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

411–420 of 537 posts

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

#411

Post by tfirst »

uniqueuid wrote: post #296
throwway120385 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But is it the actual sugar, or the habits surrounding consumption of the beverage?

That's pretty easy. If you have a randomized controlled trial, the sugar dose is varied and other confounding variables are controlled by randomization. So you measure the causal impact of sugar only. There are studies showing that. With observational studies, if you have a dose-dependent effect, then that's good evidence (although not completely conclusive) of a causal relationship. This is what many studies do. If…

Observational studies, and meta analyses relying on them, don't resolve the fundamental problem of causal inference. The best you can do without an experiment is a really clean natural experiment, but those are rare. It's hard to credibly establish a causal relationship without a robust experiment.

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

#412

Post by NetMageSCW »

pydry wrote: post #299
entropicdrifter wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If propaganda was illegal, who would decide what was propaganda and what was simply argumentation made from positions of relative ignorance?

The courts could easily decide whether a message has been paid for or not.

All messages are paid for by someone.

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

#413

Post by mr_toad »

fasterik wrote: post #328
wan23 wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny you should say that after today's FDA announcement. (Not taking any side here just interested in how we determine what is a consensus these days)

It's hard, because when an issue becomes politicized everyone has their own preferred "consensus". I would say it should come from the scientific community, not government agencies. Sometimes government agencies agree with the scientific consensus, but not always. My go-to source for nutrition information is Understanding Nutrition by Whitney and Rolfes.

> everyone has their own preferred "consensus"

For some people choice of diet really does seem core to their identity. It’s literally all the OP ever posts about.

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

#414

Post by BobbyJo »

ajanicij wrote: post #376
BobbyJo wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That is only partly true: you don't need dietary saturated fats, but you do need essential fats (omega-3 and omega-6), which are polyunsaturated. However, sugar does not have all sorts of uses biologically; it has only one: as one (but not the only one) source of energy.

It isn't just a source, it is also a storage mechanism, both in the liver and in muscle tissue.

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

#415

Post by paulryanrogers »

StackRanker3000 wrote: post #378
ademup wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I call this the "Everything in Moderation" fallacy. From what I've heard people who say it, they emphasize the everything part of it. In other words almost everything is bad for you so just eat a little bit of everything and you won't get too much of the bad stuff. It's maddening.

The way I understand it (and my understanding is certainly poor, so I welcome well-supported pushback on it), is that few, if any, components in the food that we in developed countries eat today are actively harmful in themselves (with the caveat outlined below) The main issue is overconsumption leading to overweight and obesity. Food that’s high in refined sugars and/or saturated fats tend to contribute to this, bec…

By volume most of the food in modern western grocery stores is unnaturally sugary or otherwise calorie dense.

You have to restrict yourself to produce and a few scant other options to escape with balanced nutritional products.

They even advertise cereals as a "part of a healthy breakfast". Which is a lie under any circumstances, because it's never a healthy part if you eat it long term. (Yes it could keep you from starving to death in a famine, still not 'healthy'.) Imagine if they could only say "it will keep you from starving, and may significantly contribute to diabetes"

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

#416

Post by overgard »

fasterik wrote: post #301
overgard wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 carbo…

Carbohydrates are sugars (from the first sentence on wikipedia): "A carbohydrate (/ˌkɑːrboʊˈhaɪdreɪt/) is a sugar (saccharide) or a sugar derivative." Saying you need "50-75% of your energy from [sugar]" illustrates why that is a somewhat odd statement. Yes, glucose is much better than fructose, but eating a ton of glucose will still lead to high insulin spikes and inflammatory diseases. Complex carbohydrates are better in that they take longer to digest, not because they're magically different. Vegetables are good for nutrients not because you need their carbs.

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

#417

Post by antiframe »

D-Machine wrote: post #305
antiframe wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Okay, so as expected liquid fats are much harder to work with and lead to an inferior flake. But, I assumed it was nigh impossible to do. If I can get 20% of the way there with olive oil I would be at least willing to try.

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

#418

Post by FloorEgg »

fasterik wrote: post #328
wan23 wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny you should say that after today's FDA announcement. (Not taking any side here just interested in how we determine what is a consensus these days)

It's hard, because when an issue becomes politicized everyone has their own preferred "consensus". I would say it should come from the scientific community, not government agencies. Sometimes government agencies agree with the scientific consensus, but not always. My go-to source for nutrition information is Understanding Nutrition by Whitney and Rolfes.

There is a third option: looking at the diets of your closest ancestors with the best longevity.

There may be a misconception that there is one single best diet for everyone, when in reality we people (over generations) evolve with our diets, and your best diet and my best diet may be completely different.

The problem with using science as a guide is that there are just too many variables and not enough time, data and money to isolate them all sufficiently.

However that is distinct from the idea that too much of something like refined sugar might be unhealthy for just about everyone. So science does have an important role to play, I just don't think it's advanced far enough to fully answer the question for everyone.

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

#420

Post by NoPicklez »

oxag3n wrote: post #335

Do your own research, it's not that hard: * Select a subset of diets that might fit your lifestyle. * Make a list of categories you consume: refined sugars, all kinds of fats, gluten, dairy. * Look for published papers on diets and categories. I did a few dramatic changes throughout my life based on researches I did, not the hype. The first one was refined sugars for me and my kids - they didn't have a single cavity…

It's fairly basic nutrition education that cutting out or reducing refined sugar intake will reduce cavities and reduce body fat. It's all about the amount you consume them in amongst the rest of your diet.

It's not new evidence, science or research that says you should reduce your refined sugar intake.

Post reply on HN