Sugar Industry Bought Off Scientists, Skewed Dietary Guidelines For Decades (arstechnica.com) 527
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Back in the 1960s, a sugar industry executive wrote fat checks to a group of Harvard researchers so that they'd downplay the links between sugar and heart disease in a prominent medical journal -- and the researchers did it, according to historical documents reported Monday in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine. One of those Harvard researchers went on to become the head of nutrition at the United States Department of Agriculture, where he set the stage for the federal government's current dietary guidelines. All in all, the corrupted researchers and skewed scientific literature successfully helped draw attention away from the health risks of sweets and shift the blame to solely to fats -- for nearly five decades. The low-fat, high-sugar diets that health experts subsequently encouraged are now seen as a main driver of the current obesity epidemic. The bitter revelations come from archived documents from the Sugar Research Foundation (now the Sugar Association), dug up by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco. Their dive into the old, sour affair highlights both the perils of trusting industry-sponsored research to inform policy and the importance of requiring scientists to disclose conflicts of interest -- something that didn't become the norm until years later. Perhaps most strikingly, it spotlights the concerning power of the sugar industry. In a statement also issued today, the Sugar Association acknowledged that it "should have exercised greater transparency in all of its research activities." However, the trade-group went on to question the UCSF researchers' motives in digging up the issue and reframing the past events to "conveniently align with the currently trending anti-sugar narrative." The association also chastised the journal for publishing the historical analysis, which it implied was insignificant and sensationalist. "Most concerning is the growing use of headline-baiting articles to trump quality scientific research -- we're disappointed to see a journal of JAMA's stature being drawn into this trend," the association wrote. But scientists disagree with that take. In an accompanying editorial, nutrition professor Marion Nestle of New York University argued that "this 50-year-old incident may seem like ancient history, but it is quite relevant, not least because it answers some questions germane to our current era."
Shocking! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes the noble nuclear industry has no interest in pushing climate change to make us switch to a mix of renewables: wind! hydro! biofuels! oh and er... (whispers)... nuclear.
Now if only we all had electric cars and they all had to be plugged into the grid to charge.
Re:Shocking! (Score:5, Funny)
It's Michael "Evil Enviro-overlord" Mann. He's the one, the Emperor Palpatine, who has attacked those poor little multinational oil companies and their tireless small handful of tireless champions of truth like Roy Spencer and Judith Curry (also a champion against those evil evolutionists). Of course, we would be amiss if we didn't mention billionaire playboys Charles "Dark Knight" Koch, and his brother and trusty sidekick David "Robin" Koch. Whenever there is an outbreak of acceptance of climate change, the Wall Street Journal's champion of climate truth, Commissioner L. Gordon Cravitz lights up the sky with the mighty Oil Barrel symbol, and the Dark Knight rains down piles of cash to assist in the endless battle against the evil climatologists lead by the Evil Enviro-overlord, The Mann.
Re: Shocking! (Score:2, Interesting)
How do you explain the fact that Michael Mann's methodology generates a hockey stick even when applied to completely random data? It sure seems like those results are highly misleading, at best. Or will you trot out some lame excuses to try to justify these blatant problems and insult me like you do to everyone else?
Re: Shocking! (Score:5, Informative)
Except that the hockeystick has been verified time and time again by actual scientists (Not conservative blog barkers like watts/etc, but actual scientists) using multiple datasets. You guys seem to leave that detail out that its not just the bogey-mann and his one paper but countless studies across the world using ice core data, satelite data, geological data, tree ring data (to a point) , ground stations and so on. All point to precisely the same dataset.
I mean seriously, can we stop pretending these industry talking points are actually science when the evidence is so vastly against them. We *know* temperatures are rising, and we *know* they are being forced by human activities. This isn't scientiific conjecture anymore. We've understood the science behind it since the 1800s when scientists first started connecting rising temperatures with the coal fumes being churned out en masse by the industrial revolution, and now those scientific principles have been falsified by a century of broadly repeeted and verified checks? What more could you possibly ask out of physics than that it follows the scientific method. And yet here on Slashdot people still drag out the long discredited clap-trap about "The hockey stick is wrong!". No it isn't, and if you disagree, its only because you are wrong.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well said. It is a bizarre fact indeed that the so-called climate skeptics (and other whatever skeptics) are so credulous, whereas scientists are the real skeptics. Climate change deniers throw out terabytes of evidence, that comes from all over the spectrum, which is one of the things that make it more believeable; but on the other hand, they are willing to believe the incoherent rantings by unqualified individuals, who have cherry-picked their eveidence (or in some cases, simply made it up). In real scien
Re: (Score:3)
In real science, on the other hand, you actively try to disprove your theory
Real scientists are humans, and so tend not to do this too much. Instead, they actively try to disprove other people's theories. If you can come up with a proof that a theory that's the core of the a field's orthodoxy is wrong, then that's one of the fastest ways to a Nobel Prize.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nope (Score:5, Informative)
Unless you mean "falsified" instead of "verified."
You don't know what that means. I mean "falsified". Google: "Scientific method".
Even the IPCC now admits that the Hockey Stick was bogus.
No. Categorically no. They have not. The most recent research on the hockey stick of any notability is Marcott et al in 2013, using an even broader data set and again, just like every other time, the hockey stick is still there.
Well I'll be sure to tell my collegues at work they can bin their PhDs because random internet guy just owned them! I'm sure when they stop laughing they'll be sure to revise a century and a half of physics because internet.
Re: Shocking! (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, there was a flaw in a scientific paper. People err. This flaw was corrected, but what was never updated was the accusation. You are basing your claim on false data.
Re: Shocking! (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you saying their lying? You are aware that the sugar industry's tactics are fairly well known, and that research also shows the amount of sugar showing up even in foods not known for being overly sweet, like bread, has been rising for years.
Re: Shocking! (Score:5, Insightful)
This goes back a lot further than that, long before there was ever a sugar industry to begin with. It's not just in things we make, sugar in all of its forms isn't exactly healthy, and the thing is, we've been selectively breeding our food (especially fruit) to be higher in sugar content for several millennia. I personally can't think of any food in its natural form that's as sugary as we've made it. (Also, for this same reason, the whole frutarian movement is a big fat joke based on something that I wouldn't even like to call junk science because it's not science at all.) Sugar is in more than that too. Honey, milk, rice...
The fact is, sugar is addictive, and that's why we like it. But what it does to your body is actually quite similar to the effects of alcohol (Chiefly because of fructose though, and btw, HFCS is no better or worse than sucrose -- they're essentially the same damn thing, and people who attack HFCS while treating other sugars as benign are idiots.) Alcohol also being addictive, which is why we like it, but few people actually like the taste of alcohol.
Re: Shocking! (Score:5, Interesting)
No.
There's a lot of fructose that can only be broken down in the liver in it. While vast amounts of either sugar is bad for you HFCS is a bit worse.
In small doses the difference is ignorable but people eating shitloads of HFCS for their body size are getting a variety of extra health problems on top.
Re: (Score:3)
people eating shitloads of HFCS for their body size are getting a variety of extra health problems on top.
Can you point to any actual evidence to support this assertion? Excessive sugar is bad for you, but I am aware of no controlled studies that have found that fructose or HFCS is any better or worse than any other sugar. The common belief that HFCS is worse than sucrose is based on conjecture and superstition, not data.
Guzzling soda sweetened with HFCS is bad for you. But guzzling the same amount of soda sweetened with cane sugar is no better.
Re: Shocking! (Score:5, Informative)
Back on topic. You'll probably find a bunch sponsored by the industry finding both are equally bad.
Here's one from nih:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm... [nih.gov]
Here's one from harvard:
http://www.health.harvard.edu/... [harvard.edu]
Re: Shocking! (Score:5, Informative)
Can you point to any actual evidence to support this assertion? Excessive sugar is bad for you, but I am aware of no controlled studies that have found that fructose or HFCS is any better or worse than any other sugar. The common belief that HFCS is worse than sucrose is based on conjecture and superstition, not data.
Guzzling soda sweetened with HFCS is bad for you. But guzzling the same amount of soda sweetened with cane sugar is no better.
Fructose is far worse than glucose, so any sugar with a higher percentage of fructose, (such as HFCS), has measurably worse health effects. Evidence is here [harvard.edu], and many other places as well. All it took was a quick Google search for "fructose glucose liver", and a click on the third link. But then, I've been following this for a while, so I knew what to look for. The bottom line is that glucose is used by every cell in the body, whereas fructose can only be processed by the liver. Excessive consumption leads to liver disease almost exactly like that caused by excessive alcohol consumption, whereas excessive glucose consumption does not. There is also evidence that consumption of fructose in concentrations common in the current North American diet actually increases appetite. So yes, all sugars can lead to increased body fat through excessive calorie consumption; but fructose, in more than limited amounts, messes with the body's metabolism in ways that both cause more damage and more inflammation, and make weight gain more likely. The effects of fructose in causing obesity and poor health go far beyond its mere caloric content.
Re: (Score:3)
At the scales sugar is consumed now the difference may look small.
It's also worth mentioning that HFCS is not all fructose.
Re: Shocking! (Score:5, Informative)
It's also worth mentioning that HFCS is not all fructose.
HFCS is about 5% more fructose than table sugar. Whoopee shit. Replacing sucrose with HFCS is not the problem. The problem is [still] replacing vegetable oil. Oil spoils and goes rancid, which means things made out of fats have short shelf lives. So they replace the fats with HFCS, which has a similar textural result in the finished product, and they kill the sweetness with citric acid. Citric acid is one of those things that's lovely for you in small quantities, and causes gastrointestinal distress in large ones. So for the sake of shelf life, the processed food industry is willing to give you heartburn and diabetes (we know beyond any doubt that excessive sugar intake can at least bring on if not actually cause Type II diabetes.)
The other big problem with processed foods is divorcing sugar from enzymes in food. Eating a piece of fruit raises your insulin levels much less than drinking pasteurized fruit juice because the enzymes help to break down the sugar. You can actually buy cultured fruit enzymes to add to your fruit juice... or just eat the goddamned fruit. Oh, but that doesn't keep on the shelf for a year and a half...
Not "Whoopee shit". Nor 5%. (Score:5, Informative)
HFCS used in sodas is a 55% fructose + 42% glucose mix.
I.e. 55 parts of "fat making sugar" and 42 parts of "blood sugar level" sugar.
Brain only understands glucose and will keep demanding more until the desired glucose level is reached.
Sucrose is 50-50.
Thus, for every two units of sugar you ingest, trying to satisfy your brain's desire for glucose with sucrose you get something like this:
[F][F][F][F][F]-[F][F][F][F][F]
[G][G][G][G][G]-[G][G][G][G][G]
10 units of fructose + 10 units of glucose.
With HFCS (55-42), for every two units of HFCS you're getting this:
[F][F][F][F][F]-[F][F][F][F][F]
[G][G][G][G]-[G][G][G][G]
20% less glucose, i.e. 20% lower blood sugar level, i.e. your brain will ask for at least 20% MORE of that sugary drink before reaching its desired blood sugar level.
Getting even more fructose along with it.
Looking at those same numbers from a BSL angle, taking that desired BSL as some individual 100% glucose level...
For 100% glucose satiety (i.e. reaching BSL desired by your brain) by ingesting HFCS, with your glucose you must also ingest 130.9% of fructose you'd be ingesting with sucrose.
I.e. HFCS makes you ingest 30% more fructose, which goes directly into triglycerides as by that time you already have plenty of glycogen.
UPS! Missed a fructose cube there. (Score:3)
With HFCS (55-42), for every two units of HFCS you're getting this:
[F][F][F][F][F]-[F][F][F][F][F]-[F]
[G][G][G][G]-[G][G][G][G]
So it's 26% less glucose, i.e. 26% lower blood sugar level etc. etc.
Serves me right for copy/pasting my old posts while being late for something else.
Re: (Score:3)
Evidence is here [harvard.edu]
Actually, no, that is not "evidence". It is opinion, unsupported by data. Even the title of the article, "Is fructose bad for you?", gives the game away. Why is it phrased as a question [wikipedia.org]? If there was supporting data, the title would have been: "Fructose is bad for you".
Even the article itself admits there is no data: Experts still have a long way to go to connect the dots between fructose and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. Higher intakes of fructose are a
Re: (Score:3)
The ironic bit is that many "health conscious" folks have switched to all-natural agave syrup/nectar, which has about a 3-to-1 fructose-to-glucose ratio. Because of this, it is quite a bit sweeter than sucrose and you can use less of it. But you are definitely consuming a far higher amount of fructose.
Agave syrup has been shown (in typically small studies) to raise triglyceride levels. It's far worse for you than HFCS-55 or HFCS-42.
Actually, the mean is 59% fructose. (Score:3)
It's cause most of the soft beverages served in restaurants are mixed at the spot - and those formulas use HFCS 65.
http://goranlab.com/pdf/Ventur... [goranlab.com]
Re: (Score:3)
I wouldn't throw stones...
HFCS largely comes in two formulations - HFCS-55 (used in sugary drinks) and HFCS-42 (used in baked goods).
Both start as corn syrup, which is created by taking corn starch (long chains of glucose) and adding two enzymes (amylase and glucoamylase) which gives you "corn syrup", also known as "glucose syrup". It's nearly pure glucose. If you buy corn syrup at the store, this is what you get - glucose syrup.
Because it's not very sweet, companies then convert some of the glucose into fr
Re: (Score:3)
few people actually like the taste of alcohol
Not all of us consume our alcohol by necking pints of fruit-flavoured moonshine.
Yeah, call me a snob.
Re: (Score:3)
[In the UK], it's really easy to avoid [eating added sugar] - just stay away from all processed foods and ready to eat products. E.g. a ready-to-eat chicken from the local supermarket has added sugar!
FTFY!
Re: Shocking! (Score:4, Informative)
Also, stay away from "light" products. In a lot of cases that just means they've added extra sugar instead of fat. Just as bad as the real deal, and tastes worse.
Re:Shocking! (Score:5, Insightful)
They are playing both sides of the field, it just depends on which politicians/agency you are talking about. The Federal government makes more per gallon of gas that anyone in the oil industry in terms of taxes, fees and royalties. They also dump huge sums of money into research for climate and have been agitating for some time to be able to tax us on our carbon use to gain even more control over us.
Corruption at its finest.
Re:Shocking! (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that tobacco companies spent years not only funding bullshit research to minimize the effects of first hand and second hand tobacco smoke, but had other scientists sorting out ways to make it even more addictive, not to mention marketing to teenagers.
But I get it, we should never hold commercial interests responsible for the vile and immoral things they do. That's what ordinary people are for, the little people that make rich industrialists even richer by consuming their products, whether they die or fuck up the environment in the process.
Re: Shocking! (Score:5, Insightful)
If you have some alternative explanation for where the additional energy being absorbed by higher CO2 concentrations is going, be my guest and provide it. Go on, I openly challenge you to show where the massive heat sink dumping the additional solar radiation being absorbed in the lower atmosphere is.
CO2's properties have been known for over a century. There is absolutely nothing controversial about AGW.
Re: (Score:3)
There's this whole field of science that analyzes gases in the atmosphere and their effects. I get that you think you've some killer alternative explanation, so publish. But to try to discredit an entire field of science because you think dust is a bigger player, without any evidence that you have the vaguest idea what you're talking about is arrogance at best, insanity at worst.
Re: Shocking! (Score:5, Insightful)
Global warming denial is a bit like creationist science. Nobody outside the US really takes it serious.
Re: Shocking! (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, there are denialists outside the US too. For instance Lubos Motl (Czech) or Ian Plimer (Australian).
Re: Shocking! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Culturally perhaps the US and Australia tolerant dissent more than some others?
No. We all have our share of crazies but we don't bother giving them the time of day. e.g. We just cut all parental childcare benefits to people who can't show their children's vaccination records. No Jab No Pay.
We actively laugh at our dissenters. America seems to put them on pedestals and give them megaphones. 46% of Americans believe in Creationism. Less than 25% of Australians do and those that do seem to be relatively quiet about it.
Re: Shocking! (Score:5, Informative)
I don't know much about gene research, but I know you'll be hard pressed to find a reputable scientist in Europe that considers global warming a myth. Likewise, you won't find one that will do anything but laugh at you if you use "creation" and "science" in the same sentence without a "not" somewhere in there.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe now you know why you never got mod points since that first time.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, boohoo.
Like smoking, if you didn't know it wasn't good for you, you deserve to die anyway.
Yeah yeah, blame the uneducated for their poor decisions in life, people with no empathy for their fellow man just makes me sick. Looking forward to the day you make a mistake through your own ignorance or "weakness", lets see how you handle a taste of your own medicine.
Re:Shocking! (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, boohoo.
Like smoking, if you didn't know it wasn't good for you, you deserve to die anyway.
Yeah yeah, blame the uneducated for their poor decisions in life, people with no empathy for their fellow man just makes me sick. Looking forward to the day you make a mistake through your own ignorance or "weakness", lets see how you handle a taste of your own medicine.
You say that like many of us don't make mistakes all the time, and trudge through them just fine without asking you to give a shit about us at all.
If I die from doing something we all know is stupid, please don't feel the need to send a card.
Re:Shocking! (Score:5, Insightful)
I grew up in the 80's, and I remember quite clearly the anti-smoking ads on TV, newspapers, radio, billboards...everywhere. And then there was DARE (drug focused, but also covered cigarettes) and plenty of education in schools about just what exactly smoking does to you. From what I understand, the 70's wasn't much different. And yet in spite of that, in spite of the constant education being thrown at you, I still knew people who started smoking anyways. Why? Because in spite of their education, they just didn't give a fuck. Hell, one of my cousins and I used to talk about how dumb it was, but then he started smoking because "it's something to do when you're with your friends"...uh...WHAT?
If you're younger than 40 and you smoke...well...you're just a bonehead. In spite of all of the social justice nonsense about trying to push the blame for people's problems on to some rich dude, corporations, the government, etc, there's a reality that many find inconvenient, but they know it anyways: Some people are dumber than others. The constitution might say that we're all equal, and by the letter of the law that may very well be the case, but biologically it just aint so.
Re: Shocking! (Score:5, Informative)
Glycogen is the way our body stores sugar in the muscles and in the liver. Glucose is the type of sugar that gets converted into energy in the cells. All other types of sugar require some effort and lots of enzymes in our digestive system. If some of the enzymes are missing, our body can't use that special type of sugar. But the gut bacteria can, and their metabolism can upsed our digestive system. That's what lactose intolerance means for instance. High fructose corn syrup means that we get a lot of a type of sugar we can't use directly: Fructose. It has to be metabolized in the liver into glucose, and it thus avoids the insulin control system which normally would control the glucose level. In time, cells might get less and less responsive to the insulin signalization, and we get Diabetes II. The effect is less strong with saccharose, the normal white sugar, as its molecules are made up of a pair of glucose and fructose. Thus normal white sugar causes an insulin answer, but not as strong as pure glucose. Thus white sugar is not as dangerous for the insulin system as fructose. Starch in turn consists of long chains of glucose, and it thus causes the full insuline answer, and thus in itself not a thread to the insulin system.
Surprised I'm still alive! (Score:3, Informative)
What with the push by the FDA not to eat bacon and eggs in favor of vegetable oils and the creation of millions of diabetics by overloading their systems with sugar it is surprising any of us still live. We were made to eat meat, that is the bottom line.
Re:Surprised I'm still alive! (Score:5, Informative)
"We were made to eat meat, that is the bottom line."
To a small degree. Our teeth only have 4 canines, which are the teeth for tearing meat. Our digestive tracts are much longer than pretty much any other carnivore, even carnivores larger than us have drastically shorter digestive tracts, which means that we're more geared towards vegetation with some allocation for meat for our dietary requirements.
Re:Surprised I'm still alive! (Score:5, Informative)
We also have salivary amylase, an adaptation specifically for being able to digest starchy vegetables and one that the other great apes don't posses.
Re:Surprised I'm still alive! (Score:5, Insightful)
Would you care to list any carnivores which have more than four canines?
Re: (Score:3)
Sharks. They're essentially nothing but canines.
That you couldn't think of such an easy answer makes me wonder what point you were trying to prove with your poorly-thought question.
Re: (Score:3)
Now this is rather unlikely, since there isn't much cooked meat happening naturally.
If we look at our relatives and ancestors, it's likely that we developed out of a species that ate fruits and seeds of various plants, with the occasional meat meal whenever it happened. That would fit our teeth as well as our digestive tract.
Cooking was actually a great invention that outsourced some of the time and energy needed for digesting. It might well have been our first step on the road to civilization.
Re:Surprised I'm still alive! (Score:5, Informative)
We are the result of the portion of the species that survived because of cooked meat. The ones that didn't cook their meat, or ate only a vegetarian diet, didn't survive. Saying that cooked meat did not occur naturally is nonsense, and I hope you know better and are just trying to be funny.
Evolution occurs very slowly but natural selection is an action that can happen in quite a short time. We as a species have had long periods of "convolution", where the species didn't necessarily improve toward any one path of evolution but merely developed traits through random mutation that made some portions of the population more suited to survive some future stressor. When that stressor arrived the people that knew how to cook meat were able to survive.
As you point out the cooking of meat was quite likely followed by the domestication of animals, then farming, and then what we would consider the modern era.
The question might be what stressors would favor those that could cook meat and digest it. I imagine several such stressors. Disease would be more easily controlled by those that cooked meat. The heat would kill off many pathogens and allow for greater ease of digestion. A cold period (An ice age or even a short winter freeze) would mean those that knew how to make fire would stay warm, and cooked food would give those that ate it more energy than merely warm fresh killed meat. I suspect frozen meat is inedible to anyone except those capable of heating it up, if not to cook but at least thaw.
It's not just meat that is best eaten cooked. I believe a potato is much more edible once baked, boiled, or fried. E. coli is bad for people but cooking your fruits and vegetables will make it safe from them. I recall a shortage of fresh tomatoes not too long ago because of an E. coli scare but there was no shortage of ketchup, canned tomatoes, tomato sauces, etc. because the cooking killed the bacteria.
This cooking of food had been going on for about a million years now. Long enough that there are many many people that get sick from undercooked food. It would be difficult to live with out fire and cooked food any more.
After the cooking came the convolution. After the stressors the cooked meat eaters survived. More convolution, another stressor, more survival of the fittest. In some parts of the world fitness meant milk drinkers. I like milk, I'm drinking some as I type this. This might be stretching the definition of "cooking" a bit here but pasteurizing or canning milk would seem like a good way to get protein, calories, and hydration for a lot of people.
This ability to survive on the foods we've been eating for thousands of years means we've developed features in our digestion beyond just our teeth and the size of our guts. We have a different immune system. We can tolerate lactose as adults. We also have a caloric and nutrient intake requirements that are difficult to obtain from uncooked food.
I won't say it is impossible for people to have a healthy diet that lacks cooked food. I will say that it will be expensive in time, money, and perhaps in other ways.
Re: (Score:3)
Misunderstood notions (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, but I honestly can't think of any sensible way how meat would occur as naturally cooked, at least not in quantities that would provide sustenance to a relevant amount of people for a long enough time that an evolutionary process could occur.
Big fail on understanding how evolution works. Something doesn't have to occur "naturally" to create an evolutionary pressure [wikipedia.org]. Diseases, parasites, technologies, climate, predation, food sources, genetic mutation, selective breeding, politics, war, and much more can all create evolutionary pressures. Some of these are "natural" and others not so much. Evolutionary pressures do not have to occur by random chance. The dogs in my living room are there because of selective breeding by another species (us). Had nothing to do with any "natural" randomly occurring process out in the wild.
One of the reasons why a "Paleo-Diet" works, it takes your body a lot more investment of energy to digest uncooked food, hence you lose weight despite eating "the same" food.
The paelo-diet is another in a long line of diet fads popularized and marketed on cherry picked and often incorrect or unsupported ideas about health and nutrition. It was not developed based on scientific methodologies but instead some half baked ideas poorly supported by actual evidence at the time it was popularized starting around 2002. It draws on an appeal to nature and various conspiracy theories regarding the food industry. It's based on the notion that by eating what our ancient ancestors ate that we will be healthier. (Never mind the fact that the actual foods our ancestors ate are no longer available to us) When it works it has little to do with requiring a greater "investment of energy to digest uncooked food". That's a very convenient (but wrong) sound bite explanation for something which is FAR more complicated in reality.
Misunderstanding evolutionary pressure (Score:3)
You are postulating that we knew how to cook food before our brain developed
We developed fire as a technology, used it for cooking and it has been a key factor in the CONTINUED growth of our brain. You misunderstand the argument completely. Modern humans look quite different than humans from around the time we started cooking food. Our brains had already evolved to the point we could figure out how to utilize fire. Cooking food created evolutionary pressures which accelerated certain aspects of our development as a species.
It wasn't that we started cooking food and BAM our brai
Re:Surprised I'm still alive! (Score:4, Interesting)
It really isn't.
Once you've made it to being a basically healthy adult, you can live off water, carbs, and a bit of protein for a long time with no adverse effects. The first thing to happen would be scurvy. You don't need to actively balance your diet unless you're doing something retarded like trying to be vegan.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually... it depends.
Different people do better with different fad diets.
On the other hand, the old school recommendations are the least harmful. That would be to eat a little of everything in moderation. While that was not optimal, it did not hit the achilles heel of 66% of the population like the food pyramid did.
Scares people from future evidence (Score:3)
Re:Scares people from future evidence (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole point of the pseudo skeptic movements, whether they been anti-AGW, tobacco company "research", sugar industry "research" and the like isn't really to convince people that their dangerous products are safe, but rather to create just enough doubt so that people will continue their existing habits. It doesn't have to convince people the legitimate researchers are out and out wrong, it just has to create enough uncertainty to prevent people from wholesale change.
Every year the sugar industry is pushing far more sugar into Westerners' digestive tracts than is safe, and every year the oil industry can stave off carbon pricing and other anti-fossil fuel initiatives, is another year of profits. Both industries know much as the tobacco industry must have known, that the reckoning will come, but so long as investors can make a return, and senior management can reap the bonuses, the tactic continues.
Re: (Score:2)
But do they know the reckoning will come? Will the reckoning, in fact, come in any meaningful way? Personally, I'm not convinced; as the old Wall Street maxim says, past results are no guarantee of future returns.
Re:Scares people from future evidence (Score:4, Insightful)
I remember a decade and a half ago there were scandals where false Global Warming data had been spread around.
It happened more recently than that of course. Not so long ago (last year), on this site I had a guy claiming that there was no warming and pasted a link to a data site (woodfortrees.org) to prove it. Of course his link was carefully constructed to exclude regions where the warming signal was more obvious - in other words, he concealed the truth. Which did make me think how (or if) he actually believed there was no warming if he went to that much trouble to conceal the warming signal?
I disagree though, that this ought to make me distrust the science. Yep, there's lots of liars out there. Plenty of the top level operatives (e.g. Judith Currie, Anthony Watts) are sponsored by PR companies to spread "a difference version of the truth" (in other words, lies) but how does that actually impugn the science of climate at all? It sounds counterintuitive to me, that the existence of bodies who are paid to disguise the facts actually means the facts themselves are in doubt.
Re:Scares people from future evidence (Score:4, Insightful)
The reason you are seeing it the way you are is because at one point some Republicans decided, with the help of a lot of donor money, to make it a point of difference between them and the Democrats. Prior to that other conservatives, such as Margret Thatcher in the UK, were on the side of reality and not inspired to drift off into the land of fantasy on that topic by large donations.
Re:Scares people from future evidence (Score:4, Interesting)
Statute Of Limitations (Score:3)
So what is the statute of limitations on mass murder as a result of fraudulent practice. Have proof, let's see the convictions, let's demand the convictions (victims in the millions, seriously).
Gotta love the grain industry! (Score:2)
Now trying to deflect blame from carbs in general to all sugars. I mean, it's not like fructose is processed through the liver like other poisons or anything.
we have worse now (Score:5, Informative)
High fructose corn syrup even worse. And it's not just fructose and glucose.
That 42/58 and 55/45 is a bulk culinary description, the truth is there is about 3-5 percent saccharide polymers plus leftover reagents (which until very recently even included mercury)
Food for thought: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
GMOs (Score:2, Insightful)
Read this story and think for a moment about all the "GMOs are perfectly safe" studies. You don't think it's possible some of the wealthiest, most powerful corporations in the world might have a hand in that?
Just follow the money.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or all the studies saying vaccines are safe, when we know big pharma makes money, or all the ones saying climate change is happening, when we know there is political power to be had there, or the ones saying wifi is safe, when tech companies are making money. You don't think it's possible some of the wealthiest, most powerful corporations in the world might have a hand in that too?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:GMOs (Score:5, Informative)
Well okay, seeing as how I'm part of that 'science industry' as you put it, your claim is interesting if true. Let's see here, the first study detected proteins at a level lower than that test can accurately detect (ergo it was noise), the second one doesn't seem to indicate anything special about GE crops, the third one is mere correlation by a known liar with a made up institute (you could use that exact same bogus methodology to link those maladies with organic food sales [geneticlit...roject.org]), the fourth one has been widely debunked for extremely shoddy methodology, then next couple are about glyphosate, not actually genetic engineering, which is it's own often misunderstood topic, the ninth study was based basically on eyeballing pig organs with nothing particularly substantive and was widely criticized when it made the rounds a few years back, and a quick glance over the tenth one looks to me like it does not actually indicate anything about genetic engineering being dangerous, rather it seems to be criticizing not using a one size fits all approach to testing (not a criticism I would make).
So yeah, try again. Maybe explain to me what the causative mechanism is on the genetic and molecular levels and why it shows up in no other type of natural or man made genetic alteration while you're at it because I never really got that part about the claimed dangers of genetic engineering.
Now, about those bribes, know where I can sign up for Monsanto's Free Money Program? Because those stingy bastards haven't been paying me like they're apparently supposed to.
Re:GMOs (Score:5, Informative)
Anyone citing seriously the Seralini et al. study immediately loses all credibility in my eyes.
That article was retracted chiefly because many professional statisticians (I am one) pointed out that this study was, from the point of view of basic statistical methodology, a complete joke. In no significant way did this study establish any correlation between GMO and rat tumors (which is not to say it can't exist. Just that the data collected from this particular study does not prove anything).
It is laughable how the piece you link to suggests a big conspiration because the paper was retracted despite its original publication undergoing a "rigorous peer review". The fact of the matter is, peer review can fail big time (given the number of submitted scientific papers, that is hardly a surprise), and journals should definitely retract papers when it turns out after publication that they are a methodological disgrace.
Expose questionable scientific behavior practices, undisclosed conflicts of interests, biased studies, question established truths -- I am all in favor of it. But using bogus (and in this case sensationalist) studies to do so is self-contradictory. Bad science should be countered by good science, not by wishful thinking and vague conspiration theories.
Re: (Score:3)
It is laughable how the piece you link to suggests a big conspiration because the paper was retracted despite its original publication undergoing a "rigorous peer review". The fact of the matter is, peer review can fail big time (given the number of submitted scientific papers, that is hardly a surprise), and journals should definitely retract papers when it turns out after publication that they are a methodological disgrace.
It's not just that, but publishing is part of the process of peer review. After some of your peers review your paper before publishing, the paper is published. Now all of your peers may review your paper! In this case, the scientific system worked as designed. It's the media system that failed. When I say failed, of course, I mean failed us. It didn't fail at its actual goal, which is sensationalizing news to get eyeballs in order to appease advertisers.
People, this is how the system works. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is how the system works. Now it's up to us to break it.
[company] or [industry] will liberally shower money on schools, politicians and scientists so they can spread the word of how wonderful their [thing] is.
Break it. Break the goddamned system.
Demand to know where the money for "studies" come from. Then act accordingly.
Demand campaign reform that actually has fangs to bite with.
Does it incense me that Big Sugar has been doing this? Nah. I'm not surprised in the least. This is exactly how America operates. Oh and don't get me started on the corn people, with their HFCS in our drinks and ethanol poisoning our gasoline!
What I am incensed about is the absolute reluctance to question things. The People simply accept what is told to them in schools, churches and media. Ask. Fucking. Why. Every time.
Or, you know, keep doing the same idiotic thing we've been doing for the past 200+ years. It works sooooooo well.. for the rich.
Re:People, this is how the system works. (Score:5, Interesting)
I've been wondering if Capitalism is fatally flawed. We've seen reckless, foolish greed destroy lives time and time again. It seems capitalism elevates psychopathic individuals to positions of great power and responsibility. Of course people of that sort abuse their power. Strip resources from everything within reach, leaving behind waste and destruction.
We moved from monarchy to democracy because the former just doesn't work for long. Monarchy works okay until an idiot gets elevated to the kingship, solely because he's the oldest son of the previous leader, and not because he has any qualifications whatsoever. It's a horrible way to choose leaders. Even when a talented, vigorous, enlightened king comes to the throne, he's still just one man. If a monarchy has instilled passivity in the people, only the monarch himself can inspire action. These days, nations are far too large for that to work well no matter how talented the monarch is. Our nation is a democracy, yet many of our private corporations operate as feudal domains. And it shows in these incredibly short-sighted, anti-social moves they make.
What Big Sugar has done is bad, but it's just another greedy corporate action that we, with our low expectations of corporate behavior, hardly notice. The one that will change that blase attitude is Big Oil, when all our coasts drown.
Re: (Score:3)
Please, let me know when you are aware of a "Capitalist" system?
Because what we have ISN'T CAPITALISM.
Think about it:
- the subprime crisis happened for a number of reasons, but one of the primary ones was that 3 rating agencies have had the blessing in federal law since what, the 1920s(?) to be the "official" rating companies. Without that benediction, investors would have to actually scour the marketplace for reliable sources of information which would THEMSELVES be proven by market-testing over time.
- ra
Re:People, this is how the system works. (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually I think it's merely that no system is inherently perfect, and any attempts to tend towards one extreme, be it capitalism, communism, or something else results in problems.
I think the reality is you have to put aside preconceived notions of this system is bad, or this system is good and consider that each system has it's merits.
The real solution is to try and balance the best parts of all the systems as far as possible. From what I've seen over the years for example, a healthy blend of socialism and capitalism seems to result in a far healthier, happier, more educated society than tending too far towards just socialism or just capitalism - countries like Sweden, Norway, New Zealand and so forth are some of the most sought after places in the world to live as a result of this.
I think really all countries like the US need are more socialism to counter the corrupting influence of too much capitalism - just not so much that you replace capitalist corruption with socialist corruption.
It's a difficult balancing act for sure, but balance always seems far better than extremism.
Re: (Score:3)
but libertarians keep promising me that if we just left companies and industry alone they would be good actors because of the fear of the free market. that our dollar voting would deter them from nefarious acts. that the Invisible Hand cures all.
cause they forgot to consider what happens when industry sees a way to manipulate the market.
so much for that theory.
Religion of Science (Score:5, Insightful)
So, you're trying to tell me that scientists are mere mortals, with human tendencies like the rest of us? That they are not divinely inspired conduits of the Truth, who can solely interpret the cryptic texts of the Journals de Academe?
There are two major things ruining science. First, scientists are revered like priests, and the laypeople do not feel worthy to question them, even though at the end of the day it all boils down to logic and math. Laypeople even beat each other up for speaking out without the proper credentials. Are you less likely to be right about a study if you're a layperson? Of course. But this is still an important check on the system. Second, every clown PhD and pre-PhD who is avoiding the real world needs to publish publish publish in order to advance. This leads to ever more silly and esoteric journals full of silly and esoteric studies that nobody reads and very few can be bothered to try to replicate. And of course you get no credit for replicating a study, because credit = being published. So replication, another important check on the system, is diminished. And within the mainstream subjects, you have ever more pressure to come up with a new result, because there are many more PhDs looking to publish and only so many will. Scientific results, which were already susceptible to human biases, are victim to marketing spin and selective publishing. If nobody will ever try to replicate your results, who cares anyway. And if it's advancing interest in your field, which I'm sure you care about for at least some make-the-world-better reasons, then it's quite easy to convince yourself you're doing a neutral or positive thing.
The scientific method is solid. We just don't follow it anymore. And the #ifuckinglovescience crowd isn't helping.
Re:Religion of Science (Score:5, Insightful)
That is why I Fucking Love Science.
Re: (Score:3)
And yet it's still other scientists who are pushing back against the bad studies and bought results. Scientists are mere mortals, but science is still the major, if not only, area of life where that introspection happens.
You should talk to some golf players and fans. Someone watching a golf match on TV can call in and challenge a player's actions during the tournament. Let's see science match that level of scrutiny.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> Scientists are mere mortals, but science is still the major, if not only, area of life where that introspection happens.
[[Citation]]
Because you're conveniently ignoring "people growing up".
Re:Religion of Science (Score:5, Insightful)
Most scientists are not frauds. In fact, the risks of sugar have been known for decades, with a large body of research behind it. A very small number of scientists on the payroll of the sugar industry allowed themselves to be corrupted, much as has happened with tobacco and fossil fuel researchers. The FUD's purpose isn't to convince everyone that legitimate research is a lie, it's to raise enough questions about legitimate research to make sure the public and the politicians change nothing.
Re: (Score:3)
Why, because he reports what actual scientists say, instead of memes produced by the Heartland Institute and repeated by morons and cowards?
Re: (Score:2)
Careful to avoid being "ignorant". Not knowing how things work but believing the good people is "enlightened". Not knowing how things work and believing the bad people is "ignorant". Don't be "ignorant".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
/cynical Oh hush you with your logic -- don't you know it is easier to to be in denial that one needs more faith in someone's pet theory full of holes then to admit that everyone has faith. :-)
--
Dark Matter / Energy is the Aether of the new millennium.
Related (Score:2)
https://vimeo.com/45485034 [vimeo.com]
King Corn and Food, Inc. (Score:5, Informative)
If you haven't seen them, you should go watch the documentary films King Corn and Food, Inc. King Corn in particular goes into detail about the transition in the US from a diet with lots of fat and lower levels of sugar into one where eating fat is evil and will send you to hell and not eating sugar is evil and will send you to hell.
Food, Inc is more general but it shows clearly why food production in the US is so screwed up.
your health is not a corporate concern (Score:3)
This would be a good time to go after Kellogg, General Mills, Wonder Bread, and all the other purveyors of starchy foods that begin to turn to sugar the moment they touch your tongue. Yes, extreme athletes, insomniacs and a few others will turn these carbohydrates into energy and muscle, while the rest of us turn carbs into fat.
The promoters start with the children and insidious advertisements for sugary cereals and high carb snacks. Children often don't immediately show the bad effects of excess carbohydrates. Once the children are hooked, they will remain so for the duration of their short lives. They can expect obesity, diabetes, dementia, other diseases, and a short lifespan.
This huge industry knows that, as well as the governments of the world, but lobbyists have suppressed and cast doubts on scientific proofs. How many millions of deaths are the result of this corporate greed? Remember that a corporation has only one mandate- to provide profits for the shareholders.
I'm one of those addicts. As I sit thinking how good a potato chip might be, or a tortilla chip; I settle for peanuts and the lesser satisfaction they give. It's 9PM and I avoid beer in favor of vodka with lemon water (no sugar). My diabetes is somewhat controlled, but when will I ever have a Ben & Jerry's ice cream again? I'm not happy about it because I grew up watching millions of advertisements promoting carbohydrates (and saying fat is bad). Turns out that's 100% backwards.
recent trend in blaming sugars? (Score:5, Informative)
We all remember the incredibly eye-opening lecture named "Sugar: the bitter truth" from almost a decade ago. Robert Lustig, the presenter, is an Emeritus Professor at surprise surprise UCSF!
The Sugar Association is full of it when blaming the researchers of bias.
Marion Nestle ? (Score:3)
And he studies nutrition and writes about sugar containing sweets and chocolates ?
This, dear friends, is the theory of nominative inevitability at work.
When you get down to it (Score:3)
the fault is with government (Score:3)
The blame for low-fat dietary recommendations pretty much exclusively fall on government: no matter how much the sugar industry paid for scientific spin, there has never been any objective evidence that sugar is harmless or that low-fat diets work. In fact, the government "bought off" scientists to push a low-fat agenda just as much as the sugar industry, selectively funding studies and preferring results that supported existing government dietary guidelines. To add injury to insult, not only has the US government pushed bad dietary guidelines, it has also manipulated the US sugar market to keep prices high, protect US sugar producers, and position HFCS as a common sweetener.
The US government should simply not get involved in even suggesting to people what they should eat, let alone fixing or manipulating prices for foods. Yes, government can, in principle, some good when it gets nutrituional information right, but the risk of getting it wrong is simply too high. And these manipulations and scientific errors have persisted for decades, through every Congress and administration.
And lest you think this doesn't matter much, millions of Americans died horrible deaths unnecessarily because of bad government dietary guidelines, which don't exhaust themselves in bad recommendations, but influence labeling and the kinds of foods both kids and adults are fed in institutional settings.
It isn't sugar + Sat Fats (Score:3)
It is sugar + PUFAs
They have also been protecting the vegetable oil industry - concentrated vegetable oils are not human food. Around 1960 they started selling veg oils to replace lard - it was also around that time that Americans started getting fat. We now know that eating PUFAs messes with the insulin system ( main source is LA linoleic acid ).
It will be 10 years or more before the public becomes aware - people warned about sugar in the 1960's were ignored. only 50 years later is it common knowledge.
https://wiki.xtronics.com/inde... [xtronics.com]
The usual mantra is that PUFAs are good for you as they reduce cholesterol levels - but if we look at all cause mortality - this falls apart. PUFAs reduce cholesterol by making people ever fatter.
And What Really Frosts My Flakes (Score:3)
Re:Saw this coming -- To clarify (Score:2)
I know this isn't talking about a lawsuit. But my question back then was based on the way the industry (including bakeries) manipulates products, and claims their high-sugar snacks are healthy.
Re:Saw this coming -- To clarify (Score:5, Interesting)
The sugar industry and food manufacturers have been essentially doping our food with sugar. They put sugar in damned near everything. The only real way to avoid it is to stay far away from processed foods.
I don't disagree with the notion of personal responsibility, but like smoking, when corporate interests put their profits ahead of human wellbeing, and then compound their sins by actively subverting public health and legislative solutions to keep the cash flowing in, I think the penalties should be massive. Quite frankly, in a properly functioning world, there wouldn't be a tobacco company left in the Western world, and their boards, senior management and their researchers would be rotting in jail cells.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If it was just in pop and candy, it would be a lot easier to avoid. But manufacturers have been upping the amount of sugar in other processed foods for years, in everything from bread to TV dinners.
Re:Death penalty (Score:4, Insightful)
How about the CEOs of the companies that pay the scientists and buy off the politicians? How about the major institutional investors and boards that put pressure on senior management to maximize profits regardless of every other consideration?
The scientists and politicians are like concentration camp prison guards. Yes, they ought to be criminally culpable, but the real masterminds have MBAs and law and accounting degrees.
Re: (Score:2)
Same here. In addition, it helped my digestive problems a great deal.
Re: (Score:3)
Eating processed food isn't as much the problem as eating food that has been turned into little more than a flavored slurry that was then remodeled into something palpable. It's the OVERprocessing that should be avoided. Eating bread with some ham on top is ok. Eating something that looks like bread with a texture of potatoe chips that tastes like meat is not.