Live data from Hacker News

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

ucsf.edu

261–270 of 537 posts

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

#261
post #9
post #3

Maybe I read too much history - but hasn't Big Sugar been known for "nothing that a slave trader wouldn't do" ethics for the past 300+ years?

It is beyond me how anyone can expect any business (especially public traded) to have any ethics whatsoever.

We literally had a circular slave trade of slaves->sugar cane->rum->slaves

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

#262
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...

Consuming cholesterol doesn't normally change the level of cholesterol in your bloodstream - it simply leads to your body producing less cholesterol. Unless you're consuming gigantic amounts, or have some problems with your cholesterol regulation, dietary cholesterol is completely safe. It's only if your blood work shows elevated cholesterol levels that you need to start paying attention to cholesterol intake. This is in fact very similar to what happens to blood sugar levels, in fact.

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

#263
post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right to be skeptical, but: > They paid a total of 2 people $50,000. That's over half a million, in today's dollars. With inflation, and whatnot, we get numb to what money was, back when.

The $50k is already adjusted for inflation.

Ah. My bad, then.

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

#264
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…

It's a "meme" that sugar is worse for you than fat?

Yes and also a true meme.

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

#265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just told you: it's made by food industry interests and is ultimately divorced from actual nutrition science.

And I'm asking what would be different if you had to make a basic graphic based on nutritional science vs the My Plate graphic.

I wouldn’t reduce food to some stupid equational graphic. Instead I would work to try to regain trust by cracking the whip on these companies for once, whether it’s their prices, the quality of their products, their advertising, or all of the above. Our diets deserve more respect and that’s the reason RFK has an audience. He’s speaking to people who believe that. There can be better leaders than him, but at least he’s doing something!

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

#266
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 just the time that we caught. Who knows how many more times it happened and wasn't caught?

> I guess the thing that I most don't get is it's now been 10 years since then, and I haven't seen any news about the link between sugar and CVD.

Perhaps this is more evidence that not everybody has been caught?

It's not like this is some isolated thing, like it's a documented fact that the food pyramid was shaped the way it was due to industry pressure.[1]

1 - Marion Nestle, Food Politics

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

#267

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

anyway, i don't find anything here that stands out or is obviously against the consensus, other than recommending tallow as a cooking fat. i don't see any signs of seed oil extremism or sat fat trutherism otherwise. there's even this line about limiting sat fat:

> In general, saturated fat consumption should not exceed 10% of total daily calories. Significantly limiting highly processed foods will help meet this goal. More high-quality research is needed to determine which types of dietary fats best support long-term health.

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

#269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> This is the sort of misdirection that requires the follow up question "what is real food?". For RFK that includes a roadkill bear. What is wrong with roadkill bear? Genuinely asking.

If it died due to disease that's one, rabies and any prion diseases would be easy to accidentally transfer due to mistakes in handling. Parasites. Mites and fleas which also can harbor disease. Uncertain length of decomposition. Possibly died due to poison, either intentionally or unintentionally which can the poison the eater.

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

#270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 in…

That is not correct.

People lose fat on calorie restricted diet. How will you get to it, either by counting them or by improving metabolism or by changing insulin levels, is a different thing.

Vegan or keto diet can both be calorie restricted, as much as any macronutrient mixture. However, it doesn't mean its sustainable. If you are hungry all the time, you can stay on the diet for some time, but not forever. Since insulin is the primary storage hormone, reducing it will make you less fat (just look at type 1 diabetics). We now know that carbs are the highest promoters of insulin, that fat has 0 influence, and protein some. We have drugs like metformin or GLP-1 that brute force some of it and they are working.

So, we know that sugar is mostly bad and that fat and protein are not. Ofc, some fats are bad for other reasons (by promoting inflamation) but that has nothing to do with obesity.

Post reply on HN