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

521–530 of 537 posts

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

#521

Post by aldarion »

andor wrote: post #359
TuringNYC wrote: post #321

As a child of the 1980s, I feel so cheated that we were told to eat "5 servings of grains a day" pointing to bread and pasta -- when so many breads have added sugar and so much pasta has added sugar in the sauce. How did no one speak up? Would people ever have spoken up if we didnt have social media?

Bread with sugar in it is problematic, but that doesn't mean all bread is bad. That would be like saying that boiled potatos are as unhealthy as french fries. Or rolled oats vs. sugary industrial cereals. Whole grains are actually really healthy. Bread and pasta are staples in France and Italy, and still they are much healthier than the US. In France, there's nothing wrong with a baguette from a bakery (or even from…

Staples, but eaten in very small quantity, at least in France. As for Italy, Italians actually have massive problems with obesity, especially in children, precisely due to their consumption of bread and pasta. Traditional Italian diet is massive on vegetables, fruit and meat (fish and pork in particular), with bread and pasta being basically side dishes. But that is not what Italians are eating now, and so they've gotten sick as well.

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

#522

Post by jqpabc123 »

timerol wrote: post #215
jqpabc123 wrote: post #193

Which will make you fatter? A) Eating a pound/kg of fat B) Eating a pound/kg of refined sugar Correct answer: B Sugar enters your blood stream almost immediately --- starting in your mouth. Unless you're doing heavy exercise and burning lots of calories, your body has to store most of this excess energy --- as fat. The only way to get consumed fat into your bloodstream is to first convert it into sugar --- which itse…

Note that a kg of fat contains about 9000 calories, while a kg of sugar contains about 4000 calories, so this is really a startling claim, if true

It is about more than just the calorie content of the food.

Unless your digestive system is hyperactive, a lot of this huge glob of fat will likely just pass right through without being absorbed into your bloodstrean.

The refined sugar is virtually guaranteed to fully hit your bloodstream and right now. It's enough to send some people into a life threatening diabetic coma.

After eating a pound of fat, you may want a nap but dying from it is extremely unlikely.

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

#523

Post by aziaziazi »

aldarion wrote: post #520
aziaziazi wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> plants have so few calories You mean leafs, not plants? Cereals, beans, fruits and some roots have plenty of calories but your true fatty friends are all sorts of seeds and nuts. You also can buy their fat extract: oil.

It is not just issue of raw calories but how much body can absorb. Fruitarians for example tend to be corpse-skinny despite fruit being full of sugar, because most of that sugar simply passes through. So effective calories are less than what sugar content would indicate. But grains and seeds do seem to be quite obesogenic, yes.

I add the word "obesogenic" to my toolbox, love how it sounds!

I don't know Fruitarians but what you describe makes sense. However the vegans I know aren't "Hungry all the time". Some are skinny and some fatty but I wouldn't say the average are skinny, you wouldn't stare at their size if you don't know their diet. Might be a personal bias though, I don't know studies about vegans hungriness or BMI.

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

#524

Post by prmph »

overgard wrote: post #481
prmph wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet you are unavoidably eating micro-plastics too, which have been linked to adverse CV events. Also: - If you are eating more fish (as opposed to eating meat), you are likely consuming more mercury. - If you are eating more fresh veggies you are probably ingesting more pesticides. - If you are easting dark chocolate for its health benefits, you are also ingesting cadmium and other heavy metals. So all the above shou…

Your post sounds like "bad things can happen so why bother". Having a good diet isn't "slavish devotion", it's more like "don't eat something obviously terrible"

Way to totally miss the gist of my comment:

> "don't eat something obviously terrible"

This is an exact thought in the comment.

> "bad things can happen so why bother"

The exact thing I was arguing against.

Jeez, why bother responding if you can't be bothered to read the actual comment I wrote.

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

#525

Post by Aerroon »

krageon wrote: post #462
Aerroon wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> worse peak performance in sports For nearly everyone, this isn't impactful to their life. Only their vanity

Your mind and health are impacted by your physical body. If eating a certain way impacts your physical performance then it might also have effects on your health (and mind) in unexpected ways.

I'm not saying that ketosis has this kind of an effect, but rather that eating or not eating some other things might. Eg vitamin K2. The body is be able to make vitamin K2, but we might have stronger bones and teeth, and a healthier cardiovascular system, if we get extra K2 from an external source.

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

#526

Post by Aerroon »

crm9125 wrote: post #444
Aerroon wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is true, but I don't think our understanding of nutrition is good enough to really pick and choose what we want to optimize for. Eg we still don't have a recommendation on whether we should costume external vitamin K2 or not. The same goes for many amino acids. Some of the non-essential ones can have interesting effects when taken alone, eg glutamine - seems to help the gut lining. (We also don't know whether that's perfectly safe due to cancer risks, because some cancers eat glutamine.)

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

#527

Post by dontlikeyoueith »

DetectDefect wrote: post #70
giantg2 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you find disagreeable about the My Plate that was linked?

I just told you: it's made by food industry interests and is ultimately divorced from actual nutrition science.

How about critiquing the actual recommendation instead of the people?

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

#528

Post by lostlogin »

qsera wrote: post #272
jacobthesnakob wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>many order of magnitude more people would like to just make more money when invest Blame them (the consumers) then. This is like that silly Reddit/Twitter stat about 10% of companies creating 90% of global emissions… which the companies are doing in the process of making the shiny cell phones and laptops all the consumerists lambasting them are posting from, plus all the plastic crap they buy every day from Amazon.…

cant blame the consumers who are brainwashed by the ads that uses every weakness in human nature to create phantom needs, making up artificial demand for things..

Most countries ban direct to consumer drug advertising.

America is one of few places that doesn’t.

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

#530

Post by kudeyar »

jklinger410 wrote: post #307
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…

> There is another fallacy in play where people pushing these debates want you to think that there is only one single cause of CVD or health issues: Either sugar, carbs, fat, or something else. The game they play is to point the finger at one thing and imply that it gets the other thing off the hook. Don’t fall for this game. Okay but right now we're talking about science getting corrupted by money. Which did happen…

indeed, it's such a commonsense matter that i wonder who's the intended audience and whether there's really any issue.

rather like MSM eating its own tail, it's happening way over there and our lives continue irreguardless.

Post reply on HN