6 ms·

I can’t but help remember the Harvard study paid for by the sugar industry to blame fat: The documents show that a trade group called the Sugar Research Founda

I can’t but help remember the Harvard study paid for by the sugar industry to blame fat: The documents show that a trade group called the Sugar Research Foundation, known today as the Sugar Association, paid three Harvard scientists the equivalent of about $50,000 in today’s dollars to publish a 1967 review of research on sugar, fat and heart disease. The studies used in the review were handpicked by the sugar group, and the article, which was published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, minimized the link between sugar and heart health and cast aspersions on the role of saturated fat. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-industry-shifted-blame-to-fat.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-in...

vmception 5y ago
out of curiosity, why is that particular study and publication weighed more heavily than... perhaps any other topic. to me, this is like finding any random "coffee is good/bad for you" of which there are thousands that conflict, and saying "Aha! This particular one shaped the course of humanity for the last half a century due to a major conflict of interest and prestigious publication!" were there just so many fewer studies in the 1960s? was there further collusion and influence with Congress and the FDA? did the sugar trade group fly airplanes and drop food pyramid pamphlets everywhere letting everyone know liberation was coming? From your article: > After the review was published, the debate about sugar and heart disease died down, while low-fat diets gained the endorsement of many health authorities, Dr. Glantz said. so everyone just went along with it? well, I've seen bad studies get headlines on Buzzfeed and stick in the collective conscious based on the headline alone, so stranger things have happened
- arbitrage 5y ago
  Mid- to late-century capitalists used it as a foundational argument in their advertising. The impact of that one study was amplified many times over. People tend to chose what they want to believe first, then build a framework around that to support the decisions they wanted to do anyway.
- dahart 5y ago
  Doesn’t the linked article explain the answer to your questions? I’m not sure I understand the snarky skepticism. Is it surprising that a scientific article with prestigious names attached has greater plausibility and weight than your example of “random” studies? Harvard backed studies as a rule seem to enjoy more support and media mentions than, say, University of Phoenix, no? There are examples of journal papers that are weighed more heavily than most, especially when the writing resonates with people emotionally. I can think of well known papers people talk about here on HN all the time as if they’re true, but aren’t. Are you sure there thousands of primary-source coffee studies that make conclusions and judgements about whether it’s good or bad for you? Are you perhaps conflating blog spam and articles for scientific papers? There are lots and lots of articles, but not as many primary sources.
- grover35 5y ago
  I've been very confused in the last couple decades about who the experts truly are. On one hand you have government agencies that hire "experts", and on the other hand you have the New York Times, Hacker News, Reddit, and CNN. There was a time when we thought the government was best to listen to, but now with the murder of George Floyd and the election of QAnoner Donald Trump and neoliberal Joe Biden I'm not so sure that they have our best interests in mind. Plus demonizing the press is textbook fascism. In my view the real experts are writing for the New York Times, tirelessly searching for contradictions and ulterior motives in science so that the public may know the truth. Time and time again the press has shown that the real health foods are bacon, pork, and butter, and that we must avoid heart-disease causing foods such as rice, potatoes, fruit and carrots.
  - vmception 5y ago
    Careful, with that level of cognitive dissonance you might accidentally slip up and say “both sides“
    - grover35 5y ago
      Continue eating your oats and berries, QAnoner. The science speaks for itself.
      - vmception 5y ago
        Whoosh, so the joke was that the centrists/independents/unaffiliated are perceiving things accurately but are ostracized by a polarized populace in every forum. But its less beneficial for me to say that directly because then others would rather debate how both sides are different instead of acknowledging the overlapping areas of concern where they are the same. Good luck with your approach of random non-sequiturs and false positives.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        5y ago
waffle_maniac 5y ago

vmception 5y ago

out of curiosity, why is that particular study and publication weighed more heavily than... perhaps any other topic. to me, this is like finding any random "coffee is good/bad for you" of which there are thousands that conflict, and saying "Aha! This particular one shaped the course of humanity for the last half a century due to a major conflict of interest and prestigious publication!" were there just so many fewer studies in the 1960s? was there further collusion and influence with Congress and the FDA? did the sugar trade group fly airplanes and drop food pyramid pamphlets everywhere letting everyone know liberation was coming? From your article: > After the review was published, the debate about sugar and heart disease died down, while low-fat diets gained the endorsement of many health authorities, Dr. Glantz said. so everyone just went along with it? well, I've seen bad studies get headlines on Buzzfeed and stick in the collective conscious based on the headline alone, so stranger things have happened

arbitrage 5y ago
Mid- to late-century capitalists used it as a foundational argument in their advertising. The impact of that one study was amplified many times over. People tend to chose what they want to believe first, then build a framework around that to support the decisions they wanted to do anyway.
dahart 5y ago
Doesn’t the linked article explain the answer to your questions? I’m not sure I understand the snarky skepticism. Is it surprising that a scientific article with prestigious names attached has greater plausibility and weight than your example of “random” studies? Harvard backed studies as a rule seem to enjoy more support and media mentions than, say, University of Phoenix, no? There are examples of journal papers that are weighed more heavily than most, especially when the writing resonates with people emotionally. I can think of well known papers people talk about here on HN all the time as if they’re true, but aren’t. Are you sure there thousands of primary-source coffee studies that make conclusions and judgements about whether it’s good or bad for you? Are you perhaps conflating blog spam and articles for scientific papers? There are lots and lots of articles, but not as many primary sources.
grover35 5y ago
I've been very confused in the last couple decades about who the experts truly are. On one hand you have government agencies that hire "experts", and on the other hand you have the New York Times, Hacker News, Reddit, and CNN. There was a time when we thought the government was best to listen to, but now with the murder of George Floyd and the election of QAnoner Donald Trump and neoliberal Joe Biden I'm not so sure that they have our best interests in mind. Plus demonizing the press is textbook fascism. In my view the real experts are writing for the New York Times, tirelessly searching for contradictions and ulterior motives in science so that the public may know the truth. Time and time again the press has shown that the real health foods are bacon, pork, and butter, and that we must avoid heart-disease causing foods such as rice, potatoes, fruit and carrots.
- vmception 5y ago
  Careful, with that level of cognitive dissonance you might accidentally slip up and say “both sides“
  - grover35 5y ago
    Continue eating your oats and berries, QAnoner. The science speaks for itself.
    - vmception 5y ago
      Whoosh, so the joke was that the centrists/independents/unaffiliated are perceiving things accurately but are ostracized by a polarized populace in every forum. But its less beneficial for me to say that directly because then others would rather debate how both sides are different instead of acknowledging the overlapping areas of concern where they are the same. Good luck with your approach of random non-sequiturs and false positives.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - 5y ago

waffle_maniac 5y ago