Sugar industry influenced researchers and blamed fat for CVD (2016) • Hacker News Board

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

#441

Post by nearbuy » Thu, Jan 08, 2026, 4:23 AM UTC

casualrandomcom wrote: post #171

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…

I don't know why this was re-posted today (kind of suspicious that this floats again after 10 year just by chance) anyway, there is a full citation-heavy book by Gary Taubes about this, and one of his points was that the sugar industry paid 2 million in 1970's dollars to create the nutrition department of Harvard, which was the first nutrition department in the world. (This was to say that nutrition science itself ha…

The department of nutrition at Harvard was founded in 1942.

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

#442

Post by themk » Thu, Jan 08, 2026, 4:29 AM UTC

D-Machine wrote: post #435

themk wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When people say "fat" is bad for you, they mean saturated fat. Mediterranean diet is quite low on saturated fat, while still having the good fats.

Cochrane systematic reviews should make you seriously question whether the Mediterranean diet really is much good at all - hard data is inconclusive and low quality [1]. In general we really even barely have enough nutritional knowledge to say if the term 'good fats' even makes much scientific sense, but broad and vague things like "Mediterranean diet" are just total nonsense, from the standpoint of serious nutrition…

That seems to be searching for RCT's, which, I'm not surprised would struggle to replicate. Most of these had a duration of less than 5 years, while dietary related health outcomes are the result of decades of following a pattern. It's possibly also unethical, in some cases (i.e. the existence of effective LDL lowering medication would likely complicate things).

Many people seem to disregard epidemiology, especially when it comes to nutrition (I think because it tends to support unpopular positions). But epidemiology has performed some excellent feats in the name of public health: cholera, smoking, pfao.

It is unfortunate that the large time-lines on these things make more rigor difficult, but I wouldn't throw out the epidemiology.

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

#443

Post by bruce511 » Thu, Jan 08, 2026, 4:35 AM UTC

buu700 wrote: post #366

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…

You're right that extrapolating from one flaw to claim wholesale debunking is a common logical fallacy: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Logic-C... . Where I'd suggest you go too far is implying that saturated fat and sugar are similarly bad. Technically you do hedge the claim with "excess", which is effectively a tautology, so the claim isn't outright false. You also don't qualify whether you mea…

I think the benefits of "low fat" may have been dulled by how literally people took that message, and what companies replaced the fat with.

Most available "low fat" products compensated by adding sugar. Lots of sugar. That way it still tastes nice, but its healthy right?

Just like fruit juice with "no added sugar" (concentration via evaporation doesn't count) is a healthy alternative to soda right?

In truth your body is perfectly happy converting sugar to weight, with the bonus that it messes up the insulin cycle.

At a fundamental level consuming more calories than you burn makes you gain weight. Reducing refined sugar is the simplest way to reduce calories (and solves other health issues.) Reducing carbohydrates is next (since carbs are just sugar, but take a bit longer to digest). The more unprocessed the carb the better.

Reducing fat (for some, by a lot) is next (although reduce not eliminate. )

Both sides want to blame the other. But the current pendulum is very much on the "too much sugar/ carbs" side of things.

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

#444

Post by crm9125 » Thu, Jan 08, 2026, 4:35 AM UTC

Aerroon wrote: post #391

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…

I would caution that just because your body can make something doesn't mean it will have optimal performance when doing so. People in ketosis do have worse peak performance in sports than those that eat more carbs/sugar.

True, but also what performance are we optimizing? Do I want to be able to run faster, hit harder, lift more, etc..?

Or do I want to live longer?

They aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, but different actions could result in different outcomes for each.

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

#445

Post by buu700 » Thu, Jan 08, 2026, 4:51 AM UTC

bruce511 wrote: post #443

buu700 wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right that extrapolating from one flaw to claim wholesale debunking is a common logical fallacy: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Logic-C... . Where I'd suggest you go too far is implying that saturated fat and sugar are similarly bad. Technically you do hedge the claim with "excess", which is effectively a tautology, so the claim isn't outright false. You also don't qualify whether you mea…

I think the benefits of "low fat" may have been dulled by how literally people took that message, and what companies replaced the fat with. Most available "low fat" products compensated by adding sugar. Lots of sugar. That way it still tastes nice, but its healthy right? Just like fruit juice with "no added sugar" (concentration via evaporation doesn't count) is a healthy alternative to soda right? In truth your body…

Agreed, this is a big part of the problem. The average person doesn't have anything resembling a coherent mental model of nutrition, and vague conflicting nutritional advice only adds to the confusion. The average person doesn't even know what a carb is, much less understand the biochemistry of how their body processes one.

Does "reduce fat consumption" mean a proportional reduction (i.e. increase carb/protein consumption) or an absolute reduction (i.e. decrease overall caloric intake)? In either case, what macros and level of caloric intake relative to TDEE are the assumed starting point? Who knows, but the net effect has been multiple generations hooked on absurd concentrations of sugar and UPFs.

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

#446

Post by D-Machine » Thu, Jan 08, 2026, 4:58 AM UTC

themk wrote: post #442

D-Machine wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cochrane systematic reviews should make you seriously question whether the Mediterranean diet really is much good at all - hard data is inconclusive and low quality [1]. In general we really even barely have enough nutritional knowledge to say if the term 'good fats' even makes much scientific sense, but broad and vague things like "Mediterranean diet" are just total nonsense, from the standpoint of serious nutrition…

That seems to be searching for RCT's, which, I'm not surprised would struggle to replicate. Most of these had a duration of less than 5 years, while dietary related health outcomes are the result of decades of following a pattern. It's possibly also unethical, in some cases (i.e. the existence of effective LDL lowering medication would likely complicate things). Many people seem to disregard epidemiology, especially…

Epidemiology should generally be disregarded when it comes to nutrition.

There are exceptions when there are rare natural experiments (e.g. I forget the country, but the European one where some issue caused all flour for the country to be only whole-wheat, which led to clear nutrient deficiencies due to the phytic acid there) but in general there are way too many confounds, and measurement is far too poor and unreliable (self-report that is not just quantitatively but qualitatively wrong, and you can't track enough people nearly long enough), there is virtually no control whatsoever (diets and available foods shift considerably over just decades), and much of the things being measured lack even face/content validity in the first place (e.g. "fat" is not a valid taxon, and even "saturated vs. unsaturated" is a matter of degree).

We are missing so much of the basics of what are required for a real science here I think it is far more reasonable to view almost all long-term nutritional claims as pseudoscience, unless the effect is clear and massive (e.g. consumption of large amounts of alcohol, or extremely unique / restrictive diets that have strong effects), or so extremely general that it catches a sort of primary factor (too much calories is generally harmful, regardless of the source of those calories).

But even setting that aside, you can't define or study "Mediterranean diet" rigorously even in RCTs, so I don't see how you can think you are going to get much of anything here from epidemiological work that is going to lead to anything practically actionable.

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

#447

Post by nearbuy » Thu, Jan 08, 2026, 5:02 AM UTC

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…

To add another data point: I love sweet things and eat a lot of desserts and sugar. I'm in my late 30s, and I've never had a cavity or weight issues. My BMI is around 21.

I'm not recommending sugar; my point is that anecdotes mean very little for this type of general diet advice.

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

#448

Post by pcblues » Thu, Jan 08, 2026, 5:14 AM UTC

Not sure if this has been posted (I see stephenwoo has mentioned him further down), but it's a break-down of how sugary foods damage the body, particularly fructose.

It's 16 years old about 30 years of previous research.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

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

#449

Post by themk » Thu, Jan 08, 2026, 5:17 AM UTC

D-Machine wrote: post #446

themk wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems to be searching for RCT's, which, I'm not surprised would struggle to replicate. Most of these had a duration of less than 5 years, while dietary related health outcomes are the result of decades of following a pattern. It's possibly also unethical, in some cases (i.e. the existence of effective LDL lowering medication would likely complicate things). Many people seem to disregard epidemiology, especially…

Epidemiology should generally be disregarded when it comes to nutrition. There are exceptions when there are rare natural experiments (e.g. I forget the country, but the European one where some issue caused all flour for the country to be only whole-wheat, which led to clear nutrient deficiencies due to the phytic acid there) but in general there are way too many confounds, and measurement is far too poor and unrelia…

Notably, the epidemiological study people like to dump on the most, largely did use natural experiments (i.e. they chose regions, that, at the time, had very traditional diets, without the convenience of supermarkets to mess it all up). They also didn't rely solely on food surveys, but actually measured the meals.

But all that aside, I don't actually follow a Mediterranean diet, and agree that one has to be careful here, because it is not well defined (or, it might be in some circles, but that differs from what the general population might expect).

The only reason I mentioned it was in response to

> The Mediterranean diet is regarded as quite healthy by many health professionals but, it is also high in carbs and fat.

Where I was pointing out that the fats in the Mediterranean diet (by pretty much every measure of what it means to be a Mediterranean diet), are not saturated, and it is usually saturated fats that are considered "bad".

That is, all I was trying to do was clear up the (common!) confusion about fats (they are not all the same).

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

#450

Post by D-Machine » Thu, Jan 08, 2026, 5:30 AM UTC

themk wrote: post #449

D-Machine wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Epidemiology should generally be disregarded when it comes to nutrition. There are exceptions when there are rare natural experiments (e.g. I forget the country, but the European one where some issue caused all flour for the country to be only whole-wheat, which led to clear nutrient deficiencies due to the phytic acid there) but in general there are way too many confounds, and measurement is far too poor and unrelia…

Notably, the epidemiological study people like to dump on the most, largely did use natural experiments (i.e. they chose regions, that, at the time, had very traditional diets, without the convenience of supermarkets to mess it all up). They also didn't rely solely on food surveys, but actually measured the meals. But all that aside, I don't actually follow a Mediterranean diet, and agree that one has to be careful h…

Fair, the term may have been well-defined and measured in the original study, or in some specific circles. I was definitely thinking of the meaningless general thing "Mediterranean diet" has metastasized into today.

I also think it is better, rhetorically, to not draw support for the badness of saturated fats / differences of different fats by referencing the Mediterranean diet, since this rather looks like drawing upon narrow / weak science to support something that is in fact much more broadly supported by a larger variety of more careful work.

But yes, it is very important that people recognize there are huge differences here!