NYT: How the sugar industry shifted the blame to fat

[zoogs]

NYT: How the sugar industry shifted blame to fat

Spoiler alert:

“By today’s standards, they behaved very badly,” he said.

When I see this, I just think of how great the invisible guiding hand of the market is in servicing humanity's needs.

 

[ColoNoCoHusker]

A free market is not about servicing humanity's needs. It is about how the price is set. It is pretty rare in history that a free market and humanity's needs are complementary. The biggest failure of our government in my lifetime has been the lack of enforcing the "public good" and keeping the markets free (i.e. trust-busting). One would be hard-pressed to find a sector where a small handful are not completely in control...

 

[Landlord]

keto folks get on in here

 

[zoogs]

Well said, ColoNoCo.

 

[JJ Husker]

Something tells me that this is how most "research" goes. Somebody has a motive or theory and then they set out to prove their preconceived or self serving notions. Seems all too often some bias is always in there, maybe not as blatant as this but that's probably because they just don't get caught that often. It's no wonder everyday a new study pops up claiming this, that and the other thing is bad or good for us, usually contradicting a very recent finding.

 

[ColoNoCoHusker]

JJ - Maybe I'm idealistic but I would disagree. A lot of research is flawed but I just don't see how that many people would be ok with themselves by being that self serving. If anything, I think people are not aware of their bias/focus and lack of competence may come into play. My point is, I would not say it is as sinister as you would outline...

I would agree that money like this influences too many research projects. I would also agree flawed logic & researcher bias is a problem. That is why there is supposed to be full disclosure & review. IMO, the reasons these things happen is because people don't question the research/methodology to being with.

 

[Landlord]

Something tells me that this is how most "research" goes. Somebody has a motive or theory and then they set out to prove their preconceived or self serving notions. Seems all too often some bias is always in there, maybe not as blatant as this but that's probably because they just don't get caught that often. It's no wonder everyday a new study pops up claiming this, that and the other thing is bad or good for us, usually contradicting a very recent finding.

Well, yeah, there is this little thing called a hypothesis that is kind of an important element of the scientific method.

The thing is, though, more importantly, food science is a very young field, and doesn't know a lot yet. About anything. Anyone worth their salt within the field would admit as such - it's not at all like astronomy/geology/biology/etc. in terms of progress and discovery.

 

[Mierin]

It amazes me how many people still go on low fat diets. Especially when they then eat things like low fat yogurt where they just add a bunch of extra sugar to make up for the loss of flavor.

 

[JJ Husker]

JJ - Maybe I'm idealistic but I would disagree. A lot of research is flawed but I just don't see how that many people would be ok with themselves by being that self serving. If anything, I think people are not aware of their bias/focus and lack of competence may come into play. My point is, I would not say it is as sinister as you would outline...

I would agree that money like this influences too many research projects. I would also agree flawed logic & researcher bias is a problem. That is why there is supposed to be full disclosure & review. IMO, the reasons these things happen is because people don't question the research/methodology to being with.

I don't necessarily think the bias has to be of a sinister nature. Often times it could just be stubbornness or pride influencing things to go more the desired direction. It likely happens passively or unknowingly more often than not. I just don't feel it is very natural for most research or studies to actually be performed without any bias or in a vacuum as most people would like to think they are. And as soon as money comes into the equation then it can really start getting interesting.

 

[JJ Husker]

Something tells me that this is how most "research" goes. Somebody has a motive or theory and then they set out to prove their preconceived or self serving notions. Seems all too often some bias is always in there, maybe not as blatant as this but that's probably because they just don't get caught that often. It's no wonder everyday a new study pops up claiming this, that and the other thing is bad or good for us, usually contradicting a very recent finding.

Well, yeah, there is this little thing called a hypothesis that is kind of an important element of the scientific method.

The thing is, though, more importantly, food science is a very young field, and doesn't know a lot yet. About anything. Anyone worth their salt within the field would admit as such - it's not at all like astronomy/geology/biology/etc. in terms of progress and discovery.

Of course the process requires a hypothesis. My point was that I don't think as much of it is done without bias as many purport. It's just human nature, people like their thoughts validated and to be proven right. Luckily their are also people who likely disagree and will counter with research disproving false findings. And in the rush to release findings for whatever reason, we are treated to numerous studies claiming something is good or bad for us only to be dispelled or reversed in short order. Sorry, I just tire of everyday hearing how we need quit eating this or start doing that. I suppose it is necessary but it is numbing after so many false reports.

 

[Mierin]

Something tells me that this is how most "research" goes. Somebody has a motive or theory and then they set out to prove their preconceived or self serving notions. Seems all too often some bias is always in there, maybe not as blatant as this but that's probably because they just don't get caught that often. It's no wonder everyday a new study pops up claiming this, that and the other thing is bad or good for us, usually contradicting a very recent finding.

Well, yeah, there is this little thing called a hypothesis that is kind of an important element of the scientific method.

The thing is, though, more importantly, food science is a very young field, and doesn't know a lot yet. About anything. Anyone worth their salt within the field would admit as such - it's not at all like astronomy/geology/biology/etc. in terms of progress and discovery.

Of course the process requires a hypothesis. My point was that I don't think as much of it is done without bias as many purport. It's just human nature, people like their thoughts validated and to be proven right. Luckily their are also people who likely disagree and will counter with research disproving false findings. And in the rush to release findings for whatever reason, we are treated to numerous studies claiming something is good or bad for us only to be dispelled or reversed in short order. Sorry, I just tire of everyday hearing how we need quit eating this or start doing that. I suppose it is necessary but it is numbing after so many false reports.

The thing that has always rung true and will probably always ring true is "Everything in moderation."

 

[Landlord]

Of course the process requires a hypothesis. My point was that I don't think as much of it is done without bias as many purport.

Who are the many that purport that science is free of bias? I don't hear those things, personally.

Science does the best it can to provide checks and balances against things like that, but it's also fully aware that it's not a perfect field of study. For the most part, however, peer review and falsifiable data are reliable benchmarks, and any scientist or materialist doesn't put any more faith in a conclusion than the amount of evidence that is correlated with it suggests they should.

Seems like your beef is with the media that sensationalizes and misrepresents scientific studies than it is with the actual field itself.

 

[Count 'Bility]

the only thing i can attest to is that I worked as a tech for a few months for our local pepsi distributor. What I still cannot fathom is the heaps of money and technology used to distribute this sugar piss to folks, and the overall obsession of our society with something that is not good for you. Ppl literally filling 100oz mugs with mountain dew for the day. LOL I would be on call. Yes. 24 hour pop emergencys. it could by 11 pm on a Sunday night, and if the Doc 360 valve goes down at applebees, there I go. No joking. LOL. Just not something i could by into. Thank god it was temporary out.

now I like soda too. I love Dr. Pepper. nothing like an ice cold batch of the 23 flavors. But like 1 a week. LOL

 

[Bornhusker]

A free market is not about servicing humanity's needs. It is about how the price is set. It is pretty rare in history that a free market and humanity's needs are complementary. The biggest failure of our government in my lifetime has been the lack of enforcing the "public good" and keeping the markets free (i.e. trust-busting). One would be hard-pressed to find a sector where a small handful are not completely in control...

the "public good" by who's definition? My definition is getting the hell out of my life and not trying to control what I say or do. If you are so stupid you didn't know sugar was bad for you then you get what you deserve.

The first line from that article..

The sugar industry paid scientists in the 1960s to play down the link between sugar and heart disease and promote saturated fat as the culprit instead, newly released historical documents show.

This very thing happens today for many "issues" today, and they are paid by the government to produce results to allow government to insert more control over the people.