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the links between sugar and heart disease in a prominent medical journal -- and the researchers did it, according to historical documents reported Monday in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine.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."
Re:People, this is how the system works.
By Xest
•
2016-Sep-13 08:32
• Score: 4, Insightful
• Thread
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: Shocking!
By drinkypoo
•
2016-Sep-13 09:00
• Score: 5, Informative
• Thread
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%.
By denzacar
•
2016-Sep-13 10:35
• Score: 4, Informative
• Thread
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.
It isn't sugar + Sat Fats
By xtronics
•
2016-Sep-13 11:41
• Score: 3
• Thread
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...
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
By LifesABeach
•
2016-Sep-13 13:17
• Score: 3
• Thread
They use Windows.