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

531–537 of 537 posts

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

#531

Post by devilsdata »

aldarion wrote: post #494
devilsdata wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It recommends eating more saturated fats from dairy and meat, both of which are very bad for CVD.

Saturated fat isn't bad for CVD, unless you eat it together with carbohydrates.

This is dairy/meat-industry misinformation. Both industries really don't want you to give up those foods, so they pay to sway studies. If you want to know the truth about saturated fat, ask your cardiologist which foods they think contribute to cholesterol, high blood pressure, and therefore CVD.

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

#532

Post by devilsdata »

nomel wrote: post #461
themk wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really wish people would stop sharing that article as if it means anything. Nina Teicholz is not who you should be getting your science from. Her views are not the scientific consensus. She is not a scientist, she is a journalist with an agenda. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nina_Teicholz

Fair enough! I was not aware of that. But she's far from the only one. There appears to be a wall of meta-analysis stating the same, but again, I'm naive and just googling.

Diary and beef are huge industries, with the processors dominating the industry. Vegetable, legume, and grain processors are much more fragmented.

The dairy and beef industry can and do pool their money into paying for scientific studies [to show the results they want]. This manifested itself with a coordinated attack on the Ancel Keys studies.

So just reading meta-analyses saying the inverse is not going to help you arrive at the truth, when the well has been poisoned. I personally don't have the literacy to sort fact from fiction, but I know that cardiologists tend to believe the Ancel Keys studies. That's enough of a recommendation for me to believe it to.

Plus I was able to reduce my cholesterol from like 7.0 to 2.4 by eating high fibre and low saturated fat for about 6 months.

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

#533

Post by boston_clone »

game_the0ry wrote: post #476
kenferry wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Er, how does putting your faith in literally vibes (MAHA) follow. Just complete rejection of expertise and science.

Bc that "expertise" was bought and paid for which is why we have a food pyramid that does more harm good.

we have a food pyramid again? since when?

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

#534

Post by aldarion »

BobbyJo wrote: post #414
ajanicij wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That sugar however is produced by the body itself.

Technically speaking, dietary requirement for sugar is 0. This doesn't mean it isn't useful to have some, but it definitely shouldn't be the basis of the food pyramid.

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

#535

Post by aldarion »

devilsdata wrote: post #531
aldarion wrote: post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saturated fat isn't bad for CVD, unless you eat it together with carbohydrates.

This is dairy/meat-industry misinformation. Both industries really don't want you to give up those foods, so they pay to sway studies. If you want to know the truth about saturated fat, ask your cardiologist which foods they think contribute to cholesterol, high blood pressure, and therefore CVD.

That would be simple carbohydrates, aka sugars.

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

#536

Post by lithocarpus »

aziaziazi wrote: post #469
lithocarpus wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean I've seen "low calorie bread" that was basically industrial bread cut with cellulose which is analogous to very fine sawdust.

Cellulose is one of the main constituant of plants and as a fiber, great for your gut: > In human nutrition, cellulose is a non-digestible constituent of insoluble dietary fiber, acting as a hydrophilic bulking agent for feces and potentially aiding in defecation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulose Workshop sawdust would be a bad idea though.

I'm dubious about the idea that the cellulose additive is no different than eating plants. The forms that are used in food are refined / modified, i.e. not the same thing that I eat when I eat plants. I know a few people who react very badly to this added cellulose but don't have issues eating plants.

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

#537

Post by kenferry »

game_the0ry wrote: post #476
kenferry wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Er, how does putting your faith in literally vibes (MAHA) follow. Just complete rejection of expertise and science.

Bc that "expertise" was bought and paid for which is why we have a food pyramid that does more harm good.

The part I do not understand is why you then DO buy MAHA. Why is completely making things up better?

If you think nutritional science is too unreliable, I can see that perspective. The conclusion then should be “I don’t know” not “trust the people who argue with psychological techniques instead of science”.

Post reply on HN