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

251–260 of 537 posts

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

#251

Post by Panoramix »

siliconc0w wrote: post #109

This isn't really a correct narrative. Diets high in saturated fat are correlated with CVD. Sugar is also correlated with poor metabolic health which is also correlated with CVD. Both are bad. Best data is still Mediterranean- nuts, fruits vegetables, olive or avocado oil, and lean protein.

I've been to the Mediterranean several times. They eat a ton of (delicious) super oily food, sausages, meats, eggs, fish (often fried or deep fried), salty cheeses, greasy stuff, tons of white bread, lots of wine. Fat chance to find someone eating avocados, kale, or quinoa, and proteins are not at all minimized.

The Mediterranean diet is like a Californian wellness type of person's idea of what the actual Mediterranean diet is.

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

#252

Post by didibus »

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…

This is one of those where you need to be able to discern nuances in your brain as multiple things are happening.

First, identifying cause and effect of CVD is super hard, and there are lots of studies with various level of indications and in reality we're still far from understanding most of it. Even just the effects of fat and sugar on it isn't clear, and our understanding of fat itself, and all its types, and of sugars and all its types, even that's incomplete. And this makes it a perfect battle ground for grift and financial interests, because you can paint various narratives and cleverly build a case for it, since in reality so many possibilities are still on the table.

I think the conclusions that are on the stronger side are those that relate to medication and surgery. Blood pressure pills, statins, antiplatelet, coronary artery bypass, aortic valve replacement, etc.

When it comes to nutrition and other lifestyle changes, things are muddy. So instead you have "school of thoughts" and belief systems forms that often tie up with personal identity.

Second, you have financial interests meddling with research and messaging. A financial interest might want to mingle even if the research supports them, just not to take any chances. And if we found two cases of it, that's just those that were caught and proven, it's likely there's many more mingling then just that. Even if it doesn't end up proving things their way, you can assume all this mingling slows things down and makes figuring out the truth much harder and slower, which maintains the state of uncertainty for longer and that state is good for financial interests.

Lastly, it's not that we know nothing at all, and everything is just beliefs. There are a few things that have strong evidence repeatedly. We know that smoking, high blood pressure, plaque buildup, high lifetime LDL, clots, and diabetes/insulin resistance are all bad and lead to increase risks of CVD. And avoiding or lowering those, no matter how, helps reduce that risk. But it's not enough for most people that want to feel in control and believe they're living in a way that CVD won't happen to them. Which makes them vulnerable to grifters and various influencers.

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

#253

Post by Aloisius »

stavros wrote: post #78
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…

A casual look at where people live the oldest will tell you about statistical outliers and bad government recordkeeping.

Don't forget pension fraud and identity theft.

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

#254

Post by hinkley »

SoftTalker wrote: post #216
jamesgill wrote: post #123

A good book that explains it all is The Case Against Sugar by Gary Taubes, which came out the same year as this article. Like many truths, it's actually well-known and frequently discussed in public, but hard to hear amongst all the noise of corporate messaging and decades of bad dietary 'advice' from both public and private institutions. To paraphrase the Oracle in the Matrix: What's really going to bake your noodle…

> hard to hear amongst all the noise of corporate messaging The one I like are the sodas that tout "made with real sugar" as if that's better for you than HF syrup.

Turns out the phosphoric acid breaks down the sucrose within a matter of months on the shelf.

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

#255

Post by tsimionescu »

jqpabc123 wrote: post #193

Which will make you fatter? A) Eating a pound/kg of fat B) Eating a pound/kg of refined sugar Correct answer: B Sugar enters your blood stream almost immediately --- starting in your mouth. Unless you're doing heavy exercise and burning lots of calories, your body has to store most of this excess energy --- as fat. The only way to get consumed fat into your bloodstream is to first convert it into sugar --- which itse…

At the same weight, fat contains way more calories than sugar, so the difference in difficulty of digestion is irrelevant at this level. It's true that if you were to consume 1000 Cal worth of sugar vs 1000 Cal worth of fat, you'd get slightly less fat from the fat - but this should be seen simply as one of many limitations on the "calories in" measurement. The same kinds of differences likely exist between different sugars, different fats, different proteins - and may well be affected by other aspects of how the food containing these nutrients is consumed; and it almost certainly varies a lot between people or even for the same person based on various factors such as age, activity level, time of day, etc.

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

#256

Post by deinonychus »

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

> Protein serving goals: 1.2–1.6 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight per day, adjusting as needed based on your individual caloric requirements.

it's crazy the us gov put this out and is still using kilograms for this formula

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

#257

Post by hinkley »

cyberax wrote: post #218
jqpabc123 wrote: post #193

Which will make you fatter? A) Eating a pound/kg of fat B) Eating a pound/kg of refined sugar Correct answer: B Sugar enters your blood stream almost immediately --- starting in your mouth. Unless you're doing heavy exercise and burning lots of calories, your body has to store most of this excess energy --- as fat. The only way to get consumed fat into your bloodstream is to first convert it into sugar --- which itse…

> The only way to get consumed fat into your bloodstream is to first convert it into sugar --- which itself burns some energy. Fat does not get converted into glucose in normal conditions in appreciable quantities. It's used as-is, most of the body can directly utilize fatty acids as a fuel source. Also, body has a lot of mechanisms to deal with sugar. It is normally stored in the liver and then released slowly.

And the muscles. You can’t fight or flight if you have to ask the liver to deliver glycogen. That’s how anaerobic exercise works. You have the fuel but not enough oxygen to burn it so you burn it fuel rich and oxidizer poor.

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

#258

Post by morshu9001 »

kenferry wrote: post #178
game_the0ry wrote: post #141

That industry can lobby for and basically "purchase" scientific outcomes that affect health standards should be a defcon 1 red alert. People should be lose their careers over this, at the very least imo. And the fact that people do not care is just as, if not more, concerning. This is how you get MAHA, which I support bc of this, craziness included.

Er, how does putting your faith in literally vibes (MAHA) follow. Just complete rejection of expertise and science.

Yeah, I completely reject nutritional science. Even without bribes involved, there are just too many complexities for them to draw useful conclusions. Ignored the food pyramid too.

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

#259

Post by tsimionescu »

siliconc0w wrote: post #109

This isn't really a correct narrative. Diets high in saturated fat are correlated with CVD. Sugar is also correlated with poor metabolic health which is also correlated with CVD. Both are bad. Best data is still Mediterranean- nuts, fruits vegetables, olive or avocado oil, and lean protein.

The so-called "Mediterranean diet" is a myth, and one of many myths that even serious "nutrition scientists" believe and perpetuate. Actual people in the Mediterranean have way different diets, and ones that include significant quantities of things like pork, lamb, fatty fish, very sugary confections, processed meats like sausages or jamon, etc.

I would be willing to bet that things like the siesta, large amounts of sunlight exposure, a more laid back culture, and lots of vacation days are much more important parts of what keeps people living around the Mediterranean healthier - much more so than the actual diet.

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

#260

Post by hinkley »

__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...

Poor dental health also contributes and nothing pushes poor dental healthy like a high sugar diet.
Post reply on HN