6 ms·

I'd prefer a written overview of the ideas rather than sitting through an hour lecture. The first ten minutes really didn't offer a lot of detail.

by dejb 17y ago

charliepark 17y ago
First, until there are comprehensive notes, it's worth watching the video. It really is excellent. That being said, here are the notes I've taken so far. I started these back in December, but didn't have time to finish the video. If anyone wants to continue where I left off, please feel free to. 16:30 - Introducing HFCS. 17:20 -Why use fructose? It’s sweeter. (Also, cheaper.) Should be able to use less. But drink manufacturers use it more. (Shows chart with different types of sugars and their positions on a sweetness index.) 18:20 - Chemical composition of fructose versus glucose versus sucrose. Fructose and glucose are not the same. Fructose and sucrose are exactly the same from a body processing perspective. Both dangerous. 21:50 - Slide: Secular trend in fructose consumption: Natural - 15g / day WWII - ~20g / day 1977 - ~37g / day 1994 - ~55g / day Current adolescents - ~73g / day It’s not that we’re eating more (although we are). It’s that we’re eating more sugar. 23:30 - How did this happen? Why did this happen? The politics perspective: three political winds that swirled at the same time, creating the perfect storm. 1. In 1972, Nixon makes food prices a “non-issue.” 2. 1966, HFCS invented, introduced to the US in 1975. This makes sugar CHEAP. “High fructose corn syrup isn’t evil because it’s metabolically evil, but because it’s economically evil. Because it’s so cheap, it’s found its way into everything.” 3. In the late 70s, the USDA, the AMA, and the AHA all call for the reduction of fat in diets. Why? To stop heart disease. Did it work? No. So why’d they tell us to stop eating fat? In the 1970s we discovered LDL. In the mid-1970s, we learned that dietary fat raises LDL. In the late 1970s, we learned that high LDL correlates to cardiovascular disease. So, the conclusion was that if A leads to B, and B leads to C, then A leads to C. But the premise is incorrect. Why? It suggests that it’s transitive. That isn’t the case. John Yudkin - Pure, White, and Deadly. Keys - performed multivariate regression analysis (running data to filter out what really caused what) on cardiovascular disease. Showed calories from fat correlated highly with cardiovascular disease. But he didn’t run a complete regression analysis. He showed that sugar comes along with the fat, and that if you hold saturated fat constant but increase sugar, it doesn’t show results. But he didn’t go the other way, holding sugar constant and showing that fat still has an effect. (around 35:00) So his results aren’t actually reliable, but we’ve been basing 30 years of nutrition education and policy on this incomplete study. 36:30 - Two types of LDL. Large/buoyant, and ...
- blahedo 17y ago
  "In the mid-1970s, we learned that dietary fat raises LDL. In the late 1970s, we learned that high LDL correlates to cardiovascular disease. So, the conclusion was that if A leads to B, and B leads to C, then A leads to C. But the premise is incorrect. Why? It suggests that it’s transitive. That isn’t the case." Specifically, there's no problem with transitivity, but (just based off you've written) a correlation/causation problem: A leads to B but B correlates with C. A conclusion that A leads to C would therefore be invalid. (Not sure if this is an error in the summary or the video, and in any case it doesn't undermine the larger point; I'm just being pedantic. :)
  - jerf 17y ago
    Actually, in the video he points out the following is invalid: 1. A -> B 2. B -> C 3. A -> C 4. ~A -> ~C Step 3 is valid (skipping over the correlation issue); the problem is actually step 4. ~C -> ~A is valid, but ~A -> ~C is a fallacy. The correlation issue doesn't come up, possibly because it isn't even necessary; this logic fallacy dominates it. I used standard Aristotelian logic notation here; it really ought to be fuzzy logic, but step 4 isn't valid there either, so it would just muck things up, and I don't know the numbers for the fuzzy logic anyhow. Doesn't matter.
    - ced 17y ago
      You should use probabilities, actually. And while step 4 is not a logical consequence, it may have substantial probability, per Bayes' theorem: P(C | A) = P(A | C) * P(C) / P(A)
rsheridan6 17y ago
I do too, but this is one of the few hour-long videos that's worth watching. And I HATE long videos.

I'd prefer a written overview of the ideas rather than sitting through an hour lecture. The first ten minutes really didn't offer a lot of detail.

by dejb 17y ago

I'd prefer a written overview of the ideas rather than sitting through an hour lecture. The first ten minutes really didn't offer a lot of detail.

charliepark 17y ago

First, until there are comprehensive notes, it's worth watching the video. It really is excellent. That being said, here are the notes I've taken so far. I started these back in December, but didn't have time to finish the video. If anyone wants to continue where I left off, please feel free to. 16:30 - Introducing HFCS. 17:20 -Why use fructose? It’s sweeter. (Also, cheaper.) Should be able to use less. But drink manufacturers use it more. (Shows chart with different types of sugars and their positions on a sweetness index.) 18:20 - Chemical composition of fructose versus glucose versus sucrose. Fructose and glucose are not the same. Fructose and sucrose are exactly the same from a body processing perspective. Both dangerous. 21:50 - Slide: Secular trend in fructose consumption: Natural - 15g / day WWII - ~20g / day 1977 - ~37g / day 1994 - ~55g / day Current adolescents - ~73g / day It’s not that we’re eating more (although we are). It’s that we’re eating more sugar. 23:30 - How did this happen? Why did this happen? The politics perspective: three political winds that swirled at the same time, creating the perfect storm. 1. In 1972, Nixon makes food prices a “non-issue.” 2. 1966, HFCS invented, introduced to the US in 1975. This makes sugar CHEAP. “High fructose corn syrup isn’t evil because it’s metabolically evil, but because it’s economically evil. Because it’s so cheap, it’s found its way into everything.” 3. In the late 70s, the USDA, the AMA, and the AHA all call for the reduction of fat in diets. Why? To stop heart disease. Did it work? No. So why’d they tell us to stop eating fat? In the 1970s we discovered LDL. In the mid-1970s, we learned that dietary fat raises LDL. In the late 1970s, we learned that high LDL correlates to cardiovascular disease. So, the conclusion was that if A leads to B, and B leads to C, then A leads to C. But the premise is incorrect. Why? It suggests that it’s transitive. That isn’t the case. John Yudkin - Pure, White, and Deadly. Keys - performed multivariate regression analysis (running data to filter out what really caused what) on cardiovascular disease. Showed calories from fat correlated highly with cardiovascular disease. But he didn’t run a complete regression analysis. He showed that sugar comes along with the fat, and that if you hold saturated fat constant but increase sugar, it doesn’t show results. But he didn’t go the other way, holding sugar constant and showing that fat still has an effect. (around 35:00) So his results aren’t actually reliable, but we’ve been basing 30 years of nutrition education and policy on this incomplete study. 36:30 - Two types of LDL. Large/buoyant, and ...

blahedo 17y ago
"In the mid-1970s, we learned that dietary fat raises LDL. In the late 1970s, we learned that high LDL correlates to cardiovascular disease. So, the conclusion was that if A leads to B, and B leads to C, then A leads to C. But the premise is incorrect. Why? It suggests that it’s transitive. That isn’t the case." Specifically, there's no problem with transitivity, but (just based off you've written) a correlation/causation problem: A leads to B but B correlates with C. A conclusion that A leads to C would therefore be invalid. (Not sure if this is an error in the summary or the video, and in any case it doesn't undermine the larger point; I'm just being pedantic. :)
- jerf 17y ago
  Actually, in the video he points out the following is invalid: 1. A -> B 2. B -> C 3. A -> C 4. ~A -> ~C Step 3 is valid (skipping over the correlation issue); the problem is actually step 4. ~C -> ~A is valid, but ~A -> ~C is a fallacy. The correlation issue doesn't come up, possibly because it isn't even necessary; this logic fallacy dominates it. I used standard Aristotelian logic notation here; it really ought to be fuzzy logic, but step 4 isn't valid there either, so it would just muck things up, and I don't know the numbers for the fuzzy logic anyhow. Doesn't matter.
  - ced 17y ago
    You should use probabilities, actually. And while step 4 is not a logical consequence, it may have substantial probability, per Bayes' theorem: P(C | A) = P(A | C) * P(C) / P(A)

rsheridan6 17y ago

I do too, but this is one of the few hour-long videos that's worth watching. And I HATE long videos.