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

181–190 of 537 posts

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

#181

Post by scotty79 »

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.

Check out the story of Andrew Wakefield. One financially motivated lie can spark wildfire.

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

#182

Post by bluGill »

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…

I didn't say lard is always better. Different cooking styles demand different things.

Though my grandpa used lard on his bread in the great depression because they couldn't afford butter.

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

#183

Post by Alex2037 »

loeg wrote: post #157
Alex2037 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's not just sugar. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycemic_index#Grouping all simple carbs are the devil, but we can't possibly feed billions of people actually healthy food - organic vegetables, nuts, and animal products, so come drink your corn syrup.

The sugar industry (topic of this article) can only be blamed for sugar, though -- not all high-GI foods. And you can replace "sugar" in what I said earlier with "high-GI foods" and it doesn't change a thing. Persistent high blood sugar is diabetes; it isn't dietary.

>Persistent high blood sugar is diabetes; it isn't dietary.

how is it not dietary if consuming most carbs spikes your blood sugar for hours, which, with three meals + snacks + starbucks slurry, means elevated blood sugar 20+ hours a day?

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

#184

Post by jjk166 »

aldarion wrote: post #163
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.

Those studies however generally put beef and sausages into the same "red meat" category. So yeah... that science is, from what I've seen, basically worthless.

Why would beef and sausages not be in the same category? A large percentage of sausage literally is beef.

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

#185

Post by aldarion »

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…

They will however recommend sugar, just by calling it something else.

See "carbohydrates", "complex carbohydrates", "integral grain" and so on.

Quite frankly, plain sugar from fruit is less dangerous than the complex carbs from grains. But fructose is still dangerous, just less so.

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

#186

Post by harrall »

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 think the real problem is that a food pyramid is an oversimplification.

No matter what you do, “fruits” isn’t really a goal — it’s macronutrients and micronutrients like vitamins, fiber, etc.

So with or without lobbying, any food pyramid will always be wrong. A food pyramid exists because it is far more relatable than comparing nutrient labels and tabulating.

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

#187

Post by astura »

bluGill wrote: post #41
biophysboy wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What annoys me the most is that sat fat is a huge way that sugary products are made more palatable to people. People love butter. It is every chef's 2nd favorite tool, just after salt.

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

Excuse me? The trendiest of restaurants around me advertise that they have beef fat fried fries/potatoes.

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

#189

Post by tsimionescu »

aldarion wrote: post #140
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…

You'll find many people claiming almost the exact opposite, just as confidently. Plant fats are generally seen as much healthier, especially olive oil and similar fats. This idea that the combination of macronutrients that a food contains also seems highly suspect - generally people tend to think that macronutrients work independently of each other.

The reality is, of course, that we just don't know. Nutrition "science" is almost entirely bogus (the only real part of it is the discovery of the nature and functioning of the various vitamins, and thus the elimination of scurvy and similar diseases - plus a few other extremes). Even the existence and importance of dietary fiber in many foods was a very recent discovery (resistant starch and oligosaccharides were only identified as dietary fiber in the 2000s, for example) - meaning that even the base caloric contents of many foods were wrongly measured as late as the 2000s (and who knows what else we're missing here).

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

#190

Post by bluGill »

ceejayoz wrote: post #138
astura wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You probably only need 15% of congress. Some of the unbought ones will follow, some would vote for your side anyway, and there are often unrelated things in the bill that will bring a bunch of those who otherwise don't care about this issue with.
Post reply on HN