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

311–320 of 537 posts

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

#311

Post by D-Machine »

aziaziazi wrote: post #112
bregma wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ever spread lard on toast? Do you prefer croissants made with lard? Is everyone's favourite dish these days lard chicken (I mean the Indian dish, not the Soul Food dish, which is of course popular in some locales). Nope. Butter is favoured because it tastes unctuous. Nothing to do with Big Cow or any special interest lobby local to certain valleys in the USA. Except maybe Big Bacon Drippings, because if there's one t…

> 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.

Butter is NOT favored because most people had it in their youth, but because of its extremely distinct flavour.

"Unctuous" is certainly not specific enough, the reason butter (and ghee) is so delicious is its butteriness, i.e. it has a highly distinct taste. All properly rendered animal fats have highly distinct tastes and serve different purposes. Schmaltz tastes slightly of chicken, duck fat of duck, lard of pork, and tallow of beef.

But butter does NOT distinctly taste of beef, rather, it is reminiscent of slightly-aged milk (or, in the case of ghee, it may even strongly smell like certain kinds of aged cheese). There is, also, in butter, significant absorbed water content, and, to my palate, even a very subtle acidity that is not quite present in other rendered animal fats that give it a sort of brightness that make it work in things like butter-creams and other delicate or mild flavours (e.g. popcorn).

It is IMO this specifically "non-meaty" unctuousness that is the real draw of butter. Not some childhood nostalgia.

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

#312

Post by TehCorwiz »

youarentrightjr wrote: post #276
TehCorwiz wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

No, we're discussing a bear that was dead by the road. There's never been a claim it was killed by a vehicle. He found the bear long after whatever occurred did. Also, he then dumped it in central park, so even he thought it wasn't "good meat".

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

#314

Post by TehCorwiz »

electrograv wrote: post #282
TehCorwiz wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

While the mental image of eating roadkill is also unappetizing to me, I have to admit my reaction here is irrational. Eating roadkill isn’t much different from eating wild game you hunted — except with roadkill, it was someone else and their car that killed it accidentally, rather you and a gun intentionally.

If you didn't see it die you don't know what it died of. Shooting something healthy and then dressing it while fresh is different from finding windfall after some unknown amount of time.

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

#315

Post by boston_clone »

morshu9001 wrote: post #258
kenferry wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Er, how does putting your faith in literally vibes (MAHA) follow. Just complete rejection of expertise and science.

Yeah, I completely reject nutritional science. Even without bribes involved, there are just too many complexities for them to draw useful conclusions. Ignored the food pyramid too.

You should try the carnivore diet and completely eliminate Vitamin C intake to prove them scientists wrong! Scurvy is just a complex myth, after all. Just like rickets, or blindness from Vitamin A deficiency.

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

#316

Post by snemvalts »

al_borland wrote: post #151
lostlogin wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you do the opposite of whatever Kennedy recommends, you probably wouldn’t be too far off doing the right thing.

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.

Red meat (a known carcinogen) at the top is gold. All that saturated fat the energy will come from (not from protein or veggies) will probably cause heart problems and plaque formation in arteries, not to mention insulin resistance just from increased FFAs in blood.

Vegetarians and vegans have lower T2D incidence on average FWIW.

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

#317

Post by ceejayoz »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #309
ceejayoz wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I don't disagree, but it appears Duke did investigate in that case, and was unable to prove intentional wrongdoing.

I am glad it takes more than mere suspicion for the government to go search my private writings and possessions.

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

#318

Post by _heimdall »

lostphilosopher wrote: post #29
_heimdall wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't public school lunches have to follow the food guide recommendations? Assuming that hasn't changed since I was in school, a recommendation based on something other than industry lobbying could help quite a bit with children's health and long term outlooks. That said, I obviously don't know what this administration would propose as a new recommendation so I'm not implying it will be better. We'd have to see what…

Food pyramid was taught when I was in school, but that was before 2011 (as mentioned by another commenter) my own children are in school now and their school lunches align with more modern ideas (veggies and proteins). Certainly could still be improved but I recognize the cost, scale, delivery constraints, plus allergy considerations makes this non-trivial.

Same, I was just assuming the MyPlate recommendations were similarly expected for public schools to follow.

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

#319

Post by _heimdall »

Mountain_Skies wrote: post #89
_heimdall wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't public school lunches have to follow the food guide recommendations? Assuming that hasn't changed since I was in school, a recommendation based on something other than industry lobbying could help quite a bit with children's health and long term outlooks. That said, I obviously don't know what this administration would propose as a new recommendation so I'm not implying it will be better. We'd have to see what…

When people say that SNAP (food stamps) should "only be able to buy healthy foods", they have to be reminded what the government considers to be healthy and just importantly, what the government considers to be unhealthy. Since SNAP is a government program, it almost certainly would use government guidelines on what is healthy.

I often hear that argument raised in response to the idea of SNAP covering things like sugary drinks and foods. I'm not sure how SNAP could follow guidelines and also pay for sugary drinks or candy (if those claims are accurate).
Post reply on HN