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

131–140 of 537 posts

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

#131

Post by deathanatos »

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.

… it's $68,404 in today's dollars, according to BLS's inflation calc.

(…your figure works out to a 26% per annum inflation rate. The $50k figure is in 2016 dollars — "the sugar industry paid the Harvard scientists the equivalent of $50,000 in 2016 dollars".)

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

#132

Post by jorblumesea »

giacomoforte wrote: post #90
jorblumesea wrote: post #74

CVD and links to saturated fats is a long, long established phenomenon and has a lot of science behind it. A single study or even studies should not invalidate or discount it. Before people misinterpret what this is saying. Sugar may also contribute some to CVD but most cardiologists still think fats are the main driver of CVD.

? Every health authority mentions both cholesterol/saturated fat and blood sugar as contributing factors.

not sure where people have been for the last year but MAHA and rfk have been on the "fat is good train" and seem to completely ignore entire decades of science.

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

#133

Post by ycombinary »

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…

[dead]

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

#134

Post by DetectDefect »

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.

Many (most?) human behaviors are thousands of years old, it does not make them reasonable. Also, refrain from hurling insults; just do not respond if you cannot materially substantiate your argument.

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

#135

Post by boilerupnc »

llmslave wrote: post #94
StopDisinfo910 wrote: post #46

A casual look at where people live the oldest, what they eat, and what's recommended tell you all you need to know about food recommendations then and now. It's a field where actual long term controlled experiments are impossible, confounding variables are everywhere, and multiple lobbies have vested interests in the outcomes. I take everything with a grain of salt apart from studies of harm when sources are credible…

This is a complete myth. Human populations are not homogenous, gene pools that relied on agriculture for the last 10k years are completely different than hunter gatherer populations. You have been lied to

The diversity in individual micro-biome ecosystems now walks into the room

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

#136

Post by __0x01 »

giacomoforte wrote: post #80
__0x01 wrote: post #62

My understanding was that atherosclerotic plaques are comprised of cholesterol or fatty deposits [1] and that these can lead to CVD. The fat mechanism I understand, but what is the mechanism for sugar in CVD? [1] https://www.heart.org/en/health-topics/cholesterol/about-cho...

Pretty much every health authority will tell you that high blood sugar damages blood vessels, thereby enabling the formation of said plagues.

Please can you provide a source for the above?

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

#137

Post by kypro »

aeternum wrote: post #104

It seems one should not always "trust the science"

You shouldn't trust the messengers of "the science", however the science speaks for it's self.

I got really into reading about nutritional science a few years ago and there's a surprising amount of stuff which people don't think is bad for them which probably is. Eating 3 meals a day with snacking between meals is probably a significant contributor to diabetes and CVD, for example. Yet a lot of people believe it's unhealthy or strange to only eat once a day.

Similarly fruit drinks are bad when a lot of people think they are good, and we probably over empathise problems with "red meat" these days – the main risks with there are more specifically with processed red meats like sausages and also how the meat is cooked.

If people care about their health they should be curious enough to ask questions and read scientific papers themselves.

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

#138

Post by ceejayoz »

astura wrote: post #118
jollyllama wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Pick the right one and it might.

Or spend $23,134,000 on all of the House and Senate.

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

#140

Post by aldarion »

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…

"Okay, where is it? What are the conclusions? Is sugar actually contributing more than fat for CVD in most patients?"

Depends on the type of fat, I think. From what I have found out myself, it is trans fats > sugars / simple carbohydrates > polyunsaturated fats > complex carbohydrates > monounsaturated fats > saturated fats.

Obesity really exploded when consumption shifted from butter towards margarine and vegetable oils: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Trends-in-US-fat-consump...

If anything, consumption of monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats is the issue: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/nutrition/articles/10.3...

But of course, you also have to consider nature of food. In nature, you would consume either carbohydrates or fats - either plants or meat. But processed foods include a lot of fats and a lot of carbs in a single package. And that is the actual killer. Fats aren't an issue, carbs aren't that much of an issue, isssue is the nature of fats and carbs consumed, and issue is the way we consume them.

Post reply on HN