Live data from Hacker News

50 Years Ago, the Sugar Industry Paid Scientists to Blame Fat (2016)

npr.org

261–270 of 307 posts

Re: 50 Years Ago, the Sugar Industry Paid Scientists to Blame Fat (2016)

#261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Leaded gas was a big one, AGW denial is a big one.

Scientists lied about sugar, maybe they're also lying about anthropogenic global warming. They were also wrong about lead, mercury, asbestos, DDT.

Not sure what you're saying, there was never a doubt about lead or mercury or asbestos harmfulness, the scientists are not the one putting it to market or regulating it.

Re: 50 Years Ago, the Sugar Industry Paid Scientists to Blame Fat (2016)

#262
post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me it’s simple ... I ask myself what did my grandparents used to eat? I’m not from the US and in our country the industrialization of the food supply happened much later, along with obesity and diabetes, which back in my grandparents’ time were very rare. My grandparents lived on the countryside, working on their farm, raising their own crops and animals. Grandpa died at 99 years old and worked his land until 95.…

If only it were that simple. Consider the lifestyles. If you're willing to live the same lifestyle and same environmental conditions, the same diet variables could potentially lead to similar lifespan. But in lieu of the same conditions, the logic to consume same diet isn't that sound.

I think the inspiration one should take from their grandparents and further back, is to avoid over-processed foods and highly refined foods.

They didn't eat ready-made processed meals loaded with salt and sugar, they didn't drink soda except on rare occasions, they didn't eat nearly the same amount of candy that we do today.

I'm only 33 and from my childhood I remember soda as a rare treat that was saved for birthdays and other special occasions, or if my dad and I had been working in the garden or on a DIY project. Very few things are more satisfying than a well-deserved ice-cold sugary fizzy drink while taking a break from hard work.

Soda was a luxury we didn't get every day, and 25cl was the standard serving size. Anything smaller than a 33cl can seems to be exceedingly rare now, and usually people go for the 50+cl bottles.

Our habits are completely out of whack.

Re: 50 Years Ago, the Sugar Industry Paid Scientists to Blame Fat (2016)

#263
post #231
post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

American, maybe. Western, really? https://www.google.com/amp/s/bigthink.com/two-maps-and-one-g... It seems that obesity in Europe affects 1/4 to 1/5, while in the US is 1/3. The EU country with highest incidence of obesity is alse the one that is famous for its lack of a (decent) food culture, the UK. As an Italian, I find it hard to convince myself that US obesity problems have one single cause to blame, sugar, rath…

Have a read of books by Nina Teicholz or Gary Taubes. In there is a mountain of data showing the correlation of diets to adopting the national dietary recommendation (which vilified fats). They all make a great case that fat is good for you (proper fat like animal, not vegetables oils which really aren't from vegetables at all). You're right it's more than just sugar, it's carbs in general. Which includes French frie…

>roper fat like animal, not vegetables oils which really aren't from vegetables at all

Why is the oil not from vegetables?

Re: 50 Years Ago, the Sugar Industry Paid Scientists to Blame Fat (2016)

#264

For years I've essentially not consumed sugar except for that in vegetables etc. I still suffer from this rubbish though: 1. I often can't find any meat in the supermarket that has not been denatured by having the fat removed. 2. I reject a lot of products which I suspect I'd like because they have added sugar. 3. I have to tamp down on my anger when I hear somebody rabbiting on about the dangers of fat. Humans truly…

I'm prone to cholesterol, I wish I could turn to fat like you do.

Re: 50 Years Ago, the Sugar Industry Paid Scientists to Blame Fat (2016)

#265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both sides have convincing arguments and research to back it up. They have good answers to the seemingly contradictory research that the other side uses. They both provide a consistent picture. One or both of the theories has to be wrong but I cannot decide. I can learn and read all about it and take both viewpoints into account but I still cannot decide. I could do my own research but I would come up with one or the…

For me it’s simple ... I ask myself what did my grandparents used to eat? I’m not from the US and in our country the industrialization of the food supply happened much later, along with obesity and diabetes, which back in my grandparents’ time were very rare. My grandparents lived on the countryside, working on their farm, raising their own crops and animals. Grandpa died at 99 years old and worked his land until 95.…

This is absolutely the right approach to nutrition in my opinion.

Re: 50 Years Ago, the Sugar Industry Paid Scientists to Blame Fat (2016)

#266
post #43
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "selfish-lazy-greedy assholes" hypothesis doesn't do so well in the face of endocrinology. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15987666

That something is addictive doesn't absolve you of accountability; you still got addicted to it, you allowed it to happen, you are still responsible for yourself no matter the biology of how the effects work. With very very few exceptions, people are fat because they eat too much food, it's as simple as that. If you overeat (as an adult), you are to blame, it's not anyone else's fault. I agree with the OP.

You're still posting flamewar-style (unsubstantive and inflammatory) after we asked you many times to stop. Since this isn't the first account you've done this with, we've banned this one.

Re: 50 Years Ago, the Sugar Industry Paid Scientists to Blame Fat (2016)

#267
My mother was a head nurse / nurse practitioner before she retired and to this day she is a fountain of unwanted, long disproved (or at least questioned) nutritional "facts" which she repeats endlessly.

The one that has grated on me for decades is old propaganda from WWII about carrots promoting eye health and bestowing night vision... though fats are easily in her top five evil substances list.

There is literally nothing I've been able to do to change behavior, including keeping an entire directory full of publications of studies refuting whatever falsehood she's spouting to read out loud at the dinner table when I come to visit.

Re: 50 Years Ago, the Sugar Industry Paid Scientists to Blame Fat (2016)

#268
post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have a read of books by Nina Teicholz or Gary Taubes. In there is a mountain of data showing the correlation of diets to adopting the national dietary recommendation (which vilified fats). They all make a great case that fat is good for you (proper fat like animal, not vegetables oils which really aren't from vegetables at all). You're right it's more than just sugar, it's carbs in general. Which includes French frie…

>One can still be healthy eating no vegetables and just meat. Haha wow. Citation absolutely needed.

[deleted]

Re: 50 Years Ago, the Sugar Industry Paid Scientists to Blame Fat (2016)

#269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally don't mind. In fact, I look for yogurt that's low in fat and low in sugar as it tends to be high in protein and relatively low in calories, case in point FAGE Total 0%. 90 calories and 18g of protein in a 6oz. serving. Better than most protein bars.

FAGE and Chobani seem to be the best of supermarket yogurts (and Yoplait the worst).

Siggi's skyr is pretty good, too. A bit more calories and a bit less protein (110 cal, 15g protein), but definitely tastes better than the 0% fat FAGE, in my opinion.
Post reply on HN