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

271–280 of 537 posts

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

#271

Post by tsimionescu »

jorblumesea wrote: post #220
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.

there are literally thousands of studies. there's no real scientific debate amongst people that know what they are talking about. Red meat, and any food high in saturated fats, are awful for your heart. full stop. that includes sausage, steak, ham, butter, etc. the people eating "lean steaks" are fooling themselves. There's no such thing as "clean beef" it all has high amounts of bad fats. Are some worse than others?…

There is very little science in nutrition, despite the existence of thousands of studies. There are huge gaps in even the basics of nutrition understanding, and we are constantly discovering new confounding variables. Some dietary fibers were being counted as carbs as late as the 2000s. The huge impacts of the gut microbiome on digestion of food has barely been recognized in the last 10 years, and we still basically know nothing about it. Inter-personal variations in base metabolic rates and/or absorption of nutrients from food is gigantic, with basically no known reasons for it (some of the difference is tied to muscle mass, but even if you eliminate differences in muscle mass, there are still large differences that remain), and no inclusion in common models and dietary recommendations.

I'm not trying to say that red meat is good for you. I'm just saying we have no real idea, and you really shouldn't trust a doctor about any of this stuff any more than you should trust the latest health influencer crackpot. Try things out, see if you can eat similarly to people you know who are in good health, and get blood work done regularly to see if you're ok. Probably avoid highly synthesized foods.

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

#272

Post by qsera »

jacobthesnakob wrote: post #105
qsera wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I find it more productive to search for and financially support such businesses, rather than adopt the doomer pessimistic anticapitalism take... But sadly, many order of magnitude more people would like to just make more money when invest. Which is why.. >Unfortunately a lot of these honest businesses are one generation away from potentially selling out everything the founders built, > rather than adopt the doomer p…

>many order of magnitude more people would like to just make more money when invest Blame them (the consumers) then. This is like that silly Reddit/Twitter stat about 10% of companies creating 90% of global emissions… which the companies are doing in the process of making the shiny cell phones and laptops all the consumerists lambasting them are posting from, plus all the plastic crap they buy every day from Amazon.…

cant blame the consumers who are brainwashed by the ads that uses every weakness in human nature to create phantom needs, making up artificial demand for things..

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

#273

Post by stuffn »

lostlogin wrote: post #233
al_borland wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eating nothing but processed foods, sugar, and heavily processed grains? That sounds like the opposite of what Kennedy recommends, which is a recipe for obesity and type 2 diabetes. He’s got his problems, many of them, but eating real food without a bunch of processing seems like a fairly common sense thing.

Is this with or without the increase in saturated fat he recommends? Or more red meat? Health policy decisions would ideally be based on some sort of evidence, not the quackery he spouts. Yes, some of his changes are an improvement. Most aren’t. https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/5675784-kennedy-satura... https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rfk-jr-upsets-foo...

[flagged]

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

#274

Post by citizenpaul »

zamadatix wrote: post #86
rendaw wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$50k in 2016 dollars.

You're correct, but for some reason heavily downed at the moment (Edit: no longer the case!). Relevant excerpt backing this up: > the sugar industry paid the Harvard scientists the equivalent of $50,000 in 2016 dollars I.e. it was something more like 6k-7k in terms of dollars at the time of payment.

Did you know the average bribe accepted for a politician is something like 5K (This was from a few years back so probably higher now). So yeah this is totally within bribe limits.

As a unrelated note it really is depressing to think about how easy it is to buy off politicians and how much money the bribers have vs an average person.

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

#275

Post by ipv6ipv4 »

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…

> And the research was out there! Does everybody only read this single Harvard literature review? Does nobody read journals, or other meta studies, or anything? Did the researchers from other institutions whose research was criticized not make any fuss?

They did. But Ancel Keys, one of the bribed researchers, author of the infamous seven countries study that laid the groundwork against fat made it his life’s mission to discredit anyone who researched sugar. He effectively made the topic academic suicide. His primary target, that served as a warning example for others was his contemporary in the U.K. John Yudkin.

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

#276

Post by youarentrightjr »

TehCorwiz wrote: post #269
youarentrightjr wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> If it died due to disease

We're discussing roadkill bear. Meaning a bear that was killed on the road (by a vehicle).

It's technically true that it still could have any of the scary afflictions you mention, but that's no different than any hunted game, or any industrially farmed animal.

Barring prions or poisoning (incredibly and quite rare, respectively), all of those issues can and would be evaluated by someone who intended to consume the animal.

I'm curious if you consume meat, and if you've ever been involved in the slaughter or processing of animals.

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

#277

Post by dizzant »

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

The scientific report is much more detailed: https://cdn.realfood.gov/Scientific%20Report.pdf

I agree with siblings that nothing jumps out (to my non-expert eye) as "very extreme".

EDIT: Removed long-winded snark after a more careful reading of the linked document.

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

#278

Post by worik »

ceejayoz wrote: post #207
brians wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In my country the lowest fat milk has added lactose.

It did twenty years ago, when I noticed, I have not bought it since

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

#279

Post by flatline »

giantg2 wrote: post #161
DetectDefect wrote: post #70

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.

Dairy is completely unnecessary, for one. Its prominence on the plate makes everything else immediately suspect. There are probably some axes along which a glass of milk or cup of (unsweetened) yogurt is one reasonable option but that's not what is being promoted here.

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

#280

Post by ademup »

deadbabe wrote: post #223
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…

But there is also the fallacy where some people want you to believe basically everything will cause CVD and there is no single thing you could do to change it, so therefore just keep doing whatever you’re doing.

I call this the "Everything in Moderation" fallacy. From what I've heard people who say it, they emphasize the everything part of it. In other words almost everything is bad for you so just eat a little bit of everything and you won't get too much of the bad stuff. It's maddening.
Post reply on HN