More evidence on how sugar industry influenced public debate / buried information on sugar harm


(Loren Grant) #1

In 1965, the Sugar Research Foundation (SRF) secretly funded a review in the New England Journal of Medicine that discounted evidence linking sucrose consumption to blood lipid levels and hence coronary heart disease (CHD)


Thanks for sharing this.

(Dameon Welch-Abernathy) #3

The only difference between big sugar and big tobacco was big tobacco got caught.

(Randy) #4

Fargin Bastages!!!:rage::rage::rage::rage::rage:

(Michael - When reality fails to meet expectations, the problem is not reality.) #5

Resurrecting this to throw another can of gasoline on the fire. The 1965 study was just the beginning:

The SRF’s funding and role was not disclosed. Together with other recent analyses of sugar industry documents, our findings suggest the industry sponsored a research program in the 1960s and 1970s that successfully cast doubt about the hazards of sucrose while promoting fat as the dietary culprit in CHD…

(Take time to smell the bacon) #6

Interestingly, Ancel Keys found a correlation between sugar consumption and coronary heart disease in his famous Seven Countries Study, which he dismissed out of hand in favour of his saturated fat hypothesis.

Zoë Harcombe states that when she included all twenty-two of the countries from which Keys had collected data in her reanalysis, the correlation between saturated fat and coronary heart disease vanished, but the correlation between sugar and coronary heart disease remained strong.

If I understand correctly, although Keys’s good friend Walter Willett at Harvard was one of the scientists paid by the Sugar Research Foundation, Keys himself was not.

(Michael - When reality fails to meet expectations, the problem is not reality.) #7

Useful idiot?


-------------- If Americans could be persuaded to eat a lower-fat diet — for the sake of their health — they would need to replace that fat with something else. America’s per capita sugar consumption could go up by a third.

everyone shout: blame the animal fat, blame the animal fat :clown_face:

don’t blame the body fat on humans that comes from sugar ever :pleading_face::astonished: We as a species ain’t got a prayer LOL

(Bob M) #9

This is also one of the reasons we have the “a calorie is a calorie” idea. If calories of sugar = calories of something with actual nutrition, such as beef or salmon, then sugar is not bad. It’s your fault for eating more calories.



a calorie is a calorie but when we hit our level we know a calorie from what food is what nutrition is all about!

we are what we eat and that is truth in my brain :wink:

(Bob M) #11

I’ve often wondered about the so-called “nutritional density” and its effect. For instance, I love beef liver (if properly cooked). But I find the maximum beef liver I can eat at one sitting is around 8 ounces or so. Any more, and I’d have to force myself to eat it.

Meanwhile, I can easily eat a pound of beef roast or ground/minced beef in one sitting.

And since I’ve tested low PUFA diets, I wonder about nutritional density for this. Some say that eating chicken causes them to be hungry, relative to eating beef for instance. While that might be PUFAs (PUFAs in chicken are typically much greater than PUFAs in beef, even “corn fed”), but it might also be that beef has more nutritional density (or perhaps different nutrients), thus one is hungrier when eating chicken.

We buy chicken from a local farm. Not only does it taste a lot better than store-bought, but it’s a lot smaller too. We bought some prepared wings from Costco, and those chicken wings were HUGE. What that means to me is these were fast-growing chickens fed PUFAs and corn. (This also means the type of chickens are different “Edit: the so-called animal husbandry”, but I don’t know enough about what chicken types do to taste. I do know the farm one time had us buy a new type of chicken and asked us what we thought of it. I thought it was great, but I did not have another chicken to compare.)


So agree that our purchased food quality won’t ever be the old days. what they are fed is what we indirectly ingest for sure.

Key being, any dense meat, like any big hooved critters are gonna be the best of the best. Then we go into all fowl…like an ostrich is more meat than a game bird like pheasant etc. and then we got seafood which is fab but usually very low fat so we need alot of it.

Don’t ever compare ya know anyone with you in that I used to eat 4 chicken thighs and be SO satisfied til that changed. I could eat 1/2 lb of shrimp in some butter and be so fine. Then I change.

Some eat tons of liver and want it and do great.
Some eat SO much and can’t take another bite.

and while I get ya totally on the ‘real whys’ of that we are not ever the same, on our changes, or our time on plan healthy changes and our activity and more…so best is eat for you at all times but never undereat :slight_smile: Undereating gives us so many issues while eating to your personal body limit gives us vitality and vibrancy and life force.

Only a human would try to break down their food choice to the micro nutrients per lb. or the amt consumed vs. some body function vs. a ‘lab test’ and more…a healthy animal has 0 control over its food source or what ifs, but the darn things eat what it is programmed to eat that makes it the healthiest. Be cool if we could be just that way maybe? :scream:

just a chat on how I see it. We are brain dead on nutrition point blank.
Just eat what suits you the best. Eliminate things if one feels horrible. EAT ALL you thrive on and go forward without reading too damn much is what worked for me finally :drooling_face: and don’t look back or question too much ever. Our finest self if not on some chart, or timeline graph, or perfect against some lab test means nothing in the end if everyday we eat our ultimate to suit us best. Is there anything better than just that? NOPE!, yet we still wonder and theorize against our own bodies…I won’t do that anymore :wink:

(Take time to smell the bacon) #13

Reading your posts, I am wondering (just to add another thought to the mix) whether some of these effects are as much about our bodily needs in the moment, as they are about the properties of the foods. Animals have been demonstrated to have something of an instinct for eating foods with nutrients that they need, and while we are less controlled by our instincts, I wonder if we don’t still have those instincts, at least to some extent.

I’m not sure this is all that helpful a notion, and I have no idea how to go about testing it, but it struck me from reading Karen’s and Bob’s posts.


good call and good thought.

when we eliminate we ‘truly gear towards’ foods we require but when we go super restrictive and have to fight against ALL the food out there in the world…does one listen to the body or does one cave?

my key thought is STAY the HECK on plan and eat what you crave and need on that plan! ONE can never go wrong, and EAT darn well, til super satified and then one never thinks ‘do I require this supp or that extra’ or add this or that when real food will correct the issue, but we have ‘advanced brains’ that can screw us over time and time again, I know it f’d me up alot of times :wink: :sunny:

Our instincts are so overidden by global life and issues that again, I always say many don’t have a prayer and I mean that in full terms of this planet let alone our local health changes we wanna meet on the small scale of just change me…change me and what? What is next when we are overbombarded on an instant scale now in this life? I dont’ know, just thoughts on it all :100:

(Edith) #15

You might enjoy reading “The Dorito Effect” by Mark Schatzker. He wrote a book about how processed foods and artificial flavors have tricked our bodies into thinking they are getting the nutrients they need due to the taste; but, of course, the processed foods are devoid of those nutrients.

This podcast is about his latest book. It is also very thought provoking.