6 ms·

This is way bigger than sugar or even one segment of research. This type of corrupting influence (direct or indirect) provides enough uncertainty to allow peopl

This is way bigger than sugar or even one segment of research. This type of corrupting influence (direct or indirect) provides enough uncertainty to allow people to ignore all research that doesn't confirm their personal bias. It also fuels the anti-science groups that claim conspiracies to hide the 'truth'.

joe_the_user 8y ago
This is way bigger than sugar or even one segment of research. In one sense maybe but it's hard for any one other factor to be larger than sugar in contributing to the decline of American (and world-wide) health.
- squirrelicus 8y ago
  > decline in world-wide health Wat. Data please.
  - FranzFerdiNaN 8y ago
    Every nation that switches to a western (American) diet gets fat.
    - Udik 8y ago
      American, maybe. Western, really? https://www.google.com/amp/s/bigthink.com/two-maps-and-one-graph-comparing-obesity-in-america-and-europe-2604513773.amp.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/bigthink.com/two-maps-and-one-g... It seems that obesity in Europe affects 1/4 to 1/5, while in the US is 1/3. The EU country with highest incidence of obesity is alse the one that is famous for its lack of a (decent) food culture, the UK. As an Italian, I find it hard to convince myself that US obesity problems have one single cause to blame, sugar, rather than a food culture that is generally bent towards the childishly fancy: grilled meat, fried stuff, overwhelming sauces, the super-fatty, the uber-sugary, no vegetables and very little home cooking.
      - stareatgoats 8y ago
        American food culture suffers from the same problem that afflicts the American culture in general: the infatuation with big: big cars, big army, big dicks, big coffee-mugs, big tits. And big soft-drinks. No surprise they have an obesity problem. Of course Americans are also usually nice people in a big way, let's not forget.
        TeMPOraL 8y ago
        > big cars, big army, big dicks, big coffee-mugs, big tits. And big soft-drinks. One of these things is not like the others... Buying big soft drink bottles instead of small is both cost-effective (as they're usually cheaper per liter) and a plastic saving measure. (What I particularly dislike about modern consumerism is the infatuation with small: small bags of chips, small bags of fruits, individually-packaged sausages, small bottles of drinks, small bottles/bags of cosmetics, etc. Combined with disposability of packaging, it's just a huge generator of plastic waste.)
        williamdclt 8y ago
        I think the person you're answering to is talking about big cup of soft-drink, rather than big bottle. As in, big portions, not big stock. Edit: I agree with your complaint about packaging, but it's another problem that's not uncompatible
        babuskov 8y ago
        > Buying big soft drink bottles instead of small is both cost-effective Carbonated drinks fizzle out quickly and they don't taste that good afterwards. So, if you buy bigger bottles, you are inclined to drink more so it doesn't go to waste.
        Reason077 8y ago
        > "Buying big soft drink bottles instead of small is both cost-effective" True, but bigger serving sizes have been shown to increase consumption. If you reduce soft-drink serving sizes from 500ml to 350ml, for example, most people will not purchase two - and will consume less overall.
  - Retric 8y ago
    US life expectancy is dropping. Globally obesity is on the rise. Those things are correlated.
house_atr 8y ago
But are they right?
wallace_f 8y ago
Many others exist. Leaded gasoline is a big one.
- masklinn 8y ago
  Leaded gas was a big one, AGW denial is a big one.
  - dalore 8y ago
    What's AGW?
    - williamdclt 8y ago
      Google says "Anthropogenic Global Warming", the concept that human activity has an impact on global warming
  - aznumeric 8y ago
    Scientists lied about sugar, maybe they're also lying about anthropogenic global warming. They were also wrong about lead, mercury, asbestos, DDT.
    - ajnin 8y ago
      Not sure what you're saying, there was never a doubt about lead or mercury or asbestos harmfulness, the scientists are not the one putting it to market or regulating it.
  - rjf72 8y ago
    The reason things like leaded fuel, cigarettes, DDT, CFCs (freon), and countless other conspiracies were so egregious is because 'influencers' were able to convince authoritative figures and the media to conspire in misleading the public. People, as in unaffiliated individuals, ought be free to believe whatever they want to. The problem is when authoritative figures are saying things they don't actually believe, generally because of some sort of a kickback. There have been a handful of instances there such as with 'Willie' Wei-Hock Soon, but for the most part everything has been, more or less, on the up and up - at least so far as we know for certain as of today. However, the media and authoritative figures are predominately in favor of AGW. Thus the conspiracy, if one were to exist, would be these individuals stating things they felt to be either untrue, or not as strongly supported as claimed.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 8y ago
I agree. The whole point about science is that you can look at the data and not have to take things on authority. If they faked their data, then that is one thing, but if they had real data, then this is just a part of science.
std_throwawayay 8y ago
Both sides have convincing arguments and research to back it up. They have good answers to the seemingly contradictory research that the other side uses. They both provide a consistent picture. One or both of the theories has to be wrong but I cannot decide. I can learn and read all about it and take both viewpoints into account but I still cannot decide. I could do my own research but I would come up with one or the other answer depending on what data I look at but it's not better than what I have already. What should I do? This is a real problem because science cannot provide the correct answer. It is more about choosing a side and sticking with it than about finding the truth.
- bad_user 8y ago
  For me it’s simple ... I ask myself what did my grandparents used to eat? I’m not from the US and in our country the industrialization of the food supply happened much later, along with obesity and diabetes, which back in my grandparents’ time were very rare. My grandparents lived on the countryside, working on their farm, raising their own crops and animals. Grandpa died at 99 years old and worked his land until 95. He ate 6 to 8 eggs per day (they had a lot of chickens). Meat was more expensive, sacrificing an animal about once per week, but they were cooking with lard and butter all the time. They also had plenty of milk and cheese from their own goat or cow. You know, the kind of really fat milk that you can’t find in stores. They also drank their own wine, daily. They were not eating sugar. Or vegetable oils.
  - asadkn 8y ago
    If only it were that simple. Consider the lifestyles. If you're willing to live the same lifestyle and same environmental conditions, the same diet variables could potentially lead to similar lifespan. But in lieu of the same conditions, the logic to consume same diet isn't that sound.
    - KozmoNau7 8y ago
      I think the inspiration one should take from their grandparents and further back, is to avoid over-processed foods and highly refined foods. They didn't eat ready-made processed meals loaded with salt and sugar, they didn't drink soda except on rare occasions, they didn't eat nearly the same amount of candy that we do today. I'm only 33 and from my childhood I remember soda as a rare treat that was saved for birthdays and other special occasions, or if my dad and I had been working in the garden or on a DIY project. Very few things are more satisfying than a well-deserved ice-cold sugary fizzy drink while taking a break from hard work. Soda was a luxury we didn't get every day, and 25cl was the standard serving size. Anything smaller than a 33cl can seems to be exceedingly rare now, and usually people go for the 50+cl bottles. Our habits are completely out of whack.
scottlocklin 8y ago
Lots of "science" and "research" is obviously and gratuitously corrupt. People who ignore politicized research results (like, for example, the "food pyramid" or pretty much anything out of psychology or nutrition "research") are the sane ones.
- DontGiveTwoFlux 8y ago
  This is wrong. Is there nothing to know or learn about nutrition? Yes, it’s hard and there is a lot of bad stuff out there, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try.
  - scottlocklin 8y ago
    I didn't say we should not try to get better at knowing things about nutrition. I said we shouldn't trust most of the "results" in this topic. This is trivially correct unless you believe eggs both cause and cure heart attacks.
    - stevenhuang 8y ago
      > This is trivially correct unless you believe eggs both cause and cure heart attacks. Sure, but like often the case, it could be more complicated than that; different people can react differently to foods.

joe_the_user 8y ago

This is way bigger than sugar or even one segment of research. In one sense maybe but it's hard for any one other factor to be larger than sugar in contributing to the decline of American (and world-wide) health.

squirrelicus 8y ago
> decline in world-wide health Wat. Data please.
- FranzFerdiNaN 8y ago
  Every nation that switches to a western (American) diet gets fat.
  - Udik 8y ago
    American, maybe. Western, really? https://www.google.com/amp/s/bigthink.com/two-maps-and-one-graph-comparing-obesity-in-america-and-europe-2604513773.amp.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/bigthink.com/two-maps-and-one-g... It seems that obesity in Europe affects 1/4 to 1/5, while in the US is 1/3. The EU country with highest incidence of obesity is alse the one that is famous for its lack of a (decent) food culture, the UK. As an Italian, I find it hard to convince myself that US obesity problems have one single cause to blame, sugar, rather than a food culture that is generally bent towards the childishly fancy: grilled meat, fried stuff, overwhelming sauces, the super-fatty, the uber-sugary, no vegetables and very little home cooking.
    - stareatgoats 8y ago
      American food culture suffers from the same problem that afflicts the American culture in general: the infatuation with big: big cars, big army, big dicks, big coffee-mugs, big tits. And big soft-drinks. No surprise they have an obesity problem. Of course Americans are also usually nice people in a big way, let's not forget.
      - TeMPOraL 8y ago
        > big cars, big army, big dicks, big coffee-mugs, big tits. And big soft-drinks. One of these things is not like the others... Buying big soft drink bottles instead of small is both cost-effective (as they're usually cheaper per liter) and a plastic saving measure. (What I particularly dislike about modern consumerism is the infatuation with small: small bags of chips, small bags of fruits, individually-packaged sausages, small bottles of drinks, small bottles/bags of cosmetics, etc. Combined with disposability of packaging, it's just a huge generator of plastic waste.)
        williamdclt 8y ago
        I think the person you're answering to is talking about big cup of soft-drink, rather than big bottle. As in, big portions, not big stock. Edit: I agree with your complaint about packaging, but it's another problem that's not uncompatible
        babuskov 8y ago
        > Buying big soft drink bottles instead of small is both cost-effective Carbonated drinks fizzle out quickly and they don't taste that good afterwards. So, if you buy bigger bottles, you are inclined to drink more so it doesn't go to waste.
        Reason077 8y ago
        > "Buying big soft drink bottles instead of small is both cost-effective" True, but bigger serving sizes have been shown to increase consumption. If you reduce soft-drink serving sizes from 500ml to 350ml, for example, most people will not purchase two - and will consume less overall.
- Retric 8y ago
  US life expectancy is dropping. Globally obesity is on the rise. Those things are correlated.

house_atr 8y ago

But are they right?

wallace_f 8y ago

Many others exist. Leaded gasoline is a big one.

masklinn 8y ago
Leaded gas was a big one, AGW denial is a big one.
- dalore 8y ago
  What's AGW?
  - williamdclt 8y ago
    Google says "Anthropogenic Global Warming", the concept that human activity has an impact on global warming
- aznumeric 8y ago
  Scientists lied about sugar, maybe they're also lying about anthropogenic global warming. They were also wrong about lead, mercury, asbestos, DDT.
  - ajnin 8y ago
    Not sure what you're saying, there was never a doubt about lead or mercury or asbestos harmfulness, the scientists are not the one putting it to market or regulating it.
- rjf72 8y ago
  The reason things like leaded fuel, cigarettes, DDT, CFCs (freon), and countless other conspiracies were so egregious is because 'influencers' were able to convince authoritative figures and the media to conspire in misleading the public. People, as in unaffiliated individuals, ought be free to believe whatever they want to. The problem is when authoritative figures are saying things they don't actually believe, generally because of some sort of a kickback. There have been a handful of instances there such as with 'Willie' Wei-Hock Soon, but for the most part everything has been, more or less, on the up and up - at least so far as we know for certain as of today. However, the media and authoritative figures are predominately in favor of AGW. Thus the conspiracy, if one were to exist, would be these individuals stating things they felt to be either untrue, or not as strongly supported as claimed.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 8y ago

I agree. The whole point about science is that you can look at the data and not have to take things on authority. If they faked their data, then that is one thing, but if they had real data, then this is just a part of science.

std_throwawayay 8y ago

Both sides have convincing arguments and research to back it up. They have good answers to the seemingly contradictory research that the other side uses. They both provide a consistent picture. One or both of the theories has to be wrong but I cannot decide. I can learn and read all about it and take both viewpoints into account but I still cannot decide. I could do my own research but I would come up with one or the other answer depending on what data I look at but it's not better than what I have already. What should I do? This is a real problem because science cannot provide the correct answer. It is more about choosing a side and sticking with it than about finding the truth.

bad_user 8y ago
For me it’s simple ... I ask myself what did my grandparents used to eat? I’m not from the US and in our country the industrialization of the food supply happened much later, along with obesity and diabetes, which back in my grandparents’ time were very rare. My grandparents lived on the countryside, working on their farm, raising their own crops and animals. Grandpa died at 99 years old and worked his land until 95. He ate 6 to 8 eggs per day (they had a lot of chickens). Meat was more expensive, sacrificing an animal about once per week, but they were cooking with lard and butter all the time. They also had plenty of milk and cheese from their own goat or cow. You know, the kind of really fat milk that you can’t find in stores. They also drank their own wine, daily. They were not eating sugar. Or vegetable oils.
- asadkn 8y ago
  If only it were that simple. Consider the lifestyles. If you're willing to live the same lifestyle and same environmental conditions, the same diet variables could potentially lead to similar lifespan. But in lieu of the same conditions, the logic to consume same diet isn't that sound.
  - KozmoNau7 8y ago
    I think the inspiration one should take from their grandparents and further back, is to avoid over-processed foods and highly refined foods. They didn't eat ready-made processed meals loaded with salt and sugar, they didn't drink soda except on rare occasions, they didn't eat nearly the same amount of candy that we do today. I'm only 33 and from my childhood I remember soda as a rare treat that was saved for birthdays and other special occasions, or if my dad and I had been working in the garden or on a DIY project. Very few things are more satisfying than a well-deserved ice-cold sugary fizzy drink while taking a break from hard work. Soda was a luxury we didn't get every day, and 25cl was the standard serving size. Anything smaller than a 33cl can seems to be exceedingly rare now, and usually people go for the 50+cl bottles. Our habits are completely out of whack.

scottlocklin 8y ago

Lots of "science" and "research" is obviously and gratuitously corrupt. People who ignore politicized research results (like, for example, the "food pyramid" or pretty much anything out of psychology or nutrition "research") are the sane ones.

DontGiveTwoFlux 8y ago
This is wrong. Is there nothing to know or learn about nutrition? Yes, it’s hard and there is a lot of bad stuff out there, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try.
- scottlocklin 8y ago
  I didn't say we should not try to get better at knowing things about nutrition. I said we shouldn't trust most of the "results" in this topic. This is trivially correct unless you believe eggs both cause and cure heart attacks.
  - stevenhuang 8y ago
    > This is trivially correct unless you believe eggs both cause and cure heart attacks. Sure, but like often the case, it could be more complicated than that; different people can react differently to foods.