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

201–210 of 537 posts

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

#201

Post by antiframe »

aziaziazi wrote: post #112
bregma wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Today, I am one of the Ten Thousand [1] that learned you can make croissants with olive oil. Thank you for that! I've always assumed the laminated dough required solid fats, but apparently any layering of fat and flour can make flaky goodness. I am guessing that liquid fats are probably harder to work with, and croissants are already tricky enough to get right: but I must try.

[1]: https://xkcd.com/1053/

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

#202

Post by bluGill »

aldarion wrote: post #146
tonyedgecombe wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or maybe the combination is the problem. I couldn’t consume much sugar on its own nor much cream but put the two together in ice cream and I could eat it all day long.

That is what I came to believe as well. If sugar alone was the problem, vegans would be fat. If fat alone was the problem, ketogenic and carnivore diets wouldn't help people lose weight. It seems to be the combination of two at the same time that causes the issues.

Nobody cares about fat, except as it influences how well they look. They care about good health. There are many people who would be happy to sit in a wheelchair all day (they probably don't know how uncomfortable that is and would demand extra comfort, but the idea). People don't want to exercise (in general). They want to eat good tasting food. They want to drink, smoke, and do other drugs. They want whatever their religion says is good.

Because these are often in conflict they must compromise something. If you find a way to be fat while: looking good, living a long life, and being able to do the other things in life you want through life people would be happy.

Of course being fat correlates strongly with things people don't like about living a long healthy life and so we try to lose weight, but that is only a proxy.

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

#203

Post by aldarion »

jjk166 wrote: post #184
aldarion wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Large percentage, yes. The issue is the "not large percentage" part. Sugar, additives, preservatives, colors... all of these are toxic. And when you mix up beef steak with sausage... you won't get realistic results.

That's like asking "what's the issue if somebody salts the soup with cyanide, most of the meal will still be soup". Yeah, but the cyanide will still kill you, even if it is the small percentage.

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

#204

Post by ceejayoz »

pseidemann wrote: post #192
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…

Such "science" should be illegal.

What, specifically?

Industry funded research? Results that disagree with the current consensus? Nutrition science entirely?

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

#205

Post by entropicdrifter »

pseidemann wrote: post #192
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…

Such "science" should be illegal.

If propaganda was illegal, who would decide what was propaganda and what was simply argumentation made from positions of relative ignorance?

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

#206

Post by stanford_labrat »

pseidemann wrote: post #192
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…

Such "science" should be illegal.

the greatest travesty of modern science is that fraud is not illegal.

in every other industry that i can imagine, purposely committing fraud has been made illegal. this is not the case in modern science, and in my opinion the primary driver of things like the replication crisis and the root of all the other problems plaguing academia at the moment.

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

#207

Post by ceejayoz »

brians wrote: post #191
llm_nerd wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Skim/lowfat milk just... takes the cream out.

The same rule changes tightened the rules on added sugar.

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

#208

Post by munchler »

brodouevencode wrote: post #199

The new dietary guidelines are much more sensible IMO, compared to the food pyramid or MyPlate. https://cdn.realfood.gov/DGA.pdf

> To Make America Healthy Again, we must return to the basics.

Who knows, these guidelines might indeed be sensible, but anything labeled “Make America Healthy Again” has no scientific credibility.

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

#209

Post by aldarion »

tsimionescu wrote: post #189
aldarion wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 "scien…

"generally people tend to think that macronutrients work independently of each other"

Well, that is obviously the wrong idea. Even basic logic speaks against it: people lose weight on keto diet, people lose weight on vegan diet... so neither protein, fat nor carbs can be causing obesity. But what do foods that we know are obesogenic have in common? 1) They are highly processed and/or 2) they combine fats and carbs into single package.

But it is true that we don't know for certain. What we do know is that this dietary experiment we have had going since 1970s at the latest has failed completely. As I tend to say: paleo diet should be the basis of any diet, and then you further adjust it based on how your body responds.

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

#210

Post by llm_nerd »

brians wrote: post #191
llm_nerd wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

>which literally remove the fats and replace them with sugar.

This is not accurate.

No they didn't "replace" the fats with sugar. There is a chocolate milk option, just as there was before, but all options need to be 1% or low M.F., which nutrition and medical science overwhelmingly supports.

Is chocolate milk not ideal? Of course. We all know that. They shouldn't serve it either.

Post reply on HN