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

301–310 of 537 posts

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

#301

Post by fasterik »

overgard wrote: post #288
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…

I think common sense here can be a guide though. You don't need sugar at all, excluding high levels of anaerobic exercise. Your liver can produce the glucose your body actually needs from other sources (gluconeogenesis) and a lot of your tissues that use glucose also can use fatty acids or ketones. Fructose isn't needed at all. ("low blood sugar" isn't a symptom of not consuming enough sugar, it's a symptom of a disr…

That has nothing to do with whether excesses of those nutrients cause cardiovascular disease, though. The general consensus is that the healthiest diet is one with 5-10% of total calories from saturated fat. For most people, it's necessary to restrict saturated fat to land in that range. We also need to distinguish between sugar and carbohydrates. Again, the general consensus is that intake of sugar and refined carbohydrates should be minimized, while 50-75% of total calories should come from sources of complex carbohydrates like vegetables, beans, and whole grains.

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

#302

Post by barbazoo »

Spellman wrote: post #285
dizzant wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't see anything extreme, but the primacy of proteins (and especially meat-based protein) and dairy seem suspicious considering the broader rhetoric coming out.

I wonder if a US economy would be able to function if people at scale ate more healthily and sustainably. That would mean less of most things and more of vegetables, legumes, greens, all that unsexy stuff that is much less labour and energy intensive.

The second order effects of not having to grow food for our food, and grow food for ourselves in the first place instead are probably too negative.

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

#304

Post by lostlogin »

stuffn wrote: post #273
lostlogin wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]

> Since you present no actual evidence.

It’s his food pyramid and his departments advice.

https://cdn.realfood.gov/DGA.pdf

As for him being a quack, that’s earned through his refusal to follow scientific guidance, and sacking the guidance available. You’re presumably aware of his views on fluoride and vaccines.

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

#305

Post by D-Machine »

antiframe wrote: post #201
aziaziazi wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Butter is favoured because it tastes unctuous Oily stuff tastes unctuous. Butter is favored because most people had it in their youth. Some regions loves Nato and Chicken feet, others cheese and oysters. What's the most delicious? It depends of your own history. I spread olive oil on my toast and prefer the croissants made with that as well. My favorite dish is fried tempeh.

Today, I am one of the Ten Thousand [1] that learned you can make croissants with olive oil. Thank you for that! I've always assumed the laminated dough required solid fats, but apparently any layering of fat and flour can make flaky goodness. I am guessing that liquid fats are probably harder to work with, and croissants are already tricky enough to get right: but I must try. [1]: https://xkcd.com/1053/

Yes, lamination can be done with almost any fat, but the more you laminate (more layers / folds), the more that liquid fats sort of absorb into the dough, and stop having the desired separating effect. So while oil layering works well for e.g. paratha-style roti, scallion pancakes, and things that only really get one or two "layers" or "folds", oil is just fine. But when you get to something like a croissant, or even just a rough puff pastry (e.g. https://www.seriouseats.com/old-fashioned-flaky-pie-dough-re...), liquid fats are usually a complete non-starter.

You might be able to achieve something if you can somehow freeze your olive oil and chill your dough, and work very quickly during lamination, but you should, even with a lot of work and tweaking, still expect to get a noticeably inferior product for something like croissants.

Depending on how picky you are/not, you might still be personally happy with the texture and taste, but don't expect to get even remotely close to an actual good butter croissant, by more objective standards. Here in Canada we had a minor problem with the butter texture due to what we feed our cows here ("buttergate"), and this was preventing professional bakers from achieving quality croissants with just the Canadian butter. This should make you highly skeptical that you can get anything good with something as different as olive oil.

Still, I do love the idea of an olive oil croissant, it would be delicious.

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

#306

Post by immibis »

ceejayoz wrote: post #219
stanford_labrat wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the greatest travesty of modern science is that fraud is not illegal. in every other industry that i can imagine, purposely committing fraud has been made illegal. this is not the case in modern science, and in my opinion the primary driver of things like the replication crisis and the root of all the other problems plaguing academia at the moment.

It's not legal, but intentional misconduct can be tough to prove. https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/professor-charged-op... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Poehlman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Reuben > in every other industry that i can imagine Our own industry (tech) is rife with unpunished fraud.

Note both those guys were found guilty for taking government money under false pretenses (to do with fake science, not for doing fake science, which is more supporting evidence that fake science is legal.

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

#307

Post by jklinger410 »

Aurornis wrote: post #52
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…

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…

> There is another fallacy in play where people pushing these debates want you to think that there is only one single cause of CVD or health issues: Either sugar, carbs, fat, or something else. The game they play is to point the finger at one thing and imply that it gets the other thing off the hook. Don’t fall for this game.

Okay but right now we're talking about science getting corrupted by money. Which did happen in this instance, so that companies could hide the damage that sugar does to people.

Sugar does damage and scientists were paid to downplay that fact. It is not the first time. This is concerning when we talk about principles and public trust.

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

#308

Post by ceejayoz »

immibis wrote: post #306
ceejayoz wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not legal, but intentional misconduct can be tough to prove. https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/professor-charged-op... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Poehlman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Reuben > in every other industry that i can imagine Our own industry (tech) is rife with unpunished fraud.

Note both those guys were found guilty for taking government money under false pretenses (to do with fake science, not for doing fake science, which is more supporting evidence that fake science is legal.

The government funds an enormous proportion of research, and they've got a lot more power to do something about it when you make them mad.

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

#309

Post by JumpCrisscross »

ceejayoz wrote: post #242
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> intentional misconduct can be tough to prove It's hard to prove when it isn't investigated. How many of the debunked psychology professors took federal funding? How many have been criminally investigated?

> How many of the debunked psychology professors took federal funding? But being wrong isn't a crime. Intentional fraud is. > It's hard to prove when it isn't investigated. And it's hard to investigate without some reasonably solid evidence of a crime.

> it's hard to investigate without some reasonably solid evidence of a crime

I’d say the Ariely affair is reasonably suspicious.

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

#310

Post by [deleted] »

llmslave wrote: post #94
StopDisinfo910 wrote: post #46

A casual look at where people live the oldest, what they eat, and what's recommended tell you all you need to know about food recommendations then and now. It's a field where actual long term controlled experiments are impossible, confounding variables are everywhere, and multiple lobbies have vested interests in the outcomes. I take everything with a grain of salt apart from studies of harm when sources are credible…

This is a complete myth. Human populations are not homogenous, gene pools that relied on agriculture for the last 10k years are completely different than hunter gatherer populations. You have been lied to

[deleted]
Post reply on HN