Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–307 of 307 posts

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

#301

Post by rjf72 »

wallace_f wrote: post #297
rjf72 wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason things like leaded fuel, cigarettes, DDT, CFCs (freon), and countless other conspiracies were so egregious is because 'influencers' were able to convince authoritative figures and the media to conspire in misleading the public. People, as in unaffiliated individuals, ought be free to believe whatever they want to. The problem is when authoritative figures are saying things they don't actually believe, gene…

People will probably deride me for saying this, but there's a legitimate criticism to be made of the ability for reasonable people to question global warming alarmism. In my mind, I dont believe people have changed. People are still religious, our priests are just getting smarter at it by making more sensible crusades (and one that has legitimate environmental and especially world-security implications with respect t…

I'd tend to agree, but I wonder if it's not really our priests getting better or smarter - but rather that this is the first time that the internet has brought issues to everybody's front door. For instance we all know about leaded fuel and can tell the stories of what happened, but I don't think anybody can imagine what it would have been like to really experience such a thing, let alone to actively interact with others on the topic. And stories are also always going to be told with hindsight bias, even when trying to avoid such things.

Whatever the outcome of things like global warming, I just hope that the internet leaves more of a living record that people can try to learn and understand what it was like to experience this while living through it. We need many more organizations like archive.org. They, in the long run, may be providing one of the most relevant services in our society today. Here [1] is an archive of this site from 12 years ago. Outside of historical record it's also just remarkably interesting browsing. Now imagine when that is from 100 years ago, or 1000.

[1] - https://web.archive.org/web/20070221033032/http://news.ycomb...

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

#302

Post by dalore »

Udik wrote: post #283
ericd wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m guessing they mean they’re oftentimes from seeds.

And seeds are not vegetables?

Vegetables are really usually seed oils like sunflower oil and so aren't vegetables at all really. Although you can get oils from the vegetable part of the plant. They are called vegetable oils though and not seed oils as a marketing ploy to help sell them. To make them it involves an extreme process which leaves them volatile and so when cooked transform into so many strange and potentially damaging components.

Hence you would rather use more stable animal oils like fat or oil from process that aren't so extreme like olive oil, avocado oil, coconut oil etc.

Calling them vegetable oils is a misnomer to help sell them. I bet just like in the original article, and just like transfats, it will come to light that these mass selling "vegetable" oils are also damaging. It took 90 years for them to admit transfats were bad and now replaced animal fats with vegetables oils.

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

#303

Post by dalore »

inertiatic wrote: post #252
dalore wrote: 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.

Big community on reddit about it https://www.reddit.com/r/zerocarb

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

#304

Post by zorga »

james_s_tayler wrote: post #109
zorga wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fail to see it's remotely related.

It's a short-sighted, unhelpful attitude that's gone out of fashion because people realize how short-sighted and unhelpful it is.

Those people are ignorant; self responsibly never goes out of style.

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

#305

Post by zorga »

tomhoward wrote: post #153
zorga wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> it's not anyone else's fault Nobody's saying it's all somebody else's fault. The only valid position to hold about this topic is that it's complex and multi-faceted. Sure, self-discipline and personal choices are a factor - but the issue of what influences people's ability to exert self-discipline and make healthy choices is a vast and little-understood topic in its own right. Whatever the case, if a child is raise…

> Nobody's saying it's all somebody else's fault.

Yes they are.

> The only valid position to hold about this topic is that it's complex and multi-faceted.

Incorrect. That's a valid position, it's certainly not the only one.

> the carb-dependent metabolism they end up with by the time they reach adulthood will most certainly complicate their ability to make healthy choices.

Nonsense, your metabolism is not set in stone, they can simply change their diets and if they don't, no one is to blame but them for their continued unhealthiness.

> Why do you hold a different position regarding sugar?

Sugar isn't remotely comparable to those two; they're restricted to minors because they're lethal drugs, sugar is not.

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

#306

Post by lurker_primo »

masonic wrote: post #148
bluejekyll wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yogurt is fairly easy to make at home, especially with electric pressure cookers like instant pot. Then you can guarantee what goes into it.

Where do you get cultures (or determine which are naturally present)?

If you look at the box, it'll say active culture present. Any yoghurt with active culture will do. Once you have your first batch ready, you can reuse it.

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

#307

Post by tomhoward »

zorga wrote: post #305
tomhoward wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's not anyone else's fault Nobody's saying it's all somebody else's fault. The only valid position to hold about this topic is that it's complex and multi-faceted. Sure, self-discipline and personal choices are a factor - but the issue of what influences people's ability to exert self-discipline and make healthy choices is a vast and little-understood topic in its own right. Whatever the case, if a child is raise…

> Nobody's saying it's all somebody else's fault. Yes they are. > The only valid position to hold about this topic is that it's complex and multi-faceted. Incorrect. That's a valid position, it's certainly not the only one. > the carb-dependent metabolism they end up with by the time they reach adulthood will most certainly complicate their ability to make healthy choices. Nonsense, your metabolism is not set in ston…

> Yes they are.

Please link to their comments.

>Incorrect. That's a valid position, it's certainly not the only one.

It is when you're talking about an organic system like a human body or any evolved system in nature.

> they can simply change their diets and if they don't, no one is to blame but them

No they can't; this is the entire point. If they could, they would, and metabolic illness would simply cease to be a problem rather than being one of the most pernicious problems in all of medicine.

> they're restricted to minors because they're lethal drugs, sugar is not

The evidence suggests otherwise.

But what's it to you anyway? What's your motivation for being utterly dogmatic and uncompromising, rather than engaging in a good-faith examination of the evidence?

Post reply on HN