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

Sugar industry withheld possible evidence of cancer link 50 years ago

pbs.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 329 posts

Re: Sugar industry withheld possible evidence of cancer link 50 years ago

#191

Post by BhavdeepSethi »

jessaustin wrote: post #173
tinha wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a documentary on Netflix about this, I think it's called Sugar x Fat.

Does anyone have an opinion on this one, also on Netflix? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_Health It's pro-veganism and the narrator is a goofy manchild, but has credible (to me anyway) medical experts.

If you read reviews about What the Health online, you'll see that lot of it is vegan propaganda. They've manipulated facts (like mentioning relative probability as opposed to absolute) so that they seem more dangerous than it actually is.

Re: Sugar industry withheld possible evidence of cancer link 50 years ago

#192

Post by FrozenVoid »

microcolonel wrote: post #3

Fruits and vegetables are full of sucrose, it is the most commonly occurring sugar in plants. If splitting more sucrose (or is fructose really the problem?) increases your chance of cancer, it means very little on its own. Would you get the same results if they matched the starches to the glucose equivalent, rather than the same mass? Which is why I don't see why they would bother to suppress a result like this, but…

> Fruits and vegetables are full of sucrose, it is the most commonly occurring sugar in plants.

Modern strains of fruits and vegetables. They are all artificial breeds.

Re: Sugar industry withheld possible evidence of cancer link 50 years ago

#193

Post by jeffdavis »

acdha wrote: post #162
ams6110 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason is that in the 1970s and 80s people started freaking out about fat. Everyone from the FDA to USDA to family doctor was telling people fat was bad. So food producers started making fat-free versions of everything. Only problem is it tasted like shit. So what did they do? They added sugar. So now you have sugar added to everything from salad dressing to pasta sauce to bread and muffins. The latter probably h…

Here’s one of the members of the 1970s guidelines: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1977/01/20/... “Dr. Mark Hegsted, professor of nutrition at Harvard University and one of the three nutritionists who helped write the report, said: "There will undoubtedly be many people who will say we have not proven our point; we have not demonstrated that the dietary modifications we recommend will yield the divid…

I find it interesting why that doctor's reasoning is flawed: in reality, people don't just follow advice wholesale, they follow some of it based on how much willpower they have for change. By choosing some things to follow over others, they are implicitly making a trade-off.

But to make a good trade, you need to know the relative benefits of two parts of the advice. Giving up fats might be good and/or neutral; but if it exhausts your willpower to avoid sugar, and you indulge, then you are worse off.

Re: Sugar industry withheld possible evidence of cancer link 50 years ago

#194

Post by silviogutierrez »

gtrubetskoy wrote: post #165
LolWolf wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's not weight-by-weight equivalent. I believe that a tiny amount of Erythritol is enough to be equivalently sweet relative to a much larger amount of sugar. That being said: I'm not sure if it's enough to make it cheaper than sugar.

Good point, and there is another twist I realized: sugar is used as filler (e.g. for removed fat in low-fat stuff), so Erythritol might not work because same volume of it would make it unbearably sweet. Personally, I'd prefer they just kept the original fat and call it a day as there seems to be absolutely nothing wrong with it health-wise.

You are both thinking of other sweeteners, like sucralose (Splenda).

Erythritol is actually 70% as sweet as sugar. So you actually need to supplement it with something else to match sugar.

Re: Sugar industry withheld possible evidence of cancer link 50 years ago

#195

Post by always_good »

Hockenbrizzle wrote: post #22
microcolonel wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would a coke onion (84% water, 10% sugar, 5% fibre, [1% other stuff {caramel colouring, deactivated coca leaf extract, etc.}]) be a bad source of sucrose? Pineapple is about 6% sucrose, red delicious Apples are about 2% sucrose (the rest being mostly fructose, and some glucose), bananas have more than 5% sucrose (As do mangoes, nectarines, and varieties of apple like pink lady).

I guess an important point to make is how easy it is to consume a sugary drink. I can very easily sit down and drink a tall glass of orange juice but not so easily could I sit down and eat the six oranges that would be used to make that oj.

I just ate 3 carrots and I definitely don't feel for a 4th.

Meanwhile, I'd have to eat 3 pounds to equal a bottle of coke: http://www.sugarstacks.com/carrots.htm

Pretty crazy. And eye-roll inducing when people bring up sugar in vegetables/fruits. As if it's your apple habit keeping you wide.

Re: Sugar industry withheld possible evidence of cancer link 50 years ago

#196

Post by toomanybeersies »

pessimizer wrote: post #93
DoodleBuggy wrote: post #2

Makes you wonder what we'll find out is being withheld right now, 50 years from now.

Non-stick coatings on cooking implements and flame retardants.

Teflon is chemically inert though, as long as you don't overheat it.

Re: Sugar industry withheld possible evidence of cancer link 50 years ago

#197

Post by toomanybeersies »

DonHopkins wrote: post #176

Happy Jax => Sugar Crisp => Super Sugar Crisp => Super Golden Crisp => Golden Crisp But it's still "Sugar Crisp" in Canada, where Sugar Bear still says "Can't get enough of that Sugar Crisp"! Do they have better truth in advertising laws there or something? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Crisp At the 1904 World Fair, the Quaker Oats Company made a candy-coated puffed cereal, a wheat-based product similar to Cra…

Breakfast cereal companies are borderline criminal. Most cereals are just straight sugar on some substrate.

Even most muesli/granola is loaded with sugar, whether cane sugar, honey, or dried fruit.

Re: Sugar industry withheld possible evidence of cancer link 50 years ago

#198

Post by mjevans »

toomanybeersies wrote: post #196
pessimizer wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Non-stick coatings on cooking implements and flame retardants.

Teflon is chemically inert though, as long as you don't overheat it.

I hope the silicon stuff is OK; I prefer that as it's point of thermal breakdown is way past anything I want in my kitchen anyway (aside from direct open flames which I don't currently use but know some cooking does).

I also prefer the ceramic linings, since those are more likely to be OK in my mostly uneducated opinion. (However the type of material is different, and hopefully less likely to leach).

Re: Sugar industry withheld possible evidence of cancer link 50 years ago

#199

Post by visarga »

toomanybeersies wrote: post #197
DonHopkins wrote: post #176

Happy Jax => Sugar Crisp => Super Sugar Crisp => Super Golden Crisp => Golden Crisp But it's still "Sugar Crisp" in Canada, where Sugar Bear still says "Can't get enough of that Sugar Crisp"! Do they have better truth in advertising laws there or something? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Crisp At the 1904 World Fair, the Quaker Oats Company made a candy-coated puffed cereal, a wheat-based product similar to Cra…

Breakfast cereal companies are borderline criminal. Most cereals are just straight sugar on some substrate. Even most muesli/granola is loaded with sugar, whether cane sugar, honey, or dried fruit.

Anecdotal evidence - I have seen kids grow up nicely on daily bowl of milk and cereal. I suspect it's because cereal also contains minerals and vitamins, which, in time, help.

Re: Sugar industry withheld possible evidence of cancer link 50 years ago

#200

Post by averagewall »

jungletime wrote: post #113
DoodleBuggy wrote: post #2

Makes you wonder what we'll find out is being withheld right now, 50 years from now.

Not really withheld, but I think underestimated is air pollution. "Worldwide, ambient air pollution contributes to 5.4% of all deaths" source - http://www.who.int/

That's a meaningless statistic on its own. Does it shorten 5.4% of people's lives by 5 minutes each? or does it kill 5.4% of people while they're children? The reality will be somewhere between those extremes but the number alone tells us nothing interesting.

You can use something like years of life lost instead: http://www.who.int/whosis/whostat2006YearsOfLifeLost.pdf

Post reply on HN