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

61–70 of 537 posts

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

#61

Post by CodeWriter23 »

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…

You could buy a house and a 69 Charger for $25K in the 60's with a tidy sum left over.

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

#62

Post by __0x01 »

My understanding was that atherosclerotic plaques are comprised of cholesterol or fatty deposits [1] and that these can lead to CVD.

The fat mechanism I understand, but what is the mechanism for sugar in CVD?

[1] https://www.heart.org/en/health-topics/cholesterol/about-cho...

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

#63

Post by ok123456 »

CodeWriter23 wrote: post #61
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…

You could buy a house and a 69 Charger for $25K in the 60's with a tidy sum left over.

take me back

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

#64

Post by smileysteve »

giantg2 wrote: post #33
alphazard wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is a lot of speculation that we will soon see a new food pyramid that is inverted. Pretty much everyone I know understands that the food pyramid is the product of various lobbies coming together and does not represent a legitimate theory of diet or nutrition. That is independent of their politics or opinions about RFK. I don't think a change to the food pyramid would change anyone's actions, people haven't ta…

"Pretty much everyone I know understands that the food pyramid is the product of various lobbies" Maybe adults, but probably not the people who were taught the food pyramid - children. Edit: changed the tense to acknowledge this was in the past. Thought that was obvious since the food pyramid was a thing of the past.

Anecdotally, only the "health focused" people around me understand that the food pyramid was for a different time and based on other interests.

And I don't think adults on a grand scale question it, or process nutrition labels.

Boomers in particular (who engrained Gen x and millennial diets) are most likely to follow grains (and margarine) diets.

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

#66

Post by biophysboy »

bluGill wrote: post #41
biophysboy wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What annoys me the most is that sat fat is a huge way that sugary products are made more palatable to people. People love butter. It is every chef's 2nd favorite tool, just after salt.

Butter is only a favorite because Lard has been some demonized that no chef would ever use it anymore.

Chefs use animal fats all the time. They think about cooking temperature, flavor, etc to make decisions.

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

#68

Post by slicktux »

I feel like the same thing is happening now… processed foods have less sodium and I feel are more sugary. I don’t live a sedentary lifestyle…I need salt for hydration and muscle contraction. I find the new nutrition guidelines for sodium lacking.

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

#69

Post by rendaw »

CodeWriter23 wrote: post #61
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…

You could buy a house and a 69 Charger for $25K in the 60's with a tidy sum left over.

$50k in 2016 dollars.

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

#70

Post by DetectDefect »

giantg2 wrote: post #57
DetectDefect wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Court has actually ruled that the USDA violated federal law by hiding conflicts of interest in the Dietary Guidelines. It is beyond insane that these are the official guidelines on what Americans should eat. Why would anyone defend them?

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.
Post reply on HN