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

451–460 of 537 posts

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

#451

Post by D-Machine »

tsimionescu wrote: post #189
aldarion wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Okay, where is it? What are the conclusions? Is sugar actually contributing more than fat for CVD in most patients?" Depends on the type of fat, I think. From what I have found out myself, it is trans fats > sugars / simple carbohydrates > polyunsaturated fats > complex carbohydrates > monounsaturated fats > saturated fats. Obesity really exploded when consumption shifted from butter towards margarine and vegetable…

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…

This. The amount of faith in nutrition "science" indicates severe science illiteracy in the public.

In general there are way too many confounds, and measurement is far too poor and unreliable (self-report that is wrong in quality and quantity; you can't track enough people for the amount of time where supposed effects would manifest), there is almost zero control over what people eat (diets and available foods even considerably over a decade for whole countries, never mind within individuals), and much of the things being measured lack even face/content validity in the first place (e.g. "fat" is not a valid category, and even "saturated vs. unsaturated" is a matter of degree, and each again with different kinds in each category).

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 the rare results of natural experiments / famines), 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).

Maybe it'll become actual science one day, but that won't be for decades.

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

#452

Post by p0w3n3d »

Sugar got into all the meal we have, and because it is so addictive, we went for it. Fatty meals are more healthy, especially for me, but will get you sick in no time, unless you eat healthy fats (olive oil, olives especially). The trans fats are carcinogenic

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

#453

Post by D-Machine »

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…

Nutrition science is not science in almost any of the ways a real science needs to be, and there is almost zero "real, good science" to be found in it. The reasons this statement is true (as well as the precise qualifications of the exceptions to this) are well laid out by tsimionescu in response to your post.

The measurement, control, confounds, and even basic concepts are atrocious here, this is possibly the only field as bad as or even worse than e.g. social psychology. And this is all ignoring the massive economic interests involved.

It is in fact only science illiteracy that would lead one to think nutrition science is a serious science. At the most absolute charitable, it is a protoscience like alchemy (which did have some replicable findings that eventually led to real chemistry, but which was still mostly nonsense at core).

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

#454

Post by bagels »

platevoltage wrote: post #369
knowitnone3 wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find Diary to be completely unnecessary and was paid for by the diary industry.

Absolutely. The human body was not meant to process the milk of other animals.

What was it meant to process? Why have some of us evolved tolerance for lactose?

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

#456

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#457

Post by astrostl »

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…

> That doesn't seem like enough to entirely shape worldwide discourse around nutrition and sugar.

IDK, see the "BLOTS ON A FIELD?" by Science ("A neuroscience image sleuth finds signs of fabrication in scores of Alzheimer’s articles, threatening a reigning theory of the disease") or "The 60-Year-Old Scientific Screwup That Helped COVID Kill" by Wired (regarding the anti-scientific refusal to acknowledge it as airborne) for a couple of recent examples. Once underlying assumptions stop getting questioned, I think anything is at least possible.

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

#458

Post by tsimionescu »

themk wrote: post #439
tsimionescu wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

Dietary cholestrol hasn't really been overturned, but sure there is some nuance. Some people do respond badly to dietary cholestrol (like you said, individual advice is sometimes required), but dietary cholestrol is also not a linear response afaiu. That is, if you eat one egg a day, you may as well eat 4, but if you can completely eliminate dietary cholestrol it could make a difference. So, many guidelines don't bot…

The guidelines haven't changed, but they should be. The association between cholesterol and CVD is specifically related to blood cholesterol levels. However, in healthy individuals, blood cholesterol levels are not strongly impacted by dietary cholesterol choices - since cholesterol is synthesized in the body, there is homeostasis, and higher cholesterol intake leads to lower rate of synthesis, maintaining the same blood levels.

However, some individuals suffer from a bad regulation of this homeostasis, and for them dietary cholesterol does lead to persistent high levels of blood cholesterol as well. So the guidelines should apply for them, but not for everyone else.

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

#459

Post by tsimionescu »

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…

There are so many differences in lifestyle between the regions that they studied and other places that it is absurd to attribute the outcomes confidently to the diet. Especially when stress is a well known CVD risk in itself.

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

#460

Post by tsimionescu »

andor wrote: post #361
kortex wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Sugar (and all of its downstream phenomena - diabetes, insulin resistance, the ease in which sugar adds calories without satiation signals) is well established to contribute to CVD. Long-chain (animal based) sat fat and trans fat is also well established to contribute to CVD. The high calorie density of fatty foods plays a big role, as does the overall palatability and "eatability" of low fiber, high fat, high s…

Sugar doesn't cause insulin resistance or (type 2) diabetes. Both are a result of being overweight. Of course, you can get overweight by eating too much sugar, but it's really about not eating too many calories long-term, regardless of the source. And of course, refined sugar isn't healthy at all and consumption should be kept to a minimum, outside of exercise.

There are many people with type 2 diabetes that are not overweight; and also many people with overweight and even obesity who do not develop type 2 diabetes. The estimate is that around 537 million people have diabetes worldwide, while overweight and obesity is estimated to affect 1.1 billion people.
Post reply on HN