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.
Sugar industry influenced researchers and blamed fat for CVD (2016)
261–270 of 537 posts
Re: Sugar industry influenced researchers and blamed fat for CVD (2016)
#262My 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...
Re: Sugar industry influenced researchers and blamed fat for CVD (2016)
#263Earlier 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.
Re: Sugar industry influenced researchers and blamed fat for CVD (2016)
#264This 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?
Re: Sugar industry influenced researchers and blamed fat for CVD (2016)
#265Earlier 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.
Re: Sugar industry influenced researchers and blamed fat for CVD (2016)
#266When 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…
> 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)
#267The 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
> 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)
#268Re: Sugar industry influenced researchers and blamed fat for CVD (2016)
#269Earlier 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.
Re: Sugar industry influenced researchers and blamed fat for CVD (2016)
#270Earlier 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…
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.