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

341–350 of 537 posts

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

#341

Post by jorblumesea »

tsimionescu wrote: post #271
jorblumesea wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Says you? because that's not what cardiologists, nutritionists and doctors say. around the world. there's a ton of real, good science from many countries that show a very clear link between increased saturated fat intake, CVD and LDL-C levels. It's not really in question.

You are essentially hand waving away 80+ years of scientific studies and data because...you said so?

> you really shouldn't trust a doctor about any of this stuff any more than you should trust the latest health influencer crackpot.

This is an insane take and thoroughly discredits anything you have to say. Science has some basis in reality, even if it is somewhat flawed. The idea that we should throw out all science food guidelines because it's not perfect is completely crackpot.

I have no idea why nutrition brings out the crazy left field engineer types but it's a common pattern.

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

#342

Post by united8932 »

lfliosdjf wrote: post #340

Has any one successfully code with same focus after cutting sugar? Seems sugar is really important for focus. Whats your experience?

Been coding while fasting on keto and it's absolutely amazing. Fasting is hard socially, being ketogenic puts a bit more stress on my kidneys, but for me (adhd) it's amazing.

remember your brain can run on ketones which provides a more stable energy than glucose spikes. the brain is metabolically flexible, can run on glucose, ketones or lactate

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

#343

Post by cestith »

jibe wrote: post #232
ceejayoz wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Skim/lowfat milk just... takes the cream out. The same rule changes tightened the rules on added sugar.

Taking the cream out is (by some diet theories) bad. The fat in whole milk slows down the absorption of lactose, leading to a slower rise in blood glucose compared to skim milk. Whole milk is more satiating as well, because of the fat. If you are trying to have some reasonable balance of fat, protein, and carbs in your diet, pushing kids from whole to skim milk is going to move the diet towards consuming more sugar/c…

Skim milk is not "low fat". It is fat free. In the US milk labeled as low fat is 1% or 2% milk fat (usually 2%). Whole milk is around 4%. Skim milk rounds to 0%.

2% milk is a pretty good balance.

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

#345

Post by flatline »

giantg2 wrote: post #291
flatline wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I see it as more of a limit than a requirement. After all, you can technically satisfy your dietary needs with vegetables and eliminate fruits. But we aren't talking about technicalities and edge cases, rather what a balanced diet might consist of. For many people that does include dairy and fruits, even if neither are completely necessary.

I would gently suggest that you may be blinded by a cultural bias here, which has partly been formed by the dairy lobby over the course of every living American’s lifetime. While it is true that we are not the only culture that drinks cow’s milk, it is predominantly a Northern European and later American phenomenon, and the number of people who are intolerant to dairy on some level is very high. I’m not saying a balanced diet cannot consist of dairy, but implying it should, as the plate diagram does, is highly misleading and outright paid for.

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

#346

Post by BobbyJo »

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…

Your entire argument here applies in the other direction as well. You do not need dietary saturated fats, and sugar has all sorts of uses biologically.

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

#347

Post by stanford_labrat »

ceejayoz wrote: post #317
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

my own institution launched an internal investigation into a professor who i know for a fact committed fraud and was "unable to prove intentional wrongdoing". academic institutions have taken the "this never happens because we are morally pure" approach which we all know is a load of baloney, they are perversely incentivized to never admit fraud.

the witness and reportee who i am friends with was directly instructed by this professor to falsify data in a more positive light in order to impress grant funders. multiple people were in attendance in this meeting but even that was not enough to see any disciplinary action.

duke also has a notorious reputation for being a fraud mill.

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

#348

Post by aldarion »

jorblumesea wrote: post #341
tsimionescu wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Says you? because that's not what cardiologists, nutritionists and doctors say. around the world. there's a ton of real, good science from many countries that show a very clear link between increased saturated fat intake, CVD and LDL-C levels. It's not really in question. You are essentially hand waving away 80+ years of scientific studies and data because...you said so? > you really shouldn't trust a doctor about an…

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28442474/ https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/51/15/1111

Matter of the fact is that the entirety of belief that saturated fat "clogs the arteries" was based on the epidemiological studies which failed to adjust for other risk factors such as trans fat intake, intake of processed foods, and many more.

We should not throw away "80+ years of scientific studies and data" because... said "80+ years of scientific studies and data" do not exist. Not a single actual study had ever been made. The best we have are epidemiological studies, and these have massive issues.

"This is an insane take and thoroughly discredits anything you have to say. Science has some basis in reality, even if it is somewhat flawed. The idea that we should throw out all science food guidelines because it's not perfect is completely crackpot.

I have no idea why nutrition brings out the crazy left field engineer types but it's a common pattern."

It is not an insane take, you are just being a dumbass. Doctors do not have any training in nutrition. When I asked my doctor - doctors, actually, plural - for dietary advice, literally all of them told me "I don't have knowledge to advise you on that, figure it out on your own".

Science has basis in reality, yes. But doctors aren't scientists.

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

#349

Post by tsimionescu »

jorblumesea wrote: post #341
tsimionescu wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Says you? because that's not what cardiologists, nutritionists and doctors say. around the world. there's a ton of real, good science from many countries that show a very clear link between increased saturated fat intake, CVD and LDL-C levels. It's not really in question. You are essentially hand waving away 80+ years of scientific studies and data because...you said so? > you really shouldn't trust a doctor about an…

In any other domain, I would agree with you 100%. But nutrition science really is that bad, in my experience and opinion. With some exceptions (e.g. the need for vitamins to avoid things like scurvy, or the relationship between salt intake and blood pressure), even long-standing nutrition beliefs and practices have been overturned (e.g. consumption of cholesterol, or the discovery of the role of dietary fiber), and some of the newer research is likely to overturn others (e.g. with the role and diversity of gut microbiomes, it's likely other nutrition advice will depend to some extent on your specific microbiome).

The reason for this is fairly simple to see: the methods of science that work so well in other areas of biology are completely impractical in nutrition because of

1. The difficulty of ascertaining and maintaining compliance with a specific diet for a long term study

2. The very long-term effect of some food choices

3. The unknown degree of inter-personal variance in food consumption

4. The expected low effect size of dietary recommendations

5. The huge variety of possible dietary effects

6. The huge amount of possible confounding factors in any population-level study

As you'd expect from this combination, the only effects we really have good science about are those that are relatively fast acting (e.g. salt intake increases BP in less than a day) or have very strong effect sizes (e.g. lack of vitamins or certain amino-acids produces severe diseases). For things like life-long effects, or even effects over multiple years, especially where the correlation is slight, you're left with very unclear science where the unknown possible confounding factors dominate any conclusion.

Edit to add: even today, there is a clear disconnect in nutrition science between people who advocate mostly for relatively simple guidelines and the avoidance of processed foods, usually recommending a preference for vegetables over animal-based products; and the older style of guidelines that you suggest, that say a grilled steak is much worse for you than, say, a stevia-sweetened granola bar you'd buy in a super market.

Post reply on HN