[dead]
Sugar industry influenced researchers and blamed fat for CVD (2016)
381–390 of 537 posts
Re: Sugar industry influenced researchers and blamed fat for CVD (2016)
#382When 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…
Correction: they paid at least 2 people, at least $50,000.
Assuming this is true, it's a lower bound. What else has been tried?
Re: Sugar industry influenced researchers and blamed fat for CVD (2016)
#383Earlier quoted context omitted.
You'll find many people claiming almost the exact opposite, just as confidently. Plant fats are generally seen as much healthier, especially olive oil and similar fats. This idea that the combination of macronutrients that a food contains also seems highly suspect - generally people tend to think that macronutrients work independently of each other. The reality is, of course, that we just don't know. Nutrition "scien…
"generally people tend to think that macronutrients work independently of each other" Well, that is obviously the wrong idea. Even basic logic speaks against it: people lose weight on keto diet, people lose weight on vegan diet... so neither protein, fat nor carbs can be causing obesity. But what do foods that we know are obesogenic have in common? 1) They are highly processed and/or 2) they combine fats and carbs in…
I'm skeptical that paleo diet would be healthy for long term. There are studies where they find atherosclerosis in pre-industrial hunter-gatherer remains. It's called HORUS study.
Re: Sugar industry influenced researchers and blamed fat for CVD (2016)
#384Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> Skim milk is not "low fat"
Read the slash as “or”, not “also known as”.
Re: Sugar industry influenced researchers and blamed fat for CVD (2016)
#385A 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…
> The only current advice I follow is avoiding industrially processed food. It is also surprisingly hard in practice. There are so many foods that on the label are supposed to be whole foods or low processed but then when you read the ingredients do you realize you've been bamboozeld.
For me avoiding processed foods is not that hard, I only eat whole foods like vegetables and fruits (where I live there are no labels on these whole foods). I know that this is not doable for most of you, but it can be done if you want.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant-based_diet
Re: Sugar industry influenced researchers and blamed fat for CVD (2016)
#386Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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. See this in the constant "the MSM is imperfect, that's why I trust Joe Rogan or some random `citizen-journalist' on Twitter" nonsense. It's how everything has gotten very stupid very quickly. People note that medical science has changed course on something, therefore t…
They will however recommend sugar, just by calling it something else. See "carbohydrates", "complex carbohydrates", "integral grain" and so on. Quite frankly, plain sugar from fruit is less dangerous than the complex carbs from grains. But fructose is still dangerous, just less so.
Starch is the preferred carbohydrate, since digestion depolymerizes it to pure glucose which can be used directly by cells.
Cane sugar, a disaccharide, is split by digestion into its constituent glucose and fructose molecules, and the latter must be further processed by the liver. It is 50% fructose.
High fructose corn syrup is 55% fructose.
A variety of other sugars, such as maltose and lactose occur naturally in a variety of foods. However, they are in low enough concentrations to not be a health problem.
Re: Sugar industry influenced researchers and blamed fat for CVD (2016)
#387Sorry to say but I see a lot of ill informed takes here on sugar, fats and their 'correlation' with CVD.
To put it bluntly, jut eat maintenance calories with most of it coming from good protein sources and eat good amount of fibre. No, dietary cholesterol isn't gonna kill you, nor is sugar but obviously that doesn't mean you eat tons of them.
And the most important is enough sleep and WORKOUTTTT. 240 min of cardio and resistant training combined. Is that a lot to do?
Why do you need to optimize each and every aspect of each nutrition? "Oh, I don't eat meat because it is correlated to heart disease, so I consume dairy. Oh wait it isnt exactly digestible so I consume vegetables. Oh wait, I will have to eat like KGs and Kgs of veggies to meet the nutrient requirement. Oh wait, that means I am eating tons of carbs". How about you stop brushing your ego and just keep it simple by having a sense of number of calories you want and then eat enough protein from natural sources.
Yeah, for sure if you have any beliefs which prevents you from eating something then by all means find alternatives and have processed food. Processed food is not necessarily bad. Whey protein is processed but it is very important for vegetarians. What grinds my gears is this push to find the ideal diet. Vegans hate carnivores. Carnivores make fun of vegans for eating veggies. Like bro, shut up.
Re: Sugar industry influenced researchers and blamed fat for CVD (2016)
#388Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Average home price in the late 60s was 25k so even if it is equivalent to $50k in 2016 dollars, 25k could still get you further than today in some specific areas.
[deleted]
Re: Sugar industry influenced researchers and blamed fat for CVD (2016)
#389When 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…
[deleted]
Re: Sugar industry influenced researchers and blamed fat for CVD (2016)
#390Earlier quoted context omitted.
The sugar industry (topic of this article) can only be blamed for sugar, though -- not all high-GI foods. And you can replace "sugar" in what I said earlier with "high-GI foods" and it doesn't change a thing. Persistent high blood sugar is diabetes; it isn't dietary.
>Persistent high blood sugar is diabetes; it isn't dietary. how is it not dietary if consuming most carbs spikes your blood sugar for hours, which, with three meals + snacks + starbucks slurry, means elevated blood sugar 20+ hours a day?
It doesn't happen in non-diabetic people. It's different in type 2 diabetics who will see large swings in blood fat and glucose after meals.