Post by js2 »

nsxwolf wrote: post #95
mullingitover wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I just see one lobby, "Big Macronutrient". We all need to eat. I'll be worried when some company tries to make me eat actual plastic. We know far less about any of this than we pretend to.

> eat actual plastic.

Foreseeing such Crimes of the Future, David Cronenberg has already made that one into a movie.

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

#112

Post by aziaziazi »

bregma wrote: post #88
bluGill wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Butter is only a favorite because Lard has been some demonized that no chef would ever use it anymore.

Ever spread lard on toast? Do you prefer croissants made with lard? Is everyone's favourite dish these days lard chicken (I mean the Indian dish, not the Soul Food dish, which is of course popular in some locales). Nope. Butter is favoured because it tastes unctuous. Nothing to do with Big Cow or any special interest lobby local to certain valleys in the USA. Except maybe Big Bacon Drippings, because if there's one t…

> Butter is favoured because it tastes unctuous

Oily stuff tastes unctuous.

Butter is favored because most people had it in their youth. Some regions loves Nato and Chicken feet, others cheese and oysters. What's the most delicious? It depends of your own history.

I spread olive oil on my toast and prefer the croissants made with that as well. My favorite dish is fried tempeh.

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

#114

Post by kortex »

giacomoforte wrote: post #65

Aren't both sugar and saturated fat problemtic, and complementary in contributing to CVD?

Yes. Sugar (and all of its downstream phenomena - diabetes, insulin resistance, the ease in which sugar adds calories without satiation signals) is well established to contribute to CVD. Long-chain (animal based) sat fat and trans fat is also well established to contribute to CVD. The high calorie density of fatty foods plays a big role, as does the overall palatability and "eatability" of low fiber, high fat, high sugar, delicious foods, making portion control challenging. That should be uncontroversial at this point.

The jury is unclear on:

- How the chain length of sat fats impact things (medium-chain triglycerides seem to be protective, but the boundary between medium and long is fuzzy)

- How the ratio of the various omega-N (3/6/9) unsat fats impacts health, particularly inflammation

- The whole "seed oil" thing is probably MAHA/conspiracy style false signal at the end of the day, but it hasn't been fully debunked and there are almost certainly facets of truth to it (seed oils are a form of ultra-processed food, and all UPFs are problematic)

Confounders, confounders everywhere. This whole field is just extremely challenging and noisy.

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

#115

Post by ceejayoz »

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…

> They paid a total of 2 people $50,000.

In this specific case.

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

#116

Post by quercus »

logicchains wrote: post #98
tuyiown wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're really reducing a whole economic situation to a currency issue ?

It's not just a currency issue; inflation is by definition a reduction in the purchasing power of a fixed wage, and the issue we're facing is that the purchasing power of people's wages is less. If their wages were denominated in a unit of account that wasn't continuously losing value, they wouldn't be continuously losing purchasing power. The reason you may not know it's an issue is because inflation in our current…

I can't remember a bigger HN blackpill than this getting downvoted.

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

#117

Post by wgjordan »

miltonlost wrote: post #101
DetectDefect wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> tells people to eat the food of another mammal's baby. This is the opposite of "reasonable" - it is actual government propaganda to support lobbied industry. Oh, I was wondering where the part of your screed was gonna come out as crazy. Human consumption of dairy is thousands of years old.

Please follow the HN guidelines [1]:

When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#118

Post by astura »

jollyllama wrote: post #102
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…

> That doesn't seem like enough to entirely shape worldwide discourse around nutrition and sugar. People are often surprised when they find out how little people sell out for. The going rate for a member of congress in 2015 was a little less [0] - about $43,000. [0] https://truthout.org/articles/you-too-can-buy-a-congressman/

But buying off a single congressperson is not going to change the worldwide discourse on a topic.

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

#119

Post by [deleted] »

jollyllama wrote: post #102
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…

> That doesn't seem like enough to entirely shape worldwide discourse around nutrition and sugar. People are often surprised when they find out how little people sell out for. The going rate for a member of congress in 2015 was a little less [0] - about $43,000. [0] https://truthout.org/articles/you-too-can-buy-a-congressman/

[deleted]

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

#120

Post by jscd »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #110
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 right to be skeptical, but: > They paid a total of 2 people $50,000. That's over half a million, in today's dollars. With inflation, and whatnot, we get numb to what money was, back when.

Other way around. To quote the article:

> To conduct the literature review, the sugar industry paid the Harvard scientists the equivalent of $50,000 in 2016 dollars [...]

So it was actually about ~$5,000 in 1965 dollars.

Post reply on HN