Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Recent Finding About Sugar Industry
GuitarJerry
Posts: 6,102 Member
Not sure if anyone saw this, but last week, I think, there was a bunch of hoopla about some guy at some university found detailed proof that the sugar industry had paid for studies that wound up telling us that fat was making us fat, not sugar. Even though the evidence pointed at sugar.
Sorry I'm not being specific and citing the source, but I'm too lazy. I'm going off of memory.
So, I'm a science guy that reads the actual studies. I find that most of the time, the studies don't say what the media says they say.
I understand the idea to not trust science. I get it, I really do. When we're being lied to, it sucks. However, please don't use that to further fuel someone like, "Food Babe" or the banana girl. There's a big difference between trusting and using science, and completely disbelieving all of it.
Most science and studies are correct and legit for the thing they are trying to learn.
Just because you've been lied to and cheated on in a relationship doesn't mean every single person is going to lie and cheat. You have to trust that some people are good and that most people do the right thing.
And before everyone freaks out here, I still don't think sugar is bad. I think the over consumption of it is bad. But, in and of itself, its fine.
Carry on...
Sorry I'm not being specific and citing the source, but I'm too lazy. I'm going off of memory.
So, I'm a science guy that reads the actual studies. I find that most of the time, the studies don't say what the media says they say.
I understand the idea to not trust science. I get it, I really do. When we're being lied to, it sucks. However, please don't use that to further fuel someone like, "Food Babe" or the banana girl. There's a big difference between trusting and using science, and completely disbelieving all of it.
Most science and studies are correct and legit for the thing they are trying to learn.
Just because you've been lied to and cheated on in a relationship doesn't mean every single person is going to lie and cheat. You have to trust that some people are good and that most people do the right thing.
And before everyone freaks out here, I still don't think sugar is bad. I think the over consumption of it is bad. But, in and of itself, its fine.
Carry on...
1
Replies
-
What the media said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-industry-shifted-blame-to-fat.html?_r=1
What the journal article said:
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=25482551 -
This content has been removed.
-
Well I think the same is true for the pro fat/protein side (I personally do the high protein/fat and limit processed foods, because that is what works best for me). Almost everyone in the food industry has money in the scientific research game and wouldn't you know, the researchers they sponsor tend to think that their food is part of a healthy diet! This is also the same for research beyond food. I think that the part that people don't ever look at is the actual perimeters of the experiment and also the sample size. Further there have been lots of studies done (once again take with a grain of salt) that the effects on mice do not necessarily correlate to humans. I think for the most part the media tends to skew results, or finds one sentence within the conclusion that agrees with their stance. Since most people will not actually read the study, it makes for great headlines. Always do your own research! For me, lots of sugar makes me feel tired and makes it harder to lose the pounds calorie for calorie. Other people are different. Ultimately, it is the media that decided what the hip new diet is. But always take reporting on studies with a grain of salt!3
-
GuitarJerry wrote: »Not sure if anyone saw this, but last week, I think, there was a bunch of hoopla about some guy at some university found detailed proof that the sugar industry had paid for studies that wound up telling us that fat was making us fat, not sugar. Even though the evidence pointed at sugar.
Sorry I'm not being specific and citing the source, but I'm too lazy. I'm going off of memory.
So, I'm a science guy that reads the actual studies. I find that most of the time, the studies don't say what the media says they say.
I understand the idea to not trust science. I get it, I really do. When we're being lied to, it sucks. However, please don't use that to further fuel someone like, "Food Babe" or the banana girl. There's a big difference between trusting and using science, and completely disbelieving all of it.
Most science and studies are correct and legit for the thing they are trying to learn.
Just because you've been lied to and cheated on in a relationship doesn't mean every single person is going to lie and cheat. You have to trust that some people are good and that most people do the right thing.
And before everyone freaks out here, I still don't think sugar is bad. I think the over consumption of it is bad. But, in and of itself, its fine.
Carry on...
To be precise, it was one sugar federation paying for one science review to be made. The review discounted evidence pointing to sugar while strengthening evidence pointing to fat (they didn't make it up is what I'm saying.)
Industries paying for science to be made is not nefarious, it's absolutely normal. Studies are expensive, you're not going to pay for it so who is going to except the people who have an interest in the outcome? Who financed studies is disclosed in studies. Personally, I'm way more weary if the person conducting the study has some interest in a particular outcome than the people paying for it.7 -
calories make u fat
2 -
stevencloser wrote: »To be precise, it was one sugar federation paying for one science review to be made. The review discounted evidence pointing to sugar while strengthening evidence pointing to fat (they didn't make it up is what I'm saying.)
Industries paying for science to be made is not nefarious, it's absolutely normal. Studies are expensive, you're not going to pay for it so who is going to except the people who have an interest in the outcome? Who financed studies is disclosed in studies. Personally, I'm way more weary if the person conducting the study has some interest in a particular outcome than the people paying for it.
This is exactly right. To elaborate on how the process works --
When I was a grad student in environmental sciences years ago, the head of the department was a geologist who was one of the last holdouts against the continental drift theory. Among the meteorologists and climatologists I knew, there were those who believed significant climate changes were happening and those who didn't believe this. Science works by dialogue so you're always going to find people on both sides of the argument.
When a company that makes sugar provides grant money, guess who the money is going to go to? The scientist who thinks sugar's bad, or the scientist who thinks fat's bad? The company will read someone publications before deciding who gets the money. I'll wager the scientists who performed the study funded by the sugar company already had a track record of publications blaming fat rather than sugar before they got involved in the study.
You'll typically find studies blaming item X, others blaming item Y, and the process is that over time, enough information develops that one of the viewpoints establishes itself as the consensus. That's just the way science works. Unfortunately I think too many people have seen too many Evil Scientist stereotypes in the movies and bought into the notion that science is eeevvviiilll...8 -
This content has been removed.
-
stevencloser wrote: »To be precise, it was one sugar federation paying for one science review to be made. The review discounted evidence pointing to sugar while strengthening evidence pointing to fat (they didn't make it up is what I'm saying.)
Industries paying for science to be made is not nefarious, it's absolutely normal. Studies are expensive, you're not going to pay for it so who is going to except the people who have an interest in the outcome? Who financed studies is disclosed in studies. Personally, I'm way more weary if the person conducting the study has some interest in a particular outcome than the people paying for it.
This is exactly right. To elaborate on how the process works --
When I was a grad student in environmental sciences years ago, the head of the department was a geologist who was one of the last holdouts against the continental drift theory. Among the meteorologists and climatologists I knew, there were those who believed significant climate changes were happening and those who didn't believe this. Science works by dialogue so you're always going to find people on both sides of the argument.
When a company that makes sugar provides grant money, guess who the money is going to go to? The scientist who thinks sugar's bad, or the scientist who thinks fat's bad? The company will read someone publications before deciding who gets the money. I'll wager the scientists who performed the study funded by the sugar company already had a track record of publications blaming fat rather than sugar before they got involved in the study.
You'll typically find studies blaming item X, others blaming item Y, and the process is that over time, enough information develops that one of the viewpoints establishes itself as the consensus. That's just the way science works. Unfortunately I think too many people have seen too many Evil Scientist stereotypes in the movies and bought into the notion that science is eeevvviiilll...
Actually it'll go to the one who submits the best grant proposal with the best experiment design.
1 -
Nope that was never going to slide by lol!0
-
Beating. Horse. Dead!1
-
stevencloser wrote: »To be precise, it was one sugar federation paying for one science review to be made. The review discounted evidence pointing to sugar while strengthening evidence pointing to fat (they didn't make it up is what I'm saying.)
Industries paying for science to be made is not nefarious, it's absolutely normal. Studies are expensive, you're not going to pay for it so who is going to except the people who have an interest in the outcome? Who financed studies is disclosed in studies. Personally, I'm way more weary if the person conducting the study has some interest in a particular outcome than the people paying for it.
This is exactly right. To elaborate on how the process works --
When I was a grad student in environmental sciences years ago, the head of the department was a geologist who was one of the last holdouts against the continental drift theory. Among the meteorologists and climatologists I knew, there were those who believed significant climate changes were happening and those who didn't believe this. Science works by dialogue so you're always going to find people on both sides of the argument.
When a company that makes sugar provides grant money, guess who the money is going to go to? The scientist who thinks sugar's bad, or the scientist who thinks fat's bad? The company will read someone publications before deciding who gets the money. I'll wager the scientists who performed the study funded by the sugar company already had a track record of publications blaming fat rather than sugar before they got involved in the study.
You'll typically find studies blaming item X, others blaming item Y, and the process is that over time, enough information develops that one of the viewpoints establishes itself as the consensus. That's just the way science works. Unfortunately I think too many people have seen too many Evil Scientist stereotypes in the movies and bought into the notion that science is eeevvviiilll...
What I find funny is that their is huge knee jerk reaction of a religious nature going on. The only real conclusion was that we need to have full disclosure and that studies with funding sources with self-interest need to be examine a little more closely with that in mind. The media is now trying to angle this as if science was completely shutdown by a bit of industry group money and that the real culprit was being covered up while an innocent victim was made the scape goat. This is far from what really happened and science has dealt with far worse interference and influence than this. The fact that the sugar causes CHD hypothesis failed to pan out seems to have been missed. If that hypothesis had been supported by the evidence then it would have been followed through on and gathered strong evidence over the past 60 years. Certainly, there are deep pockets of interested industry groups that sell high fat products that would have loved to have jumped on that band wagon and could have countered the fat hypothesis.
I also got a kick out of the automatic jump from this research to high carb, low fat dieting, which didn't even start to be a big thing for another 30 years!1 -
stevencloser wrote: »To be precise, it was one sugar federation paying for one science review to be made. The review discounted evidence pointing to sugar while strengthening evidence pointing to fat (they didn't make it up is what I'm saying.)
Industries paying for science to be made is not nefarious, it's absolutely normal. Studies are expensive, you're not going to pay for it so who is going to except the people who have an interest in the outcome? Who financed studies is disclosed in studies. Personally, I'm way more weary if the person conducting the study has some interest in a particular outcome than the people paying for it.
This is exactly right. To elaborate on how the process works --
When I was a grad student in environmental sciences years ago, the head of the department was a geologist who was one of the last holdouts against the continental drift theory. Among the meteorologists and climatologists I knew, there were those who believed significant climate changes were happening and those who didn't believe this. Science works by dialogue so you're always going to find people on both sides of the argument.
When a company that makes sugar provides grant money, guess who the money is going to go to? The scientist who thinks sugar's bad, or the scientist who thinks fat's bad? The company will read someone publications before deciding who gets the money. I'll wager the scientists who performed the study funded by the sugar company already had a track record of publications blaming fat rather than sugar before they got involved in the study.
You'll typically find studies blaming item X, others blaming item Y, and the process is that over time, enough information develops that one of the viewpoints establishes itself as the consensus. That's just the way science works. Unfortunately I think too many people have seen too many Evil Scientist stereotypes in the movies and bought into the notion that science is eeevvviiilll...
Actually it'll go to the one who submits the best grant proposal with the best experiment design.
That's the way it should work at least!0 -
-
Here ya go.
3 -
-
stevencloser wrote: »To be precise, it was one sugar federation paying for one science review to be made. The review discounted evidence pointing to sugar while strengthening evidence pointing to fat (they didn't make it up is what I'm saying.)
Industries paying for science to be made is not nefarious, it's absolutely normal. Studies are expensive, you're not going to pay for it so who is going to except the people who have an interest in the outcome? Who financed studies is disclosed in studies. Personally, I'm way more weary if the person conducting the study has some interest in a particular outcome than the people paying for it.
This is exactly right. To elaborate on how the process works --
When I was a grad student in environmental sciences years ago, the head of the department was a geologist who was one of the last holdouts against the continental drift theory. Among the meteorologists and climatologists I knew, there were those who believed significant climate changes were happening and those who didn't believe this. Science works by dialogue so you're always going to find people on both sides of the argument.
When a company that makes sugar provides grant money, guess who the money is going to go to? The scientist who thinks sugar's bad, or the scientist who thinks fat's bad? The company will read someone publications before deciding who gets the money. I'll wager the scientists who performed the study funded by the sugar company already had a track record of publications blaming fat rather than sugar before they got involved in the study.
You'll typically find studies blaming item X, others blaming item Y, and the process is that over time, enough information develops that one of the viewpoints establishes itself as the consensus. That's just the way science works. Unfortunately I think too many people have seen too many Evil Scientist stereotypes in the movies and bought into the notion that science is eeevvviiilll...
Actually it'll go to the one who submits the best grant proposal with the best experiment design.
That's the general idea, but in practice it often doesn't work that way. Not even with government funded studies. There's too much politicking, general lack of knowledge of proper study design, and bias towards prior grant success in the review panels.
You'd think the bias toward prior success would be a good thing, but in reality it often lets you get away with study design murder once you achieve a certain level of success. Especially if your topic is 'in' at the moment.1 -
Yeah the daddy's aren't what they say they are0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions