[HN Gopher] 50 Years Ago, Sugar Industry Quietly Paid Scientists... ___________________________________________________________________ 50 Years Ago, Sugar Industry Quietly Paid Scientists to Blame Fat (2016) Author : mgh2 Score : 352 points Date : 2021-02-13 19:52 UTC (3 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.npr.org) (TXT) w3m dump (www.npr.org) | geofft wrote: | Previous discussions of this article and related ones, if you're | curious: | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18944011 | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12480733 | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11444941 | | As a side note, I recently remembered the existence of | SnackWell's (they're still around a bit, I just haven't seen them | in stores lately) - which were sold as "healthy" because they had | no fat. But they were cookies! And full of sugar! | 762236 wrote: | Exercise, and you don't have to worry nearly as much about sugar | or other foods. Your exercise should probably include high- | intensity for carb oxidation, and low-intensity for fat oxidation | (zone 2, for at least 90 minutes). The diets people try are hacks | to avoid exercise, and to work around the mitochondrial | dysfunction that results from insufficient exercise. Worry about | diet when exercise isn't sufficient. We've evolved to eat lots of | carbs. When you deplete your glycogen stores, which I do multiple | times a week, you have to eat carbs like crazy. Carb restriction | hurts athletes. | michannne wrote: | Diet is most important, you can exercise as much as you want | but if you're eating 2 Big Macs for every meal you won't last | long on this Earth. Most diets I agree are supplements that are | designed to make people "feel good" without doing the extra | effort to track the foods they are eating. Maybe you mean meal | plans/diet plans, because actual dieting is really what slims | you down/bulks you up | GuardianCaveman wrote: | I have gone from 33% body fat to 22% in 7 months. It has been | purely through moderate calorie restriction but eating the same | stuff. I used to swim and do CrossFit and it was so hard to | lose weight because I would inevitably have an injury that | would prevent me from working out and would lead to weight gain | until a few weeks. I have been unable to lose weight for 12 | years because I focused so much on exercise and diet when | really just doing diet was the key. Once I get to my goal body | fat percentage I plan on starting exercising a lot again but | until then it's just 8k steps or so a day. I do agree people | try diets to avoid exercise but most people I know do both when | trying to lose weight. | quickthrower2 wrote: | My experience is exercise makes less difference for weight loss | than diet. Calories in calories out. A choco bar take a decent | run to burn it off. | | I agree exercise is good but being fatigued I have relied | mostly on diet to lose weight. I really enjoy running though so | it's a bit sad. | mathiasrw wrote: | So important info for people who wants to understand our current | health crises. | | This, and the normalization of frying with plant based oils that | denaturalize at those temperature seems to me equivalent to how | the romans society was led poisoning themselves because most | kitchenware like spoons and pots were made of led. | mauflows wrote: | Can you expound on the plant based oil part? | erdewit wrote: | Most seed-based oils contain a lot of linoleic acid, for | example sunflower oil has 65%. It is an essential fatty acid, | but the average consumption nowadays is way too high. It | oxidizes easily which leads to health problems when too much | of it is incorporated into cell and mitochondrial membranes. | | Plant oils such as those from olive, coconut, palm, cocoa or | avocado have much less linoleic acid. | ip26 wrote: | Plant based oils often have low oxidation temperatures, and | oxidized oils are not particularly healthy. Saturated fats | usually have higher oxidation temperatures making them more | suited to high temperature cooking. | fantod wrote: | What qualifies as plant-based? I always use peanut oil | because I heard it has a high smoke point. | ip26 wrote: | Peanut oil is a pretty good choice for high heat pan | frying. The makeup is really what matters- saturated, | polyunsaturated, monounsaturated, etc. | | Although for what it's worth my life got a lot better | when I learned roasting, braising, simmering, reductions, | etc and stopped trying to pan fry everything. | majidazimi wrote: | EVOO, Ghee (from grass fed butter), Coconut oil, Avocado | oil, Sesame oil, Tallow, Lard and Butter (from grass fed | animal) is all that you should be eating. Everything else | belongs to trash bin. | bitkrieg wrote: | Polyunsaturated fats have many unstable double carbon bonds, | so especially under heat a wide range of new fat compounds | form which were never present in the human diet. | f6v wrote: | Is it fine if I use olive oil? Italians seem to have | exceptional health. | buu700 wrote: | No. Olive oil is great, but don't put it in your deep fryer. | I like to use ghee, personally. | odiroot wrote: | Yes, as long as you're not heating it until it smokes. | amit9gupta wrote: | The problem with olive oil is that because of its' popularity | it is often adulterated (with seed-oils, often at source). So | do your research before you buy. | xwdv wrote: | NO. Different oils are meant to be cooked at different | temperatures. Find the right one for your use case. | ip26 wrote: | It doesn't seem like Italian cooking has much high | temperature pan frying. | hntrader wrote: | Yeah, extra virgin olive oil is one of the good ones and | there's a sizeable research literature which backs that up. | You can consume it liberally. Make sure you buy it in a dark | glass container (since it's UV sensitive) and it should leave | an itchy feeling in your throat after you swallow a teaspoon. | Olive oil fraud is rather common and this is a method to | detect that. There's some sites which analyse EVOO and rank | them based on the above factors, I just pick the best brands | from that list. | | Common advice is to avoid seed oils - the cheap stuff used in | restaurants such as canola oil. We didn't evolve with this | stuff, it contributes to inflammation and is generally not | good for you, but is used because it's cheap and not illegal | yet. | Pyramus wrote: | > Common advice is to avoid seed oils - the cheap stuff | used in restaurants such as canola oil. | | I'd say common advice is to avoid cheap (refined) oils | rather than seed oils. Point in case linseed oil is | arguably even healthier than olive oil. Sunflower oil (cold | pressed) is a great source of Vitamin E (in moderation | because of omega 6:3 ratio). Cold pressed rapeseed oil | (canola) is great, too. So is pumpkin seed oil ... | mkoubaa wrote: | I don't like that we call the macronutrient "fat". We don't call | protien "muscle". | | I think we'd be healthier if we officially renamed fat to lipids | rco8786 wrote: | We call it "Vitamin F" in our house. | masterofmisc wrote: | It would be better if "fat" was renamed to "fuel" because | that's exactly what it is. Fuel for the body. | quickthrower2 wrote: | What about hydrogenated carbon, for extra confusion. | gizmo686 wrote: | So is sugar... | noir_lord wrote: | Protein as well, Our bodies roughly prefer to burn sugar, | fat then protein but if all that's available is protein | we'll metabolise that (including our own in starvation | scenarios). | aYsY4dDQ2NrcNzA wrote: | Also ethanol. 7 kcal per gram. | brianwawok wrote: | Basically rocket fuel for our body on a Friday night. | quickthrower2 wrote: | And protein! | [deleted] | 11thEarlOfMar wrote: | The lies we are told go on and on. The only defense seems to be a | combination of strong analytical skills and healthy skepticism of | all information we consume. | | Some other examples you already know: | | - Big tobacco and lung cancer, cigarettes sold has healthy for | decades [0] | | - Big Auto and seat belts, they fought mandatory seat belts for | decades [1] | | - Big sugar (this article) | | - Big Media and the apparent massive degradation in truthfulness | of the 2010's | | It seems that the truth can be purchased at the right price from | the right organizations. | | Teaching analytical skepticism needs to become a core curriculum | for our schools. | | [0] | https://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/16/6/1070#:~:text=Seni.... | | [1] https://www.wpr.org/surprisingly-controversial-history- | seat-... | sgtnoodle wrote: | And most of the time when you point it out on social media, you | get downvoted and censored! | polote wrote: | > Big Auto and seat belts, they fought mandatory seat belts for | decades | | The linked article doesn't mention any lie. It was mostly some | people saying that it should be up to the person to decide | whether or not he wants to wear a belt. | eplanit wrote: | And to me one of the worst, also recently covered by NPR: the | big lies we were told about plastic being recyclable[1]. | | [1] https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/897692090/how-big-oil- | misled-... | fsflover wrote: | And anti-GMO lobby: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically | _modified_food_cont.... | [deleted] | markbnine wrote: | Good documentary on this: https://frontlinetv.com/plastic- | wars-full-film | merb wrote: | well the thing is, it's not impossible to recycle plastic, | but the article also explains that really simple: | | > Recycling plastic is "costly," it says, and sorting it, the | report concludes, is "infeasible." | | 1. no infrastructure for sorting, there is no 100% method as | of today (basically no research is done on this topic) 2. | even if it is feasible, nobody does it becasue it is | expensive. 3. there are countries where plastic recycling | works, but these are outliners and countries who heavily | invest in sorting, recycling on the consumer side. | 88840-8855 wrote: | This is super interesting to me. Can you help out? | | - what infrastructure is needed for sorting? - what | countries are successfully doing that? Taiwan? - can | "expensive" be quantified? | mkoubaa wrote: | It requires human labor so it is expensive in countries | where that is expensive. In countries where it is cheap | there it isn't prioritized by the public, who | ubderstandably instead want better paying jobs | vmception wrote: | > It seems that the truth can be purchased at the right price | from the right organizations. | | Yes, this is an instruction manual. | wwww4all wrote: | The lies go on because the establishment media is paid to do | propaganda for establishment big business. | | Jeff Bezos owns Washington Post. The biggest companies own the | media distribution channels, Disney, google, facebook, etc. | | Think about that fact when you see all the people being | censored and deplatformed. | | Think about why the establishment media shouts out racism 24/7, | when using anti trust to break up big companies will help all | races by improving their economic status? | | Why is establishment media fermenting animosity amongst the | lower classes, while the establishment people are getting | richer by the second? | mncharity wrote: | > The lies [...] The only defense seems [...] strong analytical | skills [...] skepticism | | Those skills seem unaffordable to many. Suggesting this defense | unpacks as belief in conspiracies. Which does seem a widespread | strategy in low-trust societies, but doesn't seem helpful. | | But I'm reminded of recycling's misdirection, encouraging | people to act as an individuals to mitigate damage, rather than | collectively through representative government to prevent it. | | Perhaps the most impactful recent measure to increase | truthfulness in US society, was making corporate officers | personally liable for misleading statements? How might that be | improved upon? | | And there seem divergences between self image and action, with | respect to honesty, among many US subcultures. Potentially | providing leverage for change? | ta8645 wrote: | And 50 years from now, what will the story be about say Corona | virus, or global warming? Why are we so sure that this time | everything is on the up and up? For instance Big pharma stands | to make billions of dollars on the back of Corona, so it's not | like they're just our disinterested saviours. | | Maybe everything is exactly as it is reported on the news and | by the politicians. I mean, they have a great track record so | we should probably trust them. | | But how is everyone so damn sure? I look at the history of | manipulation like outlined in this story and am now mostly | unmoved by the demands that we "listen to the science" when | used as a cudgel. | readflaggedcomm wrote: | Because science. | ta8645 wrote: | I'm not sure if you meant that sarcastically? The very | point of the examples given above is that "the science" | isn't a fixed beacon of shining truth. It is an idealized | process overseen by flawed and biased humans with their own | personal agendas. We often fall short of the ideal, and are | led astray by those claiming to have the truth supporting | their demands. | | How do we know today is any different than those examples | above? | d26900 wrote: | Yes, powerful lobbying organizations not only had success with | the food industry, but with things like Brexit too. | | There's also an interesting finding[1]: | | "Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and | organized groups representing business interests have | substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, | while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have | little or no independent influence. The results provide | substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination | and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of | Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism." | | [1] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on- | poli... | amelius wrote: | The main problem is we can't blame any kind of conspiracy | theorist anymore when there is so much BS science in the things | we eat and nobody in power seems to care. | Ekaros wrote: | I would argue even that those in power have setup the system | to produce BS science. Maybe inadvertently... | | Research output is in the end one main criterias that we | measure. Actual quality of it not so much. Thus science is | driven to deliver publications. Now how valid these are is | open to questions. And how many of them actually prove the | mechanisms behind the findings? Probably comparatively fewer | to those describing some correlation. | DenisM wrote: | Don't forget alcohol. There was a period where every single | movie had the main characters sipping big round glasses of red | wine every day. And of course all the studies and articles | about red wine being good for you. This became so normal we | don't even think about it. | naebother wrote: | Wonder what the lie is today? | godelmachine wrote: | Add to that - | | 1) Red wine is good for health is consumed little daily. | | 2) WHO preaching at the start of the pandemic that everyone | doesn't need to wear masks. | steve_adams_86 wrote: | I think the WHO wasn't intentionally lying here - the other | examples appear to be cases where a truth was hidden in order | to promote/protect a product (lobbying for sugar to be | considered a health food for example). | | We do need to be critical of what's told as truth in social | or personal circumstances, for sure. I just sincerely doubt | the WHO intended to harm people by making that claim. | dxgarnish wrote: | So, I've got a highly speculative hypothesis that BIG COFFEE | will have a similar tobacco-like health event in the future. | These are my semi-conspiratorial circumstantial evidences: | | 1. It's basically burnt bean water. Roasted is just a marketing | term. | | 2. The constant rate of "New Study Finds Coffee Improves | [insert health benefit]" articles | | 3. The incredibly powerful forces (industrial, corporate, | personal) that would hold back such an event | | I'm not willing to defend this hypothesis, but I would love | some steel-manning | aYsY4dDQ2NrcNzA wrote: | > It's basically burnt bean water. Roasted is just a | marketing term. | | So, does that make toast "basically burnt bread"? | danesparza wrote: | I think you know the answer is "yes". | xwdv wrote: | Steaks are just basically burnt meat. | a_t48 wrote: | Ideally they aren't | wombatpm wrote: | Knock the horns off and make sure it doesn't moo was how | my grandfather ordered his steak | Teever wrote: | I know an acquaintance who refers to bread as raw toast. | SilasX wrote: | And they're both pointless, fallacious (non-)insights. | Argument from inflammatory reframing? It doesn't change the | facts on the ground. If you like the taste and/or | psychoactive effects of coffee, relative to the cost, drink | it! The fact that you can call it burnt bean water | shouldn't matter to that. | dendrite9 wrote: | I think it means toast is "basically burnt seed mush" | | I'd be curious about the coffee studies compared to how | people consume coffee. So many people seem to drink theirs | with a lot of cream and sugar. | burundi_coffee wrote: | > It's basically burnt bean water. Roasted is just a | marketing term. | | I take offense to this line. Roasting is a very complex | thing, you have to adjust the roasting curves to each coffee | individually for optimal results, to get the best out of it. | There's more coffee than you might think. | | Search for Specialty Coffee and the Specialty Coffee | Association. You may also watch some of James Hoffmann's | videos on youtube. He's the World Barista Champion of 2007 | and has his own roasting company. Coffee doesn't have to be | bitter or taste burnt, it can be fruity and sweet. There are | more tastes to be found in coffee than in wine. In addition | to that, the community is not filled with as many snobs as | the wine community and there's a lot of science being done on | all kinds of things (for example by the Coffee Excellence | Center in Switzerland). | fartcannon wrote: | That's all really neat, but same went for tobacco. Highly | elaborate and detailed methods for ingesting poison. | | I think alcohol is next, before coffee. But we shall see! | DavidPiper wrote: | I think the cat's already out of the bag with alcohol. At | this point the issue is probably more that people just | like cats. | grawprog wrote: | >I think alcohol is next, | | I doubt it. There's a reason why it was considered an | 'essential item' in a lot of places during the pandemic, | why the soviets gave out vodka rations etc. | | Alcohol's a useful tool for keeping a population | compliant and sedated, people love it, it's super easy to | make, hence why in many places the production and | distribution of it tends to be highly regulated, | otherwise just about anyone could do it, it's big | business and in a lot of places, it brings massive tax | revenues through sales so...I doubt it's going anywhere | any time soon. | | I mean what are they gonna do, ban yeast and sugar? Ban | leaving fruit sitting too long? You can't really ever | stop the production of alcohol. It just kind of happens | naturally. It's not really possible to just ban the | process of fermentation... | quickthrower2 wrote: | I think if people had to drink prison hooch or wait weeks | to brew their own substandard beer, as opposed to | drinking bottled craft beer or tasty wines there would be | less alcohol consumption. | wil421 wrote: | The coffee industry isn't spraying chemicals and | Bronchodilators on their products. At least to my | knowledge. | j45 wrote: | Coffee can be burnt bean water if it's not made well. | | I have a few coffee snobs in my life and they slowly are | helping me see a light. | | I am ok with caffeine being medicinal as needed than | seeking a transcendant experience. | ta988 wrote: | You know, there is a lot more done on the taste and flavors | of wine than for coffee (in term of funding and research | output). And a lot of science with that. In US the research | is almost inexistent, but big at least in Portugal, France, | Italy... | danesparza wrote: | The margins on burnt bean water are insane. Even when | accounting for paying a 'fair wage' to workers in a foreign | country. | ta988 wrote: | We see that most stimulants, legal or not. They don't lead | to fair wage for producers unfortunately. | d26900 wrote: | > The constant rate of "New Study Finds Coffee Improves | [insert health benefit]" articles | | Yep, this has become so inflationary, but it doesn't mean | that studies and findings are invalidated per se. If multiple | (independent) findings come to the conclusion X, then the | correlation becomes stronger and stronger. When the | correlation is strong (multiple findings conclude X), then | you can be reasonably certain that X is likely. Or am I wrong | with this? | DenisM wrote: | > Or am I wrong with this? | | Some percentage of studies will produce random (erroneous) | results, so if one cherry-picks favorable outcomes and | buries the rest an impression can be created to suit any | narrative. Are they cherry-picked? I don't know. What I do | know is that there is a strong demand for positive studies | both the dealers to sell more stuff and from the addicts to | justify their addiction. | d26900 wrote: | Then how would you decide whether a finding/study is | valid or not? What is your modus operandi in that case? | Is there an algorithm for this (for selecting good | studies or for finding the truth)? | DenisM wrote: | Meta-studies are most useful since someone proficient in | the art has taken the trouble to find and analyze all | relevant papers. Often times they also publish the method | they used to discover and discard papers in addition to | the analysis, specifically to avoid selection bias. | | Studies published in reputable scientific journals like | Nature are usually not bogus, especially if they were | already replicated. However applying the results to | everyday life is tricky - one certainly must not assign | more meaning to them than the authors did, but also | probably even less than that. Remember the mantra: the | experiment shows only what the experiment shows, not the | great opportunities you want it to show. | | Note that "nutritional science" is not a hard science, | their track record is abysmal. The nearest hard science | we have to that is microbiology. | | As a rule, all observational studies are junk - too many | hidden variables, etc. There are some exceptions to it, | but you will be best served by just assuming junk. If | you're not willing to discard a particular observational | study at least check if the study controls for obvious | hidden variables - wealth, age, sex, health level, etc. | For example there were "studies" that showed red wine | correlates with good health, and the coverage was that we | should all drink red wine. But guess what - rich people | drink red wine and live longer because rich. Controlled | for wealth, the effect disappears. | d26900 wrote: | Thank you, I really appreciate your input! | Ekaros wrote: | Not to forget for the people doing studies to be able to | publish and deliver something... Losing the income is | quite big incentive to get out studies that at least on | surface look good. | Ekaros wrote: | Also it's very good question of what type of coffee we are | talking about. Black? Espresso? Or the sugar laden version | with various various milk substitutes? | eloff wrote: | The problem with this idea seems to be that lots of studies | show health benefits to drinking coffee. Now maybe it's just | a correlation and not an actual benefit - but you'd be hard | pressed to say it has negative health effects because the | correlation goes in the opposite direction. | samstave wrote: | Lets wait and see what today's Big Vaccine will show in a few | years (Vaccinating 100% of the earths population wherein they | are trying to push vaccine passports now (several countries | in EU are beta-testing the digital passports as I type - with | the help of IBM (in Denmark))) | | --- | | I am not "anti-vax" -- but this shit is unprecedented. | | --- | | When my youngest was getting her shots, she weighed like 20 | pounds and they wanted to give her SIX shots at once... | | When my middle got the Chicken pox vax a few days before we | went to chicago, and she got the fn chicken pox and instead | of enjoying chicago, she had to sit in a calamine bath and we | had to stay an extra week as she couldn't fly. | | She was 3 years old. | | So - I told the DR NO FN WAY you are giving a 20-pound child | SIX FN shots at once. She looked incredulous. | | I said NO - she can have ONE shot per week. After every vax, | she was lathargic for the next few days. | | So yeah Big Vax Babba Yaga is coming | djakaitis wrote: | Your post claims you are not anti-vax and all it states is | how anti-vaccine you are. | samstave wrote: | Reading comprehension: I said I am not anti BAC, but I'm | not going to let them put 6 vaccines in my daughters 20 | pound body all at once | javagram wrote: | " I am not "anti-vax" -- but this shit is unprecedented." | | I'd suggest you hit up Wikipedia and learn about medical | history. The smallpox (eradicated worldwide) and polio | (eradicated in all but a couple countries) vaccine pages | might help you learn that a worldwide vaccination campaign | to stop a dangerous disease isn't unprecedented. | | " I said NO - she can have ONE shot per week. After every | vax, she was lathargic for the next few days." | | So you made her lethargic for 6 times a few days instead of | a few days for just one time. Congrats on that? | | The people who follow the recommended vaccine schedule | don't have any problems, according to scientific studies. | Your concerns appear to be based on FUD you read on the | internet or imagined yourself. | trianglem wrote: | People also roast chestnuts and cashews over a fire. | Marshmallows are also roasted. It's seems like a term | originating in common parlance and not specifically a | marketing term. I seriously doubt coffee is carcinogenic (if | that's what you're suggesting) besides the baseline | grilled/roasted food danger to the stomach/small intestines. | anonisko wrote: | You're forgetting a big one. | | It's a cognitive stimulant that increases worker | productivity. | | So not only does the coffee industry have an obvious, direct | incentive to promote the benefits and downplay any long term | negatives, but EVERY corporate entity and even our government | has an indirect incentive to downplay any negatives. | | A company or society that hypes up it's young worker | population on caffeine will likely out-compete organizations | of humans that don't, even if major health problems show up | later in life. | albertgoeswoof wrote: | none of those are even close to "evidence" You could say all | of them about almost anything. Here's an example: | | Listening to music: | | 1. it's just vibrations | | 2. constant rate of studies "listening to music improves | mental health", "fetuses get smarter with music" etc. | | 3. the incredibly powerful forces behind music and keeping | you listening to music | | Therefore we'll hear that music is terrible for us soon. | DavidPiper wrote: | In a way this has already happened though? | | We know excessive consumption (can't think of a better word | off hand) of loud noises leads to hearing loss, tinnitus, | etc. | | Certainly not the same as "music is terrible for us", but | more of an "everything in moderation" kind of argument. | pixl97 wrote: | Eh, I can listen to music for 16 hours a day without | hearing damage if it's not too loud. So what exactly | would that mean? Like dont drink 212F coffee because it | would boil your throat? | S_A_P wrote: | I don't think there is anywhere near the anecdotal evidence | to support this. Even when big tobacco was in full swing | people knew smoking was correlated with cancer/lung | disease/etc. I felt noticeably healthier when I quit smoking | years ago. I've quit coffee and aside from caffeine | withdrawal little difference in how I felt. What negative | health effects do you propose are caused by coffee? | CodeWriter23 wrote: | You asked for proposals, and that's how I present this. Not | as a fact. But it seems to me looking into acrylimides as | it relates to coffee roasting processes and the finished | product is not an entirely absurd line of scientific | inquiry. | | And they can have my coffee when they pry it from my cold | dead hands. | parineum wrote: | The first three are 3 events over nearly 100 years. That's not | very common. | | The last one, I'd argue isn't new but the internet's ability to | provide direct-from-the-source accounts of events and access to | opposition sources allows the media to be fact checked in real | time (or at least to notice incongruities with other stories). | I'd be surprised if the situation is at all new. In fact, I'd | argue that the media are the root cause of the previous three | phenomenon you describe. | forgotmypw17 wrote: | I think fact-checking is still in its infancy, and is | currently nearly worthless, due to a lack of any ability to | verify who is doing the fact-checking. It's just more noise | in the same system. Once you can attach web-of-trust or a | similar provable system, then fact-checking will have some | value. | Judgmentality wrote: | The history of leaded gasoline and how it was believed to be | incredibly safe for decades is easily my favorite example of | buying credibility as a corporation (it's a long story, but I | bet this will be the most interesting thing you read this | week). | | https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/94569/clair-patterson-sc... | pmarreck wrote: | Can someone be class-action sued for this? | ghufran_syed wrote: | This doesn't quite explain why companies that are in the "fat" | business - bacon producers, takeout chains, cheese and butter | manufacturers - why wouldn't _they_ publicize the alternative | view? | mberning wrote: | Gary Taubes and many others were crucified for realizing this 10 | years ago. | hnarma wrote: | Taubes seems to be professionally dishonest and misrepresent | people to push his Atkins diet and make profit. | hansthehorse wrote: | This video was posted to YT 11 years ago. | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM It's very difficult | to eliminate sugar from your diet. The food industry has almost | 55 different terms for sugar to hide it. The easiest thing to | do is stop, or at least restrict, eating things from boxes, can | and jars. | nogbit wrote: | Bags as well, the bread in the grocery stores is full of | sugar. In the US anyway. | hntrader wrote: | For countries that have compulsory food labelling, is it | sufficient to just look at the carbohydrate content as a | proxy for the upper bound on sugar content? Of course I'm not | talking about artificial sweeteners which is another can of | worms. | DenisM wrote: | Hardly crucified. He published a couple of books, has some | followers, made a business. | tonymet wrote: | why are you trusting these people? | kergonath wrote: | This ought to be as big a scandal as FUD from the tobacco or oil | and coal industries. | [deleted] | ineedasername wrote: | This is hardly to first case of an industry flexing its muscles | to fund science in a way that influences health policy & | individuals' decisions in potentially bad ways. How the heck to | you fix a problem like this? | tim333 wrote: | I don't know about fix but you can argue against stuff more | easily on the internet these days. | d26900 wrote: | By keeping up with lobbying organizations and lobbies disguised | as "think tanks". (Lobbies had a major influence on Brexit for | example. In other words, lobbies are really powerful.) | whoarewe wrote: | This same thing is probably happening today. Big meat companies | and big oil (dietary) companies are surely doing the same. | skocznymroczny wrote: | I wouldn't be surprised if the vaccine companies are funding | "research" also. | williesleg wrote: | The science! | koboll wrote: | So... which food additive's trade group is quietly paying | scientists to point blame elsewhere right now? I'd prefer not to | find out fifty years after the fact. | alecco wrote: | > So... which food additive's trade group is quietly paying | scientists to point blame elsewhere right now? I'd prefer not | to find out fifty years after the fact. | | The soy scare made by the dairy and meat industries. A few | years ago they caused a mass hysteria with the meme "google | phythoestrogens". Sure, they bind to estrogen receptors, but | their action actually inhibits mostly, so it kind of block | estrogen. | | Meanwhile, the same people would have no problem consuming | products from the dairy industry abusing cows by pumping them | with actual hormones. Dairy products full of actual estrogen | and progesterone (not phyto-, the real deal). | | https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=es&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=dair... | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phytoestrogen#Effects_on_human... | gherittwhite wrote: | Vegetable oil is the big thing to avoid. I don't know if anyone | is being paid off. | objektif wrote: | What is it exactly? Which type of oil is labelled as | vegetable oil? | f6v wrote: | There's a palm oil hysteria in Russia. Social media is full | of moms saying that palm oil has been banned in the EU. Yet | here I am, enjoying pastry with palm oil in Belgium. | gherittwhite wrote: | Specifically vegetable seed oil, like sunflower oil or | canola oil. | | The other thing I'm very skeptical of now is milk | replacements, like oat milk. | | For cooking just use olive oil, coconut oil, or regular | butter. | Pyramus wrote: | What do you mean? | | > Specifically vegetable seed oil, like sunflower oil or | canola oil. | | Please be more specific, my understanding is there is no | easy X is harmful in nutrition. Your example vegetable | seed oil: | | Refined sunflower oil at high temperatures --> bad Cold | pressed sunflower oil --> ok (great source of Vitamin E, | but too much omega 6 compared to 3) Cold pressed linseed | oil --> good | | > The other thing I'm very skeptical of now is milk | replacements, like oat milk. | | Could you elaborate? You can make oat milk easily at | home. Let oat flakes soak in cold water over night, | blend, sift, done. Go fancy and add a drop of rapeseed | oil (will work as a natural emulsifier) and a pinch of | salt. | gherittwhite wrote: | So the problem with all of those oils is the high | concentration of PUFA which is more susceptible to | oxidation and thus causes inflammation. | | Commercial oat milk like that made by Oatly has rapeseed | oil added into it and is then pasteurized. Heating | vegetable oils is bad. https://www.sciencedirect.com/scie | nce/article/abs/pii/S15371... | | Maybe something home made isn't bad. | ArkanExplorer wrote: | Food is generally OK, the problem is with the packaging. A huge | range of plastics are hormones disruptors and should not be | permitted to be in contact with food or liquid meant for human | consumption. | | An example - BPA is used to coat the inside of tin cans. If you | use a metal spoon to scrape out the contents, you're scraping | away that lining into your food. | | https://www.merieuxnutrisciences.com/corporate/en/news/endoc... | | PVC pipes can leach hormone disruptors into drinking water: | | https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315702292_Transfer_... | alexalex wrote: | *PEX (not PVC which is used on waste lines) | anonuser123456 wrote: | The relative effects of sugar and obesity dwarf the | disruption of the endocrine and immune system compared to the | average levels of plastic pollution. I'm not saying it's not | a problem, but we're talking lifetime effects of 1 in 4 | (cancer via obesity, sugar) vs lifetime effects of <1/1000 | (plasticizers etc). | ArkanExplorer wrote: | That's true for the average person, but you cannot avoid | these plastics in the same way that you can avoid sugar. | | Packaging materials are not disclosed on the ingredients | list, for example. Few people would know that the insides | of drink cans or food tins are coated with plastic. | anonuser123456 wrote: | The average person doesn't need to avoid plastics is my | point. They are a walking carcinogen already. Eliminating | plastics for the average Joe is just rearranging deck | chairs on the titanic. | f6v wrote: | Buy eggs, vegetables, crops and meat from the butcher. To | say it otherwise, avoid processed foods. | sdljfjafsd wrote: | Maybe whatever group benefits from the gluten free trend? Also, | maybe the soy and corn industries? | AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: | > Maybe whatever group benefits from the gluten free trend? | | People with Coeliac disease mostly... doesn't seem like a | very wealthy and well connected bunch though. | odyssey7 wrote: | I don't know who might be paying whom. | | But speaking to regretful food decisions with lots of industry | support and relatively little public awareness, I would rather | our foods didn't have so many emulsifiers in them. | | Their risks to our gut biomes and immune systems weren't | appreciated when they were approved. Today they remain | ubiquitous in typical American diets. | claytongulick wrote: | Artificial sweetners, perhaps. | | Apparently they wreak havoc on your gut flora. | | And it's basically the most important thing for overall health. | alecco wrote: | Stevia is reasonably safe | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevia#Safety_and_regulations | | You could also argue Sucralose in moderate use, too. It's for | sure much safer than the old sweeteners. | Black101 wrote: | My guess would be (some) preservatives. | | edit: the bad ones like sulfites, sodium benzoate, nitrites, | etc... | Droobfest wrote: | Damn ascorbic acid is killing everybody. | Black101 wrote: | yeah, not all of them... I was thinking more like, | sulfites, sodium benzoate, nitrites, etc... | jgoodknight wrote: | Anti-GMO groups maybe? I certainly hope in 50 years we have | embraced their ability to improve human and environment health | Ma8ee wrote: | Why do you think it is the anti-GMO groups and not the other | way around? I'm naturally more suspicious of the groups that | have the most money invested, in the same way tobacco | companies had more investments at stake than medical | researchers funded by government grants, and big oil and coal | have more (money) to lose than climate scientists. | | Of course Monsanto et al have invested a lot of money into | research that shows that GMOs are safe. That is of course not | in any way proof that there is anything wrong with that | research, but it definitely makes me more careful in | interpreting the results. | fsflover wrote: | >Why do you think it is the anti-GMO groups and not the | other way around? | | How about checking the research papers cited in Wikipedia: | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_con | t... | Ma8ee wrote: | The ones funded by Monsanto and Cargill? Don't you see | the problem? | DenisM wrote: | There are agri businesses that use GMO and those who don't. | Naturally they would try to use what they can - real | studies, fake studies, activists, etc. | | Point being, there is money to be made on both sides. | arrosenberg wrote: | I can understand not trusting Monsanto, Cargill, Bayer, | etc., but humans have been genetically modifying plants | since the dawn of agriculture, we just have tools to do it | with way more precision now. Borland and others have used | Mendelian genetics to create rust-resistant wheat, golden | rice, and other "miracle" crops. With modern tools, you can | test genetic variants more intentionally without relying on | random selection each generation. | | There is nothing inherently dangerous about doing this, and | it has the potential to do a lot of good for humanity. It's | important not to conflate the demagoguing of massive | agricorps with a useful scientific technique. | | The bigger scam is that, despite producing more calories | than we could possibly use, they've continued modifying | crops for calorie yield and chemical resistance, which has | made a lot of crops less nutritious (per kg eaten), less | tasty, and more dependent on advanced human intervention to | successfully grow. | Ma8ee wrote: | The most common use of the concept GMO exclude simple | breeding, which is what we have done for thousands of | years. We didn't use to transfer genes between species or | even between kingdoms. | | I'm not that worried, but I'm not that fast to exclude | the possible that something goes dangerously wrong | somewhere, say some crop with new genes that make it | spread uncontrollable through a whole ecosystem, in the | same way invasive species sometimes do. | | And then of course the issues you bring up in your last | paragraph. The technique is in general not used to help | humankind or the world, but to maximise revenue for the | corporations. At least in the industrialised world, it is | now more important to increase biodiversity than to | maximise yield. | ineedasername wrote: | GMO's are one of the reasons that food is still relatively | abundant despite the population growth, where a few decades | ago there were predictions that the world simply couldn't | sustain the population growth that began around the 1960's. I | suspect that continued growth will render the GMO debate moot | by virtue of few alternatives to starving. As it is, AFAIK, | GMO farms & imports are already relatively common in poorer & | less developed countries. | | I honestly never understood the objection to GMO. Identifying | the gene that some plants have to resist disease & turning it | off never struck me as any more inherently risky than the end | result of a multi-generational cultivation process that | ultimately selects for the same or similar variations. | f6v wrote: | Who benefits from GMO prohibition? Big chemical and agtech | would make a fortune on designer crops. I imagine they could | easily lobby if that was simply a matter of money. | BurningFrog wrote: | Lobbying can be very powerful, but it's also very far from | the cynical caricature that legislation is consistently | sold to the highest bidder. | | One trivial example is that Google, one of the richest | company in the world, has been trying to build housing in | its home town of Mountain View for 20 years. Last I heard, | nothing had happened. | parineum wrote: | Non-GMO and organic products still require fertilizers and | pesticides that are manufactured by the chemical and | agriculture industries. Organic, specifically, is | essentially just freezing pesticide technology to the 50s. | Somehow that's a good thing. | Fordec wrote: | The existing agri corporations. | | Don't prohibit GMO, just invalidate the patents and | regulate the results. If everyone can select the seeds that | are designed best downstream farmers and consumers benefit | from the reduction of monopoly. | genericone wrote: | Organic is a huge industry which actively fights gmo | products. Regardless of actual organic produce, you have to | pay to get the organic certifiers and organic labeling. | Tenoke wrote: | Different for different types of GMO. Some would allow use | of currently unusable land and easier entry so those who | already have the usable land and don't want new entries | perhaps. Everything that labels itself 'Organic', too or | builds their brand around it, too I'd imagine. | | At any rate, I'm not convinced it's so much a lobbying | problem than appealing to a questionable public sentiment. | How much of that sentiment is driven by profit and how much | of it is driven by more mundane misconception is hard to | tell (for me). | | Edit: | | > Big chemical and agtech | | Not necessarily. Some GMO strains require less chemicals | and make some of the tech redundant. | konjin wrote: | Pesticide manufacturers, fertilizer manufacturers, seed | companies without the gene editing know how. A very large | number of people who are happy with the status quo and see | disruption as a danger to their bottom line. | f6v wrote: | I can imagine that a huge corporation does both | fertilizers and genetic engineering. German BASF is one | such example. | konjin wrote: | I can imagine a lot of things, most of them cost a lot of | money. | [deleted] | kortilla wrote: | > Who benefits from GMO prohibition? | | Literally the entire current farming industry. Especially | the high markup "organic" segment. | giantg2 wrote: | I don't think that applies for monoculture commodity | crops like corn and soy. | [deleted] | jszymborski wrote: | There's certainly a balance that needs to be struck with | GMOs. | | The environmental and health impacts of new GMOs should be | studied and regulated, but this "don't eat frakenfood" | rhetoric or "No GMO" labeling aught to disappear as (as | you've mentioned) it can be a huge win for hunger concerns. | jrjfkgmtnt wrote: | More likely the other way around: | | > "We found that ties between researchers and the GM crop | industry were common, with 40 percent of the articles | considered displaying conflicts of interest," said the study. | | > Researchers also found that studies that had a conflict of | interest were far more likely to be favorable to GM crop | companies than studies that were free of financial | interference. | | > Conflicts of interest were defined as studies in which at | least one author declared an affiliation to one of the | biotech or seed companies, or received funding or payment | from them | | https://phys.org/news/2016-12-gmo-financial-conflicts.html | jb775 wrote: | Not food, but the plastic containers food comes in. Big-plastic | essentially created the recycling industry purely as a | smokescreen, and everyone is still believing it. Barely any | plastics actually get recycled, and it creates tons of | pollution during production and disposal. And who knows if any | chemicals seep into the food. | [deleted] | ip26 wrote: | Really we know that chemicals absolutely do seep into the | food... but we don't know if they are harmful yet. All | plastics shed & leech. | DenisM wrote: | How could it be that all plastic leach and yet some | plastics remain in nature for thousands of years before | they decompose? | titzer wrote: | Plastics absorb and then leach several compounds used to | make the plastic itself, e.g. BPA. Plastics in general | act as attractors for any number of harmful toxins. So | yes, both can be true. | f6v wrote: | I keep reading these comments, but too lazy to research | myself. Anyone has any links handy? | keanebean86 wrote: | This one seems to have some decent info on the situation | | https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/897692090/how-big-oil- | misled-... | mgh2 wrote: | Past thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24714880 | bushbaba wrote: | We could also burn the plastic for peaker plant electricity. | Good short term solution considering all the factors. | | Why we don't I have no idea. The fuel is basically free. And | the co2 impact is much less than building energy storage. | sircastor wrote: | I think it's optics that prevent the US from doing this. | Too many people are convinced that plastic is highly | recyclable and burning it would be wasteful. | | I think people too often Go for the recycle (get it out of | my sight) instead of the reuse and reduce angles of the | conservation triangle. | ineedasername wrote: | As a petroleum product, wouldn't the co2 impact be very | similar to something like coal or gasoline? | HaggardFinical wrote: | Probably closer to coal than gasoline. Plus You have to | factor in the fact that coal plants are designed to be | most efficient with the kind of coal they are built to | burn and with burning plastic waste it's usually some | kind of a mix, so there's a good chance the CO2 emissions | from burning plastic waste would be even higher per watt | than with coal, which is already super bad. | ajsnigrutin wrote: | Well.. i mean, it's not as if we'll stop using plastic | soon, and since the whole world has issues with it now | (since china doesn't but it anymore), investing in such | redesigned burners would be a good investment now. | ashtonkem wrote: | Per lb of fuel? Yes. But the idea is that this would | offset other oil consumption. It's marginally better to | turn plastic products into energy than it is to throw | plastic away _and_ burn more oil for power. | iguy wrote: | Ideally, we would think of this as getting a second use | for your heating fuel. Between being mined and being | burned, it's temporarily used to let you cary milk home | from the store. | ineedasername wrote: | That's an excellent point, thanks. | ineedasername wrote: | I used to feel bad when I had a plastic container of a type | that my town didn't recycle. Then China stopped accepting a | lot of our "recyclables", a move that put a lot more scrutiny | on the industry and what really happens. Apparently paper is | only a little better, especially since 2018. Glass & aluminum | though are supposedly well utilized, though notable in that | their raw materials already require-- and can sustain-- being | molten down to liquids in a process that gets rid of the | dirty bits we leave on them. | ashtonkem wrote: | Aluminum is actually quite profitable to recycle. The | aluminum smelting process uses a ton of electricity, re- | melting is much cheaper. | Ekaros wrote: | Aluminium is one of the best recyclable materials very | low losses and initial energy output is multiple times | higher for pristine material than one in recycling. | | I suppose copper and steel aren't too bad in that regard | either. | hanche wrote: | Amazing statistics: 75% of all aluminium ever produced is | still in use today. | | https://aluminiumtoday.com/news/international-aluminium- | inst... | ineedasername wrote: | That makes me disproportionately happy. | zeristor wrote: | Glass, at least in the UK, just seems to be broken into | aggregate to be used in building roads: | | http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1907207.stm | | I believe they've given it the catchy name glassphalt | yudlejoza wrote: | Try to become part of the evidence-based nutrition movement. | | Things are improving (slowly) through online forums, and MDs | and PhDs creating content (like youtube, blogs, etc). | | Heck, just be part of the longevity movement that is trying to | do something about aging itself. | d26900 wrote: | Valter Longo? Nutrition science is fuzzy. It isn't like | physics or mathematics. Water fasting, calorie | restriction[2], keeping your protein low and having a joyful | life[1] seem convincing to me (Blue Zones), but I am yet | another layman here. | | [1] https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2017/04/over- | nearly-8... | | [2] https://nintil.com/longevity/ | yudlejoza wrote: | Thanks. I didn't about Valter Longo. Will sure check his | content. I was mainly referring to folks like Peter Attia, | Rhonda Patrick, etc. | | For longevity, check out SENS foundation (and Aubrey de | Grey). | rriepe wrote: | It's carbon and nitrogen today. | elevenoh wrote: | Everyone is blaming meat. | | Everyone I know who eats 90%+ carnivore diet looks/feels great. | | CheapProcessedVeganFood co's perhaps? | kar5pt wrote: | Are you claiming there's some wealthy Vegan lobby that's | paying scientists blame meat for health problems? You really | think that vegan food producers are more powerful than the | meat and dairy industries? | tomatotomato37 wrote: | Vegan food producers are just big agriculture, so it | actually isn't that unrealistic that some multinational soy | or corn corporation is pushing this because they make more | money from food additives than animal feed. | tbihl wrote: | "Perhaps" = "claiming"? | d26900 wrote: | Maybe the person should have used: "suggesting"? Anyhow, | I share the sentiment that the "vegan lobby" is an easy | target to pick. | sebmellen wrote: | Soy and corn are the largest and most destructive | monoculture crops in America, though a large amount is used | as animal feed. | | Nonetheless, "veganism" does not imply good agricultural | practices or less money or power -- likely the opposite. Do | not think of veganism as your local farmers market. Think | of it as mostly destructive monoculture farming. | | Healthy ecosystems require ruminants _and_ other animals | _and_ plants to thrive. Modern agriculture is usually split | up -- barren feed lots, barren corn fields, etc. | Regenerative agriculture like what the Savory Institute | espouses is what 's needed. | | Vegans are also a great target market and quite lucrative. | People who can afford to be vegan will pay higher prices | for lower cost goods. I wouldn't be surprised to see | lobbying from vegan food companies. | Pyramus wrote: | > People who can afford to be vegan will pay higher | prices for lower cost goods. | | It's kind of funny how "vegan" has become a marketing | term to the extent that vegan food is supposed to be | expensive. | | Vegan food is the cheapest food there is and powers | nutrition on a global scale. Think wheat, rice, potatoes, | beans, every single vegetable, all fruit, and products | made thereof, bread, pasta, noodles, oils, etc. | | In most parts of the world the standard diet is | predominantly plant-based and meat is a luxury. | | It used to be the same in Europe - my grandparents had | meat at most once a week, usually on a Sunday. | sebmellen wrote: | Oh, agreed, for sure. My grandparents were Germans who | grew up during the war, and for them meat was seen as a | great luxury -- even bread was seen as a speciality. | | But in the US (and I think it is mostly an American | phenomenon), veganism has taken on a sort of strange | alter ego as a life of expensive vegan donuts and vegan | restaurants that charge (no joke) $18 for a small | sandwich. | | So I think it's important to differentiate between the | two kinds of veganism/mostly veganism -- the expensive | fad diet kind, and the one borne out of necessity. | Avshalom wrote: | Soy and corn in america is the meat industry | phkahler wrote: | Which makes them commodities unless you can upsell them | as health foods. | TaupeRanger wrote: | Seriously? The "nutrition" industry is absolutely huge and | banks off of the fact that we don't really know anything | about diet, except that trans fats are bad, lots of refined | sugar is bad, and folic acid is important for pregnant | women. They point the finger at all manner of foods from | red meats to fruits and everything in between, in order to | sell supplements, fad diets, overpriced | holistic/integrative medicine sessions, etc. | Ma8ee wrote: | There's a lot of trends and over interpreted small | studies within popular nutrition science, but the basics | are quite solid and quite simple: eat less, eat much more | vegetables and fruit. There's also solid evidence that | too much red meat causes cancer. | Pyramus wrote: | Exactly. Here is another point in case: Go to the website | of whichever body governs nutrition in your country (or | the WHO) and see what they recommend and why. | | There is no global conspiracy against red meat, it's | simply our current scientific understanding. | TaupeRanger wrote: | No one said it's a conspiracy. It is clearly a | misunderstanding of our actual knowledge, which is why we | have studies that show everything from associations | between red meat and cancer, no effects whatsoever | between the two, and even reduction in some cancers from | red meat consumption. That is standard across the entire | field of nutrition epidemiology, but "nutritionists" and | health "experts" rely on the fact that, if they cite a | single study showing a cancer connection, people will eat | it up and accept it as fact. | Firerouge wrote: | Why is that hard to imagine? | | The plant based meat industry alone had a $4 billion market | in 2020, about 39% of which is in the US, and it's total is | forecasted to grow to $14 billion by 2027. [1] | | While not a direct comparison, the US meat market is around | a $7 billion annual market. [2] | | [1] https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry- | analysis/plant-ba... | | [2] https://www.ibisworld.com/industry-statistics/market- | size/me... | TheRealSteel wrote: | That doesn't make sense to me at all. You're telling me | the plant-based meat market in America is 57% of the size | of real-meat, and that the average spend on meat in the | US is only 20$ per person per year? | casefields wrote: | >The market value of the processed meat is expected to | rise from 714 billion U.S. dollars in 2016 to over 1.5 | trillion dollars by 2022. | | https://www.statista.com/topics/4880/global-meat- | industry/ | Firerouge wrote: | It looks like the ibisworld link might be conflating US | exports of meat with the US market total | jdminhbg wrote: | > You really think that vegan food producers are more | powerful than the meat and dairy industries? | | The corn lobby is definitely more powerful than meat or | dairy are, yes. | ronyeh wrote: | There may be something else in play: carb consumption. If you | are 90% carnivore, you eat very few carbs per day, and lots | of protein. If you are vegan, it is possible to eat rice and | vegan muffins and croissants all day. (The vegan muffins I | tried from whole foods were some of the sweetest things I've | ever eaten. The vegan croissants I had from WF used margarine | and didn't taste anywhere as good as the butter croissants.) | So a vegan diet can definitely be less healthy than a | omnivore diet. | | I think if you are vegan and ate 90% tofu / pea protein / | rice protein products, and spent the rest of your intake on | avocados and olive and coconut oil and almonds and pecans, | you might also look and feel great. | d26900 wrote: | I think it boils down to ketosis/water fasting/calorie | restriction. | sidr wrote: | Even if you eat a very protein-rich diet, your body is | not going to accidentally slip into ketosis unless you | are really fastidious about keeping carbs almost entirely | out. There is no benefit to ketosis for the average | person versus a diet that is similar calorically, and | also low on carbs/starch but not low enough to be in | ketosis. | giantg2 wrote: | I think the overall meat thing is not necessarily dietary | science related. That seems to stem more from environmental | or ethical concerns. | | It seems to be more of a red meat and saturated fat issue. I | don't know about who might be behind it, or if it is even | misguided. | d26900 wrote: | Could it also relate to ketosis perhaps? (Water) fasting | and calorie restriction seem to have favorable effects on | living organisms. | giantg2 wrote: | I don't know. I tend to just follow the "everything in | moderation" philosophy and look to stay away from some | things when possible, like trans fats, soda, and | artificial stuff. I figure if both sets of my | grandparents made it to their 80s and 90s that way | (without major issues up to that point), then it should | be good enough for me. | Nbox9 wrote: | I think CheapProcessedVeganFood (Big Soy, and food processors | downstream of Big Soy) is being more opportunistic then | causing. The case against meat is very wide and much of it is | based on more solid science then the anti-fat science 50 | years ago. I suspect in the next decade we'll see a very | clear connection between lower meat/dairy consumption and | better gut health, which will explain most of the health | benefits we see in a plant based diet. | d26900 wrote: | I think you are basing your worldview on hearsay evidence, | elevenoh. | j45 wrote: | I recently stopped cooking with oil and started using a smaller | amount of clarified butter (ghee) again. | | It seems like it made it much easier to lose weight. Maybe food | has more flavour and less is needed to eat. | phkahler wrote: | TIL that some Harvard scientists can be bought fairly easily. | at_a_remove wrote: | People often wonder, "Why don't other people just _trust_ | science? Why all of the skepticism? " I feel like I ought to have | a big handout (I would do a wiki but hey, it'd get deplatformed) | from Tuskegee to this. | [deleted] | samstave wrote: | I was flying back from Christmas and I sat next to this nice lady | and we talked for three hours - she used to be the main lobbyist | for the Sugar industry in DC - She now produces a big money | podcast in NYC -- She worked for Domino Foods/Florida Crystals - | the largest sugar producer. | | Incredible story - they were super wealthy in Cuba - then played | poor to come to the US to Miami - they are like one of the | largest land owners in florida - their story is NUTS | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanjul_brothers | | These guys are largely responsible for a lot of the sugar | consumption we have | ta988 wrote: | Now it is highly distributed as well, with all the dietary | supplements industry feeding people the new craze of the | moment... Raspberries lactones, turmeric/curcumin, cbd... | muzster wrote: | RIP: British Scientist John Yudkin - The man who tried to warn us | about the perils of sugar.. Source(s) : | http://www.telegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/wellbeing/diet/10634081... | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yudkin | | Lest we not forget his arch-enemy Ancel Keys | jimnotgym wrote: | This is shocking behaviour from this industry. Who would have | thought it? If they are capable of this then what else have they | been up to? Sponsoring political upheaval to gain trading | advantages? Slave labour? | | https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/aug/08/brexit-back... | | https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-mp-raking-cash-s... | sky_rw wrote: | This is clearly isolated to the food industry. No way at all | this happens in any other industry like climate change or covid | policy. | titzer wrote: | Or finance. | earthscienceman wrote: | Can you define exactly what you think the "climate change | industry" is? | ZoomerCretin wrote: | Exactly, the fossil fuel industry knew about climate change | in the 1980s, yet paid for false research to spread | uncertainty and doubt about the damage they are still | causing. | colordrops wrote: | Both sugar and the wrong kinds of fat are bad in excess. It's not | either/or. Rancid seed oils are extremely bad for you. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-02-13 23:00 UTC)