
Was there ever really a “sugar conspiracy”? - RcouF1uZ4gsC
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6377/747.full
======
iambateman
Perhaps there was no sugar conspiracy. In that case, an entire industry (along
with government nutrition teams) went along with an incorrect theory for so
long that it accounted for millions of chronic illnesses and trillions of
dollars spent in the wrong direction.

So there was no conspiracy. It seems - in either case - to be one of the
greatest misapplications of science in history. At least the “flat earth”
theory didn’t pump people full of expensive “alternative foods” while making
generations progressively sicker.

Even if there was no conspiracy, I think consumers ought to be furious that
they were “fed” 50 years of bad info. We will spend generations trying to undo
the habits and ingrained “wisdom” that have developed around fat and sugar.
Meanwhile the food industry is allowed to put in as much sugar as they like.
You can’t give a child a cigarette, but you can hand them 17 teaspoons of
sugar for lunch in the form of a single Coca Cola.

I feel like we within HN live in an echo chamber with respect to nutrition.
The reality is that I worked at Chick fil A for 5 years and probably served
5,000 milkshakes for breakfast.

Who cares if there was a conspiracy in the 60’s. We need way more cultural
attention on this issue for _today_.

~~~
FussyZeus
I always find it interesting that it's never enough for any given person or
group (be it corporation, Government agency, etc.) to be simply _wrong_ , they
also have to be _evil_ in some capacity in order for people to get interested
in retelling the story.

IMHO, no, there was no sugar "conspiracy" merely the financial motives at play
where companies wanted to continue producing foods they knew were unhealthy,
addictive and extremely profitable. Wanting to be profitable doesn't make a
company intrinsically evil, that's what _companies are for._

There is plenty to say about many industries where it's clear they didn't know
certain things about their products _because they didn 't want to know those
things_, but retroactively trying to hold them responsible is ridiculous.
Instead, focus on companies pulling that exact same stunt _right now_ when
it's useful.

~~~
TPPOW0020
>Wanting to be profitable doesn't make a company intrinsically evil, that's
what companies are for.

But they increased profits by intentionally misleading people and getting them
hooked on unhealthy food. They helped themselves by hurting others. In plain
English, we'd call that evil.

Let's admit that legal, profit seeking behavior, can sometimes be evil.

Furthermore, there's nothing ridiculous with going after bad actors in the
past. I agree the main focus should be on companies doing harm in the present.
But holding past actions to account sends the message that you can't get away
with harming customers forever. It's a deterrent.

~~~
dylan604
>Let's admit that legal, profit seeking behavior, can sometimes be evil.

So, how does the HN crowd apply this statement to tech companies like Google,
Facebook, Twitter, AT&T, Comcast, etc?

~~~
noxToken
I personally think that some of the actions that they take are evil. A few
examples:

Facebook - the emotional manipulation experiment that they ran with non-
consenting users was evil. Technically speaking, users agreed to it via the
fine print regarding internal testing, and to me, that makes it even more
evil. Internal testing typically means A/B testing, and it is not unreasonable
to think that internal testing does not include intentional emotional
manipulation.

TelCos - their (United States) relentless push, subterfuge and lobbying to
continue to rule the laid lines with an iron fist in spite of the government
subsidies to help provide fast connectivity to most Americans. Not only did
the telcos not upgrade the lines like they were supposed to, but US customers
still pay taxes and fees that should go towards these upgrades that most users
don't see. Some quick searching shows that the average download speed last
year was below 25 Mb/s. I admit that this is actually an adequate speed for
every day use in a cable household that only does light browsing. However the
plan was to deliver much faster symmetric speeds. The net neutrality decision
is just insult to injury (though that's an FCC decision).

------
John_KZ
The industry maliciously amplifies our innate tendency to find a "one-fits-
all" solution. The bogeyman used to be fat, now it's sugar. Soon, people will
realize that getting 90% of your caloric intake from protein powders is bad,
the industry will get ahold of the new trend, and they'll start going back to
"healthy carbs" or something stupid like that, and people will forget the meat
rush of the 2010s and move onto something else that's equally retarded.

Nutrition isn't a solved problem and it won't be for many decades. There's one
piece of advice that holds for a long time, and that's to eat a diverse diet
and exercise within reasonable extends. Interpretations vary, but giving up on
fruit or grain and starch is obviously not part of it.

~~~
croon
> The industry maliciously amplifies our innate tendency to find a "one-fits-
> all" solution. The bogeyman used to be fat, now it's sugar.

That isn't a fad though, that is progress.

> Soon, people will realize that getting 90% of your caloric intake from
> protein powders is bad

This is obviously already true. You would get protein poisoning very quickly
long before you hit your TDEE.

> the industry will get ahold of the new trend, and they'll start going back
> to "healthy carbs" or something stupid like that

No they won't. "Healthy carbs" will be a part of moderate diets for a long
time, but sugars or white flour won't come back as your main caloric source
through any reputable study. Mark my words.

There will always be fads, but let's not pretend that blaming fats decades ago
was the same as blaming sugars now. Also notice that it's explicitly sugars,
not carbs. Breakthroughs always lead to regular people overcompensating when
swinging over, so you get things like your mentioned "meat rush", and people
eating bearnaise sauce and pork belly with their bacon wrapped broccoli or
whatever.

But let's not portray the underlying studies that led to this swing as merely
fads. It's progress, and while it's not solved, it's a lot better than just 10
years ago.

Edit: I was reminded of this article "The Relativity of Wrong" [1] by Isaac
Asimov. TL;DR: An analogy is the flat earth. We went from thinking the earth
was flat into thinking it was round, which isn't correct either since it's an
oblate spheroid. But we can all agree that "round" is a lot "more correct"
than flat.

[1]
[http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm](http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm)

~~~
manmal
I largely agree with you.. sugar has been shown extensively as being downright
bad for insulin levels, microbiome, hormone levels in general, and lots of
other issues.

White flour (in moderation, and always mixed with fat or protein) can be
beneficial though as it’s low in lectins (which damage the gut lining and
organs like the kidneys and the brain [1]). One (!) slice of white bread is
easier on the body than one slice of full corn bread, if you manage to keep
your blood sugar level.

[1]: [http://www.krispin.com/lectin.html](http://www.krispin.com/lectin.html)

~~~
croon
That's a very good point, and you're right. My comment about white flour
wasn't intended to suggest replacement with an alternative flour, but to
indicate that its effect on blood sugar is almost the same as sugar. Mix it
with oil to make a tortilla and its glycemic index lowers to half.

I don't live by it because it's delicious, but I would instead say don't eat
bread, there's fiber to be had in vegetables.

------
keymone
Ancel Keys study which started the low fat craze was absolutely bad science.
The way John Yudkin’s career was subverted is certainly evidence of
conspiracy.

The article doesn’t make a good job of refuting those claims, especially
considering quotes like this one:

> the sugar industry convened a panel of heart disease consultants, including
> a National Institutes of Health (NIH) scientist, which debated a possible
> “anti-Yudkin” effort because “although British scientists are critical of
> him and his flimsy data, he does have the interest of the press.”

~~~
JeremyNT
I think the point of the article is a little more nuanced. The claim doesn't
seem to be about the accuracy of any particular study, rather that both sides
were 1) funded by industry and 2) lacking evidence to really support any
intervention at the time.

It's making the case that scientists were working on incomplete information,
and that while industry pressure informed what research was done and
publicized, there also simply wasn't at the time enough evidence for anybody
to have known the effects of sugar were so problematic.

So the article is really considering intent, and the idea is that the outcome
was a result of understandable ignorance rather than malice and coverup. I
find that plausible, at least initially. The nature of science is that
consensus evolves over time, and while industry funding may have skewed what
research was done and publicized, thus allowing incorrect assumptions to live
longer than ideal, it is possible that people were all still acting in good
faith along the way.

------
appleshore
While I appreciate the article, it seems analogous to asking, was there ever
really a "drug dealing conspiracy"? When you have an industry worth hundreds
of billions, individuals will "collaborate" and "market" their interests in
the most "effective" way possible.

If you doubt that a conspiracy exists, watch Fed Up narrated by Katie Couric.
If Michelle Obama, as the First Lady to the President of the United States,
can't reform the food industry without serious pressure on her, causing her to
modify her stance, then yes there is a real sinister force promoting cheap,
profitable food that happens to be carbohydrate-based.

------
franky_g
Articles like these are there to simply confuse the reader.

Have a read of "The case against Sugar" by Gary Taubes.

That will surely fill in the missing blanks for ya!

~~~
simias
>Articles like these are there to simply confuse the reader.

What makes you say that? Why do you think Gary Taubes is a better source than
the authors of this article? I haven't a strong opinion on the subject but if
you think the article is purposefully misleading I would be very interested to
know why and how.

------
coatmatter
Honest/naïve question: Regardless of how good or bad sugar is, is it possible
that cars and televisions have both separately contributed more harm than
sugar over the past century?

Both encourage sedentary habits and in the case of television, the advertising
within is insidious. I personally believe that cars and TV are the two most
_misused_ inventions from last century, but so rarely see them mentioned when
health, food and diet is mentioned.

------
amriksohata
Refined sugar and processed fatsare bad, naturally occuring fats like coconut
oil have been lumped together with other fats as bad due to bad science

~~~
ggg9990
Where is the evidence that “processing” or “refining” makes anything worse? In
what way is 300 calories of table sugar worse for you than 300 calories of
watermelon?

~~~
Tomte
Why do you focus exclusively on calories?

You could even ask why 300 calories of tar should be worse for you than 300
calories of apples.

The reason is the many other effects stuff has, besides their nutritional
stats.

~~~
Valmar
300 calories of glucose is going to be far healthier than 300 calories of
fructose, because of how they are metabolized by the body.

~~~
rurban
You mean obviously the other way round. It's the typical US/UK propaganda.
Frucose doesn't go directly into blood as glucose (the basic energy form) and
galactose (-> milk).

Wikipedia: "The European Food Safety Authority stated that fructose is
preferable over sucrose and glucose in sugar-sweetened foods and beverages
because of its lower effect on postprandial blood sugar levels".
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fructose](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fructose)

"Fructose is often recommended for diabetics because it does not trigger the
production of insulin by pancreatic β cells, probably because β cells have low
levels of GLUT5, although the net effect for both diabetics and non-diabetics
is debated. Fructose has a low glycemic index of 19 ± 2, compared with 100 for
glucose and 68 ± 5 for sucrose. Fructose is also 73% sweeter than sucrose at
room temperature, so diabetics can use less of it. Studies show that fructose
consumed before a meal may even lessen the glycemic response of the meal.
Fructose-sweetened food and beverage products cause less of a rise in blood
glucose levels than do those manufactured with sucrose or glucose."

~~~
orbifold
Glucose is harmless and can be metabolised by any cell in your body, while
Fructose can only be metabolised by your liver and produced a bunch of
undesirable metabolic end products in the process. It also blocks leptin, the
antagonist of insulin and therefore messes with your metabolic regulation,
while glucose does none of that. If you feed rats large amounts of glucose
they will get a very big liver but stay otherwise healthy, if you feed them
fructose they will develop diabetes... This is all very well known.

~~~
rurban
Glucose being harmless is the understatement of the year. In the end fructose
and every other carb is split up to glucose. And glucose (the simple
monosaccharide sugar) is one of the most powerful medicines and drugs,
stronger, cheaper and better than cocaine, and responsible for many severe
illnesses:

    
    
      * Retinal damage to the eye
      * Arterial blockage
      * Oxidative stress
      * Increased inflammation
      * Endothelial dysfunction
      * Reduced coronary blood flow
      * Increased cancer risk
    

Let me just point to [http://www.lifeextension.com/magazine/2011/1/glucose-
the-sil...](http://www.lifeextension.com/magazine/2011/1/glucose-the-silent-
killer/page-01) or [https://www.atkins.com/how-it-
works/library/articles/10-ways...](https://www.atkins.com/how-it-
works/library/articles/10-ways-sugar-harms-your-health)

This is all very well known and ignored by the US sugar industry which rather
blames other factors. If you feed americans large amounts of glucose (they
do), they will get obese and die early. You cannot argue with the numbers,
because it's mostly only affecting americans who do consume sugar levels above
the health risk. Blaming fructose and the liver alone is dangerous. It's the
end product, glucose, and the fat reserves, not the carb. metabolism.

------
GeekyBear
There is a new study out from The Journal of the American Medical Association
that backs up the notion that people who want to lose weight need to cut the
sugar from their diet.

>people who cut back on added sugar, refined grains and highly processed foods
while concentrating on eating plenty of vegetables and whole foods — without
worrying about counting calories or limiting portion sizes — lost significant
amounts of weight over the course of a year.

[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/well/eat/counting-
calorie...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/well/eat/counting-calories-
weight-loss-diet-dieting-low-carb-low-fat.html)

Interestingly, this held true on two separate diets.

One diet accomplished the above while also reducing other carbs and another
that did the above while reducing fats.

------
chisleu
The song "sugar conspiracy theory" is one of my favorites on the arcade game
"pump it up" because it taught me that I can eat pretty much anything I want
if I play that game for a couple hours a day. I get a 75 calorie last year
rainbow twist after I play that song. I've lost 40lbs in 3 months.

My point is, a sedentary lifestyle is the cause of most of our health problems
and beyond that, various nutrition science will have a much larger effect. I'm
on the zone diet, but I eat lots of nuts and fruit.

------
cryptonector
We, humans, are susceptible to group delusions, probably because we are such
social animals and have a strong "run with the heard" reflex. We see this in
many mammals and other animals (e.g., birds, fish, ...).

This was either a conspiracy, or a group delusion -- or even both. Either way,
we now know the truth about sugar. We now get to fix things. It won't be easy.

------
gerardnll
Want a simple nutrition tip? Just eat the food that you can recognise at
simple sight, the ingredients it's made from. And lower meat consumption to
30% of your diet. Avoid ultraprocessed food and eat what you'll burn.

~~~
slampig
Why would eating processed food be bad? What does it matter if the ingredients
are recognizable.

~~~
seren
It seems to increase the risk of cancer by 10%, even if the exact mechanism or
cause, is still unknown.

[http://www.bmj.com/content/360/bmj.k322](http://www.bmj.com/content/360/bmj.k322)

~~~
saosebastiao
Everything causes cancer. The reason is that the vast majority of cancer risk
studies are done with insufficient control methodologies, have weak effect
magnitudes, but are affected by positive finding publication bias and are
published anyway.

And then they get cherry picked by diet fad promoters to support their
crackpot theories and sell books.

[https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/everything-we-eat-causes-
ca...](https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/everything-we-eat-causes-cancer/)

------
montyf
The statements "sugar is bad", "fat is bad", "fat is good" are all equally
simplistic and misleading. Fruits are high in naturally-occurring sugars and
they are among the healthiest things you can eat.

Turns out that nutrition is a pretty complicated science, and there existing
various political and special interests influencing the science doesn't help.
It's 2018 and I don't think there's even remotely a scientific consensus on
what food is healthy or not, but classic common sense and listening to your
body's reactions to food can go pretty far for an individual.

Nutrition is something we need to figure out as public health is declining,
and I'm saddened to say the problem goes beyond the US based on what I've seen
traveling. Psychology needs to get involved as well. Why do people make such
bad eating decisions? I'm in Thailand and I see tons of tourists eating
hamburgers instead of the tastier and healthier traditional cuisine... sigh.

~~~
keymone
While it is tricky with fats, sugar is _never_ good for you (unless some
genetic disease where you die if you don’t consume sugar?).

Fruits are to various degrees beneficial but not in unlimited amounts. Fruits
also don’t have a lot of sugar, see the watermelon comment in the other
thread.

The problem with sugar is how easy it is in our diets to consume ridiculous
amounts of it and how nobody understands that even a little of table sugar is
already a ridiculous amount.

P.S. even bigger problem is that people don't understand that all the flours
and starches are for all intents and purposes sugar, so it doesn't matter that
you only have one teaspoon of sugar with your coffee if you consume it in
large quantities in other forms.

~~~
starpilot
Why did we evolve to enjoy the taste of sugar?

~~~
Arn_Thor
We enjoy the taste of sweetness because it tends in nature to indicate that
the thing we're eating contains a lot of energy, such as fruits and sweet
vegetables. And we underestimate how finely attuned this sense is. Chew on
wheat for a little bit and it will begin to taste sweet as the starch breaks
down in your mouth and turns into sugar.

Sugar is ridiculously sweet. Anyone who's laid off sweets for a few weeks or
months and goes back to eating a muffin or having a soda tends to find it
offputtingly sweet. We've taken this evolutionary benefit and exploited it for
pleasure, which is quite alright in moderation. But the natural pleasure we
feel from the sweetness of fruit is set in overdrive with concentrated
sweetness such as powder sugar.

~~~
keymone
> it will begin to taste sweet as the starch breaks down in your mouth and
> turns into sugar

are you sure about this? wheat doesn't have any fructose, and it's the
fructose in sugar that gives it sweetness. glucose is taste-neutral.

~~~
JohnCohorn
Glucose is _not_ taste-neutral. Just less sweet than table sugar. Grab a bag
of dextrose from AMZN and try it.

~~~
keymone
you're right, thanks

------
Rainymood
Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.

Personally, I conjured up the following hypothesis and think it might be
somewhat correct. Note that I am not a biologist/nutritionist (I'm an applied
mathematician) so bear with me. What I claim is the following:

> The less some kind of food wants to be eaten, the healthier it is.

For example, fruit wants to be eaten (hence its sweet) to reproduce and spread
it seeds. Verdict? Not so healthy. Offal, however, is significantly harder to
acquire (you'd have to kill a beast, which is a group task). Verdict?
Extremely healthy.

I'd love to have some comments on my theory from more knowledgeable people.

~~~
ghusbands
Getting the liver of polar bears is particularly tricky. And it will kill you.
As will any number of hard-to-extract things. Turning a correlation from a
series of facile observations into a rule rarely ends well.

~~~
Rainymood
>Getting the liver of polar bears is particularly tricky. And it will kill
you.

Interesting. Consider my view partially changed. I did not know that the liver
of polar bears is toxic to humans. I say this because I eat a lot of offal
(liver, heart, stomach, etc.) and thought all offal was safe for human
consumption, guess not.

~~~
pjc50
The BSE crisis rather changed people's opinions on offal as well.

